Socialist Workers Party members who ran for Mayor in two cities with non-partisan elections polled fairly high percentages. In Des Moines, Iowa, the SWP ran Diana Newberry for Mayor against the incumbent. She received 20.0% in her two-candidate race.
In Houston, Texas, the SWP ran Amanda Ulman for Mayor in a 3-candidate race. She placed second, with 7.5%.
Even though the Massachusetts legislature adjourns for the year on November 21, the Massachusetts Secretary of State, William Galvin, is asking the legislature to quickly pass a bill moving the presidential primary from early March to early February. Legislative leaders say they like the idea.
On November 7, Bruce Gagnon announced that he has changed his registration from “independent” to “Green.” He lives in Bath, Maine, and is coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. He is also author of a book, “Come Together Right Now: Organizing Stories from a Fading Empire.” See here for his account of why he switched.
On November 8, Ralph Nader asked a Superior Court in Washington, D.C., not to allow his bank account to be garnished by the Pennsylvania law firm that kept him off the Pennsylvania ballot in 2004. The case was filed in D.C. because the D.C. court already has jurisdiction over the bank attachment matter. The case is Serody v Nader, 2007-3385F. UPDATE: here is the brief, and here is the evidence. Both are interesting and easy to understand and not unduly long.
Normally, in cases involving whether to order a bank to deliver up funds to someone who is hostile to the person with the bank account, the underlying merits of the original dispute may not be re-litigated. However, there are narrow exceptions.
In this case, Nader’s brief documents that only in September 2007 did Nader learn that the law firm that wants approximately $80,000 from Nader’s account failed to reveal several conflicts of interest. The Nader filing shows that the law firm had extended an open invitation to hire one of the future Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices in 1985, an invitation that the future justice accepted in 1991. That future justice was one of the justices who ruled against Nader in 2006.
The Nader filing also shows that the law firm had represented one of the other Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices while the Nader case was pending. That justice had also ruled against Nader in 2006.
Finally, the Nader filing shows that the law firm had made large campaign contributions to all but one of the justices who ruled against Nader, and did not disclose this during the Nader litigation.
Therefore, Nader argues that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court order of 2006 that he must pay the administrative costs of removing him from the 2004 ballot is tainted, and should not be enforced against Nader. The amount of money would be approximately $100,000, except that Nader’s running-mate in 2004, Peter Camejo, already paid $20,000 toward the total.
Pierce County, Washington (which contains Tacoma) rejected two anti-Instant-Runoff Voting measures on November 7, 2007. Voters had approved IRV in 2006. The County Council then put a measure on the 2007 ballot asking if the voters want to postpone IRV until 2010. That was rejected by a 34%-66% margin.
Voters also rejected a related ballot measure, asking the voters if they want to limit a voter’s options under IRV to just three choices. That lost 38%-62%.
Voters approved a third measure, which says that voters should be limited to only 3 choices in IRV elections until the technology has been improved. Thanks to Phil Gardner for this news.
