Carl Romanelli, Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania this year, was set for a court hearing on December 14 in Commonwealth Court, over whether he must pay approximately $90,000. The issue is similar to the one Ralph Nader has raised in the U.S. Supreme Court. Pennsylvania is the only state that has ever tried to collect money from candidates who try to get on the ballot and fail.
However, the Commonwealth Court hearing has been postponed to Janaury 9, 2007.
On December 9, the Democratic Party of West Virginia changed its rules to permit independent voters to vote in the Democratic primary. West Virginia Republicans have been permitting such participation for some years.
The Virginia Attorney General said recently that the state will appeal Miller v Brown to the 4th circuit. Miller v Brown is the US District Court decision that said if a political party wants to exclude non-members from its primary, it may do so.
On December 12, the state chair of the New York Independence Party, Frank McKay, dropped his appeal of the intra-party dispute over the identity of the true officers of the Staten Island party. This means that the Staten Island party officers are now undisputed. They are allies of Lenora Fulani.
In recent months, McKay legal efforts to wrest control of the Brooklyn and Queens parties have also failed, although appeals are still pending. Manhatten’s party is also controlled by Fulani allies, and Manhatten is not contested.
Fulani allies also won a court battle over the Westchester County party, on November 29, 2006. Lehrer v Cavallo, 18071-06. The court found that the county organizing meeting held in September by McKay forces was fundamentally unfair, and ordered that a new meeting be held in the next few weeks.
Even if Fulani allies win complete control of the New York city branches of the party, which seems likely, the New York city branches only hold 25% of the voting power on the party’s state committee. The state committee holds the power to nominate candidates for statewide office (this power can be overturned by a primary only with a petition signed by 15,000 party members, something that is very difficult to achieve).
Ralph Nader’s attempts to get on ballots in 2004, and Democratic Party attempts to keep him off, provoked many lawsuits. Four of those cases are still pending. The status of each is:
1. Pennsylvania. The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Nader’s appeal at its conference on January 5, 2007. Whether the Court will take the case won’t be announced until January 8, 2007, at the earliest. The issue is whether a candidate may be required to pay all the costs of determining whether or not the petition is valid. Nader v Seroty, 06-696. Nader’s opponents have waived their right to file a brief asking the Court not to hear the case.
2. Ohio. The new Nader case (filed September 29, 2006) on whether a state can require a circulator to be a registered voter is pending in U.S. District Court. All briefs have been filed. Nader v Blackwell, 2:06-cv-821, s.d. Everyone agrees that the law is unconstitutional (the U.S. Supreme Court settled it in 1999). The only real issue is whether the court will accept that Nader has standing to pursue the issue. An earlier Nader lawsuit against Ohio’s law was sidetracked.
3. Hawaii. The State Supreme Court has been sitting on Nader’s case on the state’s flawed procedures for checking signatures for two years. The Court could either issue an opinion, set the case for oral argument, or remand the case, at any time. Nader also has a case in federal court in Hawaii against the law that requires an independent presidential candidate to collect five times as many signatures as are needed for a new party. The federal case is on hold, pending activity by the State Supreme Court. Recently the federal court asked Nader’s attorney to tell it what the State Supreme Court has done. The attorney, of course, could only respond that we are all still waiting for the State Supreme Court.
4. Arizona. Nader’s attorney recently filed a brief in the 9th circuit against the state’s independent presidential petition deadline of early June, and against the state’s policy of not letting out-of-staters circulate that kind of petition. The state has asked for more time to respond. Nader v Brewer, 06-16251.
