[Sosfbay-discuss] Ballot Access is the Wild West of Law - Yeeha!

[Drew Johnson]

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:05:46 -0400
From: "Brent McMillan" <brent at gp.org>
Subject: [usgp-dx] Ballot Access is the Wild West of Law - Yeeha!
To: <natlcomaffairs at green.gpus.org>


Ballot Access is the Wild West of Law - Yeeha!

September 24, 2007
Delivered by Brent McMillan, Political Director
Green Party of the United States
On the Steps of the U.S. Supreme Court
Contact info: 202-319-7191 brent at gp.org

Clingman vs. Beaver

In January of 2005 the high court heard oral argument on the case of
Clingman vs. Beaver. The Libertarian Party of Oklahoma argued to open up
its primary to include those registered in other parties. At issue was
an Oklahoma statute that forbade a party from opening up its primary
elections to registered members of other parties but allowed parties to
conduct semi-closed primaries, in which independents could vote.

Basically the State of Oklahoma argued that its in the interest of the
stability of the state to only have two political parties.

The Two-Party System and Political Stability

A driving force behind the Court's willingness to uphold ballot-access
restrictions has been its perception of third parties as a threat to
political stability. A solid majority of the courts shares the belief
that third parties, if allowed easy access to the ballot, may
destabilize the political system. In contrast, the Court views major
political parties as the basis of stable politics. Recent cases are
replete with praise for the stabilizing function of the major parties
and the two-party system.

To understand why the current Court is so favorable to major-party
organizations, we must look to its understanding of the role of these
organizations in the democratic process. Upon examination, it becomes
clear that the Court envisions the major parties as critical buffers
between the individual and the State. They believe that the major
parties protect the smooth functioning of government against the discord
of pluralist and populist politics. Thus the Courts values major parties
primarily as the guardians of political stability.

Is it Working?

Exit polling from the 2006 Election showed that the three most important
interests for American Voters are (Zogby):

1. Ending the War in Iraq
2. Global Warming
3. Universal Health Care

Basically neither of the major parties represents the three most
important issues of the American People.

The Role of Third Parties in American Politics

So what is the role of third parties in American Politics? When the
major parties veer too far from the will of the American People third
parties step up to champion those issues. Sometimes they end up
replacing a major party such as the Republican Party on the issue of
abolishing slavery. Other times a major party may pick up their issue(s)
and the third party will no longer be relevant. Examples include Women's
Suffrage, Social Security, The Weekend, the ending of Child Labor, etc.

Clamping down the Lid and Turning up the Heat

In the 1970's the major parties began to make ballot access more
difficult for Independent and Third Party Candidates. At the same time,
they began straying further and further from the will of the American
People. They are working to put greater limits on the People's ability
to hold them accountable. Instead they serve the interests of the
Financial Elites. This has resulted in a decline of the overall quality
of life for most Americans. On the other hand our rate of Incumbency is
higher than that of the Communist Party in the Old Soviet Union.

The Cradle of Democracy is becoming the Graveyard of Democracy

Last year we saw the beginning of something that shocked and angered
anyone paying attention. The Common Wealth of Pennsylvania decided to
hold candidates personally, financial accountable for the cost of a
ballot access challenge if they failed to prevail. This has a bone
chilling affect on independent and third party candidates from seeking
office. Marakay Rodgers was financially intimidated from running for
office. She was the Green Party Candidate for Governor in Pennsylvania
in 2006. We have to see this effort reversed and squashed. The people
behind are the ones who need to be held accountable for their egregious
actions.

Carl Romanelli, the Green Party Candidate for US Senate in 2006 decided
to stay the course and weather the Democrats attempt at financial
intimidation.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently affirmed a Commonwealth Court
order directing Ralph Nader to pay more than $80,000 to Democratic
challengers who successfully removed his name from the ballot during the
2004 presidential election. The court's rationale was that "massive"
fraud infected Nader's submission of 52,000 voters' signatures-more than
twice the number needed to access the ballot. Nader could thus equitably
be required to pay for the transcripts and writing experts needed to
prove the Democrats' case.

International Human Rights Violation

What happened in Pennsylvania is now considered by the International
Community to be a human rights violation.

Ballot Access is the Wild West of Law

The high court is vulnerable in its history of decisions in regards to
ballot access. It has been consistently inconsistent. In Rodgers vs.
Cortez there is an opportunity for the Court to do the right thing and
to look out for the interests of the American People.  Isn't it time to
move the issue of Ballot Access into the twenty-first century? ...not
the nineteenth.

REFERENCES

Boston Law Review: A Second Look at Third Parties: Correcting the
Supreme Court's Understanding of Elections
http://www.bu.edu/law/lawreview/v85n5/Evseev.pdf

Zogby Post-Election Poll
http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1194

Politics in Pennsylvania: Putting an end to Ralph Nader and Open Ballots
http://www.votenader.org/contribute/index.php?cid=118


In Service:

Brent McMillan, Political Director
Green Party of the United States
202-319-7191
brent at gp.org