Are Dems subverting Democracy by challenging Naders petition signatures?

[mzmolly]

NO.

Ralph Nader is either ignorant or deliberatly misleading people by insinuating that the challenge to his petition efforts are unprecidented and/or undemocratic.

When Nader and Dean debated, Dean stated "Ralph, your playing the victim here, this is common practice. Democrats do it to one another all the time."

It seems some of us lefties are trumpeting Ralphs misinformation as fact, so I thought it might be time to examine this.

What I've found is that this process is very much a PART OF OUR DEMOCRACY. And in fact, a way to keep "it" honest? We need checks and balances, and challenging the validity of petition signatures is NOT unusual.

I will not babysit this thread personally as it's for informational purposes, and I really don't have time. ;)

Do keep it kicked though. :hi:

The following is a mish-mash of information about this subject.

http://www.azconservative.org/incumbents_challenged.htm

Three of Arizona's incumbents in the House of Representatives are facing challenges to the nominating petitions they filed to get their names on the September primary ballot. All three Republicans recently finished their freshman terms at the state capitol in Phoenix.

Conservatives Warde Nichols and Steve Yarbrough, both of District 21 (Chandler) are being challenged by one of their campaign opponents, liberal Republican Gretchen Wolfe. Clancy Jayne's nominating petitions have been challenged by Bob Haran, a former district chairman.

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special06/articles/0624challenges24.html

Senate President Ken Bennett and four other incumbent legislators will join more than a dozen candidates for the statehouse, county seats and Corporation Commission defending themselves in Superior Court against challenges to their nomination petitions.

Allegations include claims of petitions with signatures from unregistered voters and voters who live in other districts, and petitions signed by circulators who allegedly did not witness the signatures.

"It's not too much to ask that your competitor play by the rules," said Rep. John Allen, R-Phoenix, who is challenging the petitions of his incumbent competitor, Rep. Deb Gullett.

http://www.dcboee.org/information/info_can%5Cchal_per.shtm

http://www.co.wood.oh.us/commissioners/forms/annexations/procedures.htm

The hearing before the Board will be conducted as follows:

A. Opening Statements

B. Challenges to validity of petition signatures

1. Owner’s request to void petition signature

2. Challenges to proof of authority of person to sign

C. Determination of the validity of the petition

http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=1976924&nav=HMO6OK40

A judge says Rep. Warde Nichols could possibly be kicked off the 2004 ballot but Steve Yarbrough will likely survive a court challenge to his nominating petitions for re-election.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Pendleton Gaines heard a challenge Monday by Republican legislative candidate Gretchen Wolfe of Chandler against Yarbrough and Nichols, her Republican incumbent opponents in District 21.

Wolfe alleged that both Yarbrough and Nichols had solicited some of their qualifying signatures by mail and the circulators that signed the backs of the petitions could not have witnessed the signatures as required by law.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/apr02/32520.asp

On March 22, organizers of the Eastside Coalition to Recall Penny Podell filed with the commission 4,060 signatures, many of which are being challenged as invalid based on being printed, illegible, out of the district or not signed by the actual person.

Podell said her attorney reviewed the petitions thoroughly, noting, "We are confident that we are upholding the law."

"I think the issue here is to understand and uphold the law," she said. "And that's what I want to do."

Dems also challenged the recall efforts in "Galifonia" via this process.

Court dismisses recall challenges

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/07/calif.candidates/

and lost ...

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. We must do whatever it takes to win!

To hell with Ralph Nader! :grr: He is OUR ENEMY!!!

[supperDem]

6. I hope you are joking

One party rule is your goal?

[demwing]

11. One Party Rule? Who the hell said anything about that?

What are you talking about?

[supperDem]

45. If only one side wins

it's one party rule. By hook or crook will mostly insure a win.

[West Coast Democrat]

46. We have one party rule right now.

[demwing]

55. Sheesh. Not even two dozen posts...

Before they tombstoned your ass.

[roguevalley]

2. If his petitions are illegally or unethically obtained, its our duty to

challenge them.

[IndianaGreen]

3. The problem is that Dems are also doing it to Libertarians and Socialists

which makes me think that this stuff about "keeping Nader out" has little to do with preventing a Bush win by having Nader "spoil" the duopoly gravy train. The real reason is that the DNC and the RNC want to keep their little duopoly going even if it means engaging in undemocratic and facistic practices like the ones the GOP used in Florida in 2000.

Here is an example of what I am talking about, it involves a Socialist candidate for state representative in Illinois (a political office that has nothing to do with the Bush v. Kerry race).

Stop the Democratic Party’s attack on third-party campaigns! Place SEP candidate Tom Mackaman on the ballot in Illinois!
Statement of the Socialist Equality Party
8 July 2004

The Socialist Equality Party calls on all our supporters and on all those who defend democratic rights, in the United States and throughout the world, to flood the county clerk’s office in Champaign County, Illinois with protests against the attempt to keep the SEP candidate for state representative, Tom Mackaman, off the November ballot. The SEP calls for joint action with other third parties seeking to defeat anti-democratic challenges by the Democratic and Republican parties.

<snip>

It has now come to light that the challenge to Mackaman’s petitions involved the mobilization of state legislative aides, who are on the public payroll, to carry out political dirty work for the Democratic Party. The two individuals who first secured and examined copies of the nominating petitions, Liz Brown and Brendan Hostetler, are Democratic Party functionaries and employees of the Illinois House of Representatives. According to the date and time of their visits to the election offices, these state employees engaged in partisan political activity, aiming at depriving a citizen of the state of Illinois of his right to run for office, during working hours and at taxpayer expense.

The moves by the Democrats to purge the SEP candidate from the November ballot are part of a broader drive by both of the corporate-dominated parties, the Republicans as well as the Democrats, to keep independent and third-party candidates off of the Illinois ballot, or subvert their campaigns by various bureaucratic machinations, and thereby maintain the political monopoly of the two-party system.

In Illinois alone, Democratic and Republican operatives have filed objections to ballot status petitions for two dozen candidates, including independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, the Green Party presidential ticket and other Green candidates, Libertarian candidates, and other independents.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/illi-j08.shtml

Statement of SEP candidate Tom Mackaman to Champaign County, Illinois Election Board
7 July 2004

The objection filed by the Democratic Party against my candidacy is a serious attack on democratic rights. It has no factual basis and should be rejected by this panel.

The issues involved in this attempt to keep me off of the ballot have implications that go far beyond the 103rd district of Illinois. The right to vote, the right to have one’s vote counted, and the right of citizens to have as wide a spectrum of political choices as possible have emerged as critical matters of public concern in America, especially in the aftermath of the contested national election of 2000.

<snip>

What is taking place here is not some neutral or objective process of holding all candidates to the legal requirements, but rather an effort to suppress opposition to the Democrats and Republicans by third-party candidates. In this division of labor, the Democrats suppress candidates who, they believe, are likely to attract more liberal voters, while the Republicans do likewise to candidates who are deemed likely to win the votes of conservatives.

<snip>

The Democratic-controlled state legislature passed the bill to put Bush on the ballot on June 30, two days after the Democrats filed their challenges to Nader, the Greens and the Socialist Equality Party. This suggests that the Democrats are more concerned with suppressing candidates who are critical of the war in Iraq than they are with defeating George W. Bush.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/toms-j07.shtml

[mzmolly]

4. Well if they do it to one another, why should we excude Inde's?

It's about winning (while preserving democracy) in any case.

In fact, citizens can and do challenge petitions. It happens all the time. Anyone hoping to compete with the so called "duopoly" best familiarize themselves, and prepare to deal with the circumstances.

Like I said, there is nothing undemocratic about it. Perhaps some simply need to familiarize themselves with the ins and outs of democracy?

:nopity:

[IndianaGreen]

5. Winning at the expense of democracy = Tiananmen Square

The misnamed Chinese Communist Party, is nothing more than a capitalist authoritarian bureaucracy that opposes any challenges to its power, and their profits.

Tiananmen Square was their response to the people's demand for multi-party democratic elections. It is sad that the same authoritarianism that characterizes the Chinese Communist Party is being adopted over here.

[mzmolly]

7. Ah, so checking signatures is Tiananmen Square-ish now?

LOL. NOTTTTT ;)

[IndianaGreen]

8. We are speaking of a local election

and the Fascist tendencies in the Democratic establishment that are the same as those in the GOP.

This is the sort of issue that breaks coalitions, particularly coalitions as shallow and artificial as ABB.

Where is the democratic in the Democratic Party?

[mzmolly]

9. Textbook talking points.

The ABB coalition is about uniting to defeat a most dangerous George W. Bush. It's a very noble cause considering the person who would ultimately challenge Bush, had to get through the grueling microscope known as the democratic primary process first.

But I defer to Granny D, who can articluate the cause of "The ABB Coalition" much better than I.

We all know that this election is the most important election of our lives. It is a time indeed for our patriotism, our love and our strength of will. Our mountains depend on what we do. Our air and water. Our children and their children. The people of the world. Nature itself is, like no other time, in the balance. It is not a time for circular firing squads or childish (if satisfying) displays of anarchy. It is a time for the grand majority of Americans to be proud of each other for rising up at a time of crisis and doing the right thing. ~ Granny D. Doris Haddock - Heartwood Conference, May 29, 2004

http://grannyd.com/speech20040529.htm

[IndianaGreen]

10. The ABB coalition begins and ends on Election Day

Other than the defeat of Bush, we have nothing in common, and we stand at diametrically opposed ends!

The Left is against the war because it violated the UN Charter and US actions are in violation of the Geneva Convention. The President of the United States is a war criminal, and as such, he should be tried by the International Crimes Court. If President Kerry chooses to follow the present course of Occupation and indiscriminate killing of civilians in Iraq, he too shall become a war criminal and should stand trial alongside Bush at The Hague.

The Left is against the PATRIOT Act because it is an infringement of our basic civil liberties, moreover, PATRIOT gives the Executive Branch powers that even exceeds those granted by a Congressional Declaration of War. We want PATRIOT repealed in its entirety, and our nation returned to a republican form of government, with checks and balances to prevent any branch of government from dominating the other two. We want a Republic, not an Imperial Presidency!

The Left supports justice for the Palestinians, the right of return, and the implementation of all United Nations resolutions about this conflict. The Left is totally opposed to the enabling of Israel's settlement policies and occupation of Palestine that have been the cornerstone of the foreign policy of Republican and Democratic Administrations.

The proposed 2004 Democratic Platform does not reflect any of the Left's views on the war, PATRIOT and Palestine, in fact, the platform is also silent about the Kyoto Accords.

We may agree to disagree on other issues, but the three issues I mentioned are the reason why, as far as the Left is concerned, once Bush is defeated the ABB coalition becomes history.

[mzmolly]

34. As part of "The Left"

I'd like to say note that "the left" doesn't think in lock step.

Interesting though, that the issues that you mention above (which are of grave importance) would NOT be an issue if Al Gore were President today. Sooo, perhaps "the left" should have had a collective friggin brain in the year 2000?!

Thank you for your pragmatism in 2004. :hi:

[IndianaGreen]

36. To vote Bush out, one has to vote Kerry in

this does not mean that we give up on our efforts at electoral reform, which in addition to proportional representation, must include abolition of the Electoral College, or at a minimum, getting rid of its winner-take-all feature.

Hello back, mzmolly.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

37. Agreed.

:hi:

[dmkinsey]

24. This Mommy tactic doesn't work

You can try to guilt us but I just don't feel sorry for you.
You want a political party? Get out and build it.
I've already got one and I'm working to keep it strong

[IndianaGreen]

26. I got a political party, it is called the Democratic Party

and it used to stand for freedom and democracy, not the Gestapo tactics that Mayor Daley used in Chicago in 1968.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

44. The Democratic Party has ALWAYS challenged candidates

when it believed they had broken the law to get themselves on the ballot. The idea that this is something new is a fantasy.

[dmkinsey]

23. If you want to get your candidate on the ballot

you have to do the hard work to make it happen.
If Nader can only get over the bar by cheating, using Republicans to gather signatures,or if he doesn't have a sufficient excess then...
that IS democracy.
People in large numbers choose to NOT SUPPORT Nader.
That is freedom. That is democracy in action.
It is obviously a disappointment to Nader supporters that they are a minute fraction of the voting population but that isn't the problem or the responsibility of the Democratic Party.

[IndianaGreen]

25. I don't support Nader or Cobb

but I do support freedom and democracy, and I oppose "Free Speech" zones and the war.

We have some crypto-fascist apparatchiks in the Democratic Party!

[sangh0]

31. Freedom doesn't mean limiting the right to challenge a candidate

Only in Bizarro world would limitations on a citizen's right to challenge a politician be described as "protecting freedom"

[jpgray]

12. If the challenges are all legal, what's the big deal?

I personally believe if a national third party wants to be on the ballot they should be able to get on, but allowing your opponent the opportunity to deny you a place on the ballot is just foolsihness--you shouldn't expect your direct competitor in an election to 'play nice' and not put up legal challenges whenever they can. So long as everything is legal, I don't see a serious problem with this. If the laws are too biased against third parties, well, let's work to change that, but don't blame the Democrats for opposing their opponents--that doesn't make any sense.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Motion to dismiss Illinois Democrats’ challenge to SEP candidate

"If the challenges are all legal, what's the big deal?"

Isn't that the same thing the GOP said about their use of voter felon lists in Florida, that turned out to be nothing but a tool to keep voters from the polls?

I remind you that we are speaking of a local race to the Illinois legislature, hardly the stuff where one can say that a vote for Nader equals a vote for Bush. I will also add that some of you appear to not have read the facts in the case, opting instead to circle the wagons in defense of the undemocratic and illegal tactics of Geraldine Parr, a vice-chair of the Champaign County Democratic Party.

Motion to dismiss Illinois Democrats’ challenge to SEP candidate
By Jerry White
22 July 2004

The attorney representing Tom Mackaman—the Socialist Equality Party’s candidate for State Representative in Illinois—filed a motion before the Champaign County Electoral Board Wednesday demanding the dismissal of the fraudulent objection filed by the Democratic Party to throw out the signatures of hundreds of legally registered voters who signed Mackaman’s nominating petitions and remove him from the ballot.

The “Motion to Strike and Dismiss” was written by Andrew Spiegel, one of the leading ballot access lawyers in the state of Illinois.

<snip>

Spiegel makes an analysis of the specific type of objections filed by Parr to illustrate their frivolous character. First are the objections based on the claim that the signers are “not registered at the address shown on petition.” Although the Democrats objected to about 1,000 signatures on this basis, the motion states, a review of the Champaign County voter registration records would have revealed that at least 464 of the voters objected to had the same address on both the nominating petition and on their voter’s registration card. “Therefore, Parr and her minions could not have actually reviewed those records and made good faith objections to at least 464 of those voters,” the motion states.

There were 982 signatures not objected to by the Democrats out of the 2,003 originally submitted by the SEP. If the 464 clearly valid voters objected to by the Democrats are added the total number of valid signatures, the number rises to 1,446, well beyond the minimum signature requirement.

If Parr’s bad faith was not apparent from her objections to these perfectly valid signatures, the motion states, it was established beyond all reasonable doubt by the obstructionist methods used by Democratic Party “observers” during the initial records examination by the County Clerk’s office, where they continued to object to valid signatures even in the face of perfect matches. (See WSWS article, “A travesty of democracy in Illinois: Democrats conspire against voters in bid to remove SEP from ballot”).

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/cham-j22.shtml

[jpgray]

14. The 'felon' lists had non-felons on them, so NO those are not legal

And I don't believe felons should be disenfranchised in the first place, but that's another matter. Nothing wrong with challenging signatures, though--one should expect that from one's opponent in any election. This isn't about any relativism where I attempt to claim third party votes are votes for Bush--this is simply about recognizing that a political opponent challenging the signatures in a petition isn't some form of dirty pool. It's just normal politics. While they note that the challenge doesn't appear to be thoroughly researched, what does that have to do with anything? They still have a perfect right to challenge, and the signatures should hold up to whatever rules of validity the district has. I still don't see the problem here--does the SEP expect the Democrats to skip an opportunity to check on these signatures just because they are a third party?

[IndianaGreen]

15. The use of state employees is in violation of State law

Here is more background on this undemocratic travesty. The first paragraph really hits home with me because when I collected signatures to get Dennis Kucinich on the Indiana ballot, we had to make sure that the candidate's name was exactly correct (including the middle name) and that his name appeared in each and every page of the nominating petitions. Here is more:

Among the most blatant examples of this was when “they persisted to objecting to one name, the name of the candidate himself—Thomas Mackaman—who was not only registered at the address shown, but also whose exact same name and address appears on each of the 105 nominating petitions.”

Another occurred when the name of the examiner from the Clerk’s Office was discovered as one of the voters who signed Mackaman’s petitions. “Even though the person at issue was sitting right there, even though the person verified his or her address and signatures, the Parr watcher persisted in their objection to that voter,” the motion states.

<snip>

The use of state employees

The concluding section of the objections to be overturned is based on the illicit use of state employees by the Democratic Party: “The preparation of the Objector’s Petition and the ongoing litigation of those objections, has been and is being done by at least three state employees—Kristen Bauer, Elizabeth Brown and Brendan Hostetler—at taxpayers’ expense and in violation of the Election Interference Act. The Election Interference Act prohibits the use of public funds to be appropriated for political or campaign purposes to any candidate or political organization; criminal penalties are imposed for violating this Act. Election Code at 10 ILCS 5/9-25.1.

“Arguably the conduct of Parr and her mentors in this scheme—Michael Madigan and the Illinois Democratic Party—also violates the Code’s prohibitions against prevention of voting or candidate support (10 ILCS 5/29-4), deprivation of Constitutional Rights (10 ILCS 5/29-17), and conspiracy to prevent vote (10 ILCS 5/29-18).”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/cham-j22.shtml

[jpgray]

16. Ah, I see--but they can simply argue they were interested in legality

They can argue that they have no interest in the political implications, they only wished to ensure the validity of the petitions. That's BS, of course, but it will be difficult to prove otherwise. It's not clear that an objection to a petition that requires the filer to prove the validity of its signatories is a political act, and the Democrats will use that leg to stand on and probably avoid any charges.

That's politics, though--demanding a petition be validated, however silly and unnecessary the demand, is not as vile as disenfranchising voters under the guise of a 'felon' list. I agree this is politically motivated, but since that is impossible to prove, of course the Democrats would try it. If the Greens could do something similar to the Democrats, they would do it in an instant. If they did and succeeded, the Democrats would be to blame for not adequately preparing for it.

[IndianaGreen]

17. If the Greens did it, I would be objecting as well

If the Greens could do something similar to the Democrats, they would do it in an instant.

If the Greens did it, I would be objecting as well! Standing on the principle of ballot access and democratic elections is not a "fair weather" principle that we can adopt or ditch depending on political expediency.

This is what George Orwell called blackwhite thinking in his novel 1984:

blackwhite - The ability to accept whatever "truth" the party puts out, no matter how absurd it may be. Orwell described it as "...loyal willingness to say black is white when party discipline demands this. It also means the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know black is white, and forget that one has ever believed the contrary."

The Complete Newspeak Dictionary

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/

[jpgray]

18. Hardly--this is simply the way political parties do business

If you are looking for the times where everyone followed the rules and kept the spirit of fair play in mind when confronted by poorly established or connected opponents, I don't think that time ever existed.

I totally agree that this is not something any fair-minded person would endorse, but I also think it's to be expected and a political party should be aware of the garbage heap they're descending into when they enter a campaign. That said, the SEP is doing right to challenge this objection in order to gain political capital themselves. The headline 'Democrats subvert democracy!' has its value too, you know. :)

[IndianaGreen]

19. Freedom and democracy don't come cheap

and these are issues that I have felt strongly about for many years. I still remember the requirement for loyalty oaths, while now we have to fight "First Amendment Zones" from both political parties.

U.S. Supreme Court

COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIANA v. WHITCOMB, 414 U.S. 441 (1974)
414 U.S. 441

COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIANA ET AL. v. WHITCOMB, GOVERNOR OF INDIANA, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF INDIANA
No. 72-1040.

Argued October 16, 1973
Decided January 9, 1974

The application of appellants (the Communist Party of Indiana, certain of its officers and potential voters, and its candidates for President and Vice President) for a place on the Indiana ballot for the 1972 general election was rejected for failure to submit a statutory loyalty oath stating that the Party "does not advocate the overthrow of local, state or national government by force or violence." Appellants, contending that the statute was unconstitutional, thereupon filed this action in the District Court for injunctive and declaratory relief. On September 28, 1972, a three-judge court declared the statute constitutional and ordered the Election Board to place the Party on the ballot, but only if the required oath was submitted. After a qualified oath submitted by the Party was rejected, appellants on October 3 sought a District Court order directing the Board to accept such oath, and on the same day the Board requested reconsideration of the September 28 order. The next day the District Court denied both motions. On October 10 appellants filed a notice of appeal to this Court, which it later sought to withdraw so that the District Court might act on appellants' motion of the same day that the September 28 order be amended in certain respects. On October 31, the District Court allowed withdrawal of the appeal notice but denied the motion to amend. Appellants refiled their notice of appeal to this Court on November 29, which appellees contend is untimely. Held:


1. Appellants' notice of appeal was within the 60-day appeal period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. 2101 (b), since appellees' October 3 motion for reconsideration suspended the finality of the September 28 judgment until the District Court's denial of such motion on October 4 restored it, so that the time for appeal thus began to run from October 4. Pp. 445-446.

2. The loyalty oath requirement of the Indiana statute violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 446-450. <414 U.S. 441, 442>

(a) The principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action, applies to state regulation burdening access to the ballot, rights of association in the political party of one's choice, casting an effective ballot, and in running for office, which are interests as substantial as those in other areas that this Court has protected against statutory schemes contrary to the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 448-449.

(b) For purposes of determining whether to grant a place on the ballot, a group advocating violent overthrow as abstract doctrine need not be regarded as necessarily advocating unlawful action. Pp. 449-450.

Reversed.

BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, STEWART, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which BURGER, C. J., and BLACKMUN and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 451.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=414&invol=441:)

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

43. Hyperbole

Challenging candidates who ddin't follow the law in getting on the ballot is a RIGHT protected by the Constitution. I don't see how limiting that right, as you propose, advances freedom. And I don't see where you explain how limiting a citizens right to challenge a candidate advances freedom.

Instead, you post info about free speech zones, which has nothing to do with challenging candidates.

[LoZoccolo]

20. Who cares why they're doing it?

Follow the laws and it won't matter.

[IndianaGreen]

21. Using state employees, while on state time, is against the law!

The use of state employees

The concluding section of the objections to be overturned is based on the illicit use of state employees by the Democratic Party: “The preparation of the Objector’s Petition and the ongoing litigation of those objections, has been and is being done by at least three state employees—Kristen Bauer, Elizabeth Brown and Brendan Hostetler—at taxpayers’ expense and in violation of the Election Interference Act. The Election Interference Act prohibits the use of public funds to be appropriated for political or campaign purposes to any candidate or political organization; criminal penalties are imposed for violating this Act. Election Code at 10 ILCS 5/9-25.1.

“Arguably the conduct of Parr and her mentors in this scheme—Michael Madigan and the Illinois Democratic Party—also violates the Code’s prohibitions against prevention of voting or candidate support (10 ILCS 5/29-4), deprivation of Constitutional Rights (10 ILCS 5/29-17), and conspiracy to prevent vote (10 ILCS 5/29-18).”

The motion argues that while the determination of whether there is any criminal liability to be imposed is up to a higher body, the dismissal of the Democrats’ objection is “the appropriate relief to be granted to Mackaman” by the Champaign County Electoral Board for these violations.

The motion further notes that the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act, 5 ILCS 430/5-15, prohibits state employees from engaging in prohibited political activity while on state time. “To the extent that state employees were engaged in the preparation of the Parr petition and to the extent state employees are engaged in the records examination and in other aspects of the litigation of the Parr petition, they are violating the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act if they are doing so on state time.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/cham-j22.shtml

[mzmolly]

28. This is a strawman. Naders claim is that Democracy is undemocratic

when it applies to him.

If there is a case against using State empolyees, then he should pursue it, as his right to do so is also part of our messy democracy.

But, the fact remains he is misleading people into thinking he's being singled out unfairly on the signature verification issue, and once again he's full shisa.

[IndianaGreen]

29. Nader is not part of this story, and I wasn't speaking of him at all

Did you even read the articles I posted?

[sangh0]

33. Nadir isn't part of the story? Then why is his name in the subject line?

Did you ever read the subject line?

[mzmolly]

35. Yes I did.

But I refered to the original subject matter which is Nader. I said if Nader has a legal case against the use of state employees, (or Tom M) for that matter, they should pursue it.

[IndianaGreen]

38. The use of state employees, on state time, is in a local race in Illinois

As I said in Post #3, the local race that I referenced indicates that the undemocratic efforts by Democratic Party officials are not confined to Nader and the Presidential election, as many DUers are assuming, but it is far more pernicious.

Remember when paid GOP staffers stopped the ballot count in Miami-Dade? This is another example of law breaking:

On June 22, Liz Brown and Brendan Hostetler, two members of the House Democratic staff, read and copied my nominating petitions at 9:09 a.m. and 2:40 p.m., respectively—times they would normally be expected to be performing legislative duties at the state capital. Preliminary research has shown that the pair has conducted this sort of clearly partisan work numerous times in the past. Moreover, Brendan Hostetler has performed this same service for my Democratic opponent, State Representative Naomi Jakobsson, in a past election.

On several occasions Kristen Bauer, another member of the House Democratic staff and the legislative aide of Rep. Jakobsson, communicated with representatives of the Champaign County Democratic Party who were examining my nominating petitions on July 13, as well as employees of the County Clerk’s office in Urbana. The series of phone exchanges took place at times Ms. Bauer would normally be performing her duties as an employee of the General Assembly.

The activities of Bauer, Hostetler and Brown are expressly prohibited by provisions of the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act and Illinois Election Code, as well as federal law protecting constitutional rights. I am therefore requesting that the Office of the Inspector General launch a full investigation into the violation of these laws.

Illinois statue 5 ILCS 43 clearly states, under section 5-15(a), “State employees shall not intentionally perform any prohibited political activity during any compensated time.” Section 1-5(8) verifies that “prohibited political activity” means “circulating, reviewing, or filing any petition on behalf of a candidate for elective office or for or against any referendum in question.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/mack-j17.shtml

[mzmolly]

39. Politics is dirty business.

And as I said, the implication by Nader and some on the left, that these issues are limited to promote the evil "duopoly" is ridiculous.

If the third party candidates have a legal case to pursue I say they should.

I was aware of the situation in Illinois FWIW.

[IndianaGreen]

40. Politics is dirty business when we allow it to happen

Our silence about civil liberties violations, such as free speech zones and the surveillance of antiwar groups exercising their First Amendment rights, is why things are the way they are.

Monopolies are all bad, and that includes the political system.

Some people are saying that we must hold "Kerry's feet to the fire" after he becomes President. How can we do that when we have no leverage to do so? Antiwar and justice for Palestine Democrats have effectively been muzzled by the party establishment, and nothing will ever change unless we are able to make a difference. We won't do that by acting as subservient lapdogs of the DLC.

[mzmolly]

41. Politics has been and will always be "dirty business"

Splitting the left into numerous factions won't change that.

As to holding Kerry's feet to the fire, I think we do have leverage. The grass roots contributed more to Kerry then any corporation has. We really do have the power, but we have to use it wisely.

[yellowcanine]

22. Signature collecting is serious business. If done improperly, it is easy

to get a lot of invalid signatures. From what I have heard the effort by Nader has been somewhat less than professional - Democrats should challenge the signatures and so should Republicans. If people could just submit a bunch of signatures and get on the ballot without the signatures being checked, the ballots would get completely unwieldy. Actually Nader had plenty of opportunity to get on the ballot. There are a number of party lines he could have used - all he had to do was get the nominations of those parties. He chose not to even try to do that (at least in most cases). Fine - but then he has to accept that his only alternative is to collect signatures - and part of that process, rightly so, is that the signatures be of registered voters in that state. For him to whine about "democracy" is the height of arrogance. He wants to run as an independent, than follow the established procedure for getting on the ballot.

[mzmolly]

27. Damn right!

:toast:

[Demoiselle]

42. Signature petition challenges are part of the democratic process...

I'm a Democratic committeeperson in Philly and I'm here to tell ya that we do it all the time...and to each other. If a candidate of any party is incapable of mustering the prescribed number of legal, valid voter signatures, he has no business running for public office. (Call it the first test of political competence.) And OF COURSE Dems are going to thoroughly vet the Nader petitions. He represents a threat to their candidate. Stop whining, Ralph. Welcome to the big leagues.

[LimpingLib]

47. Nobody mentioned this but Nader said........

.... that he had last minute meetups (some state sanctioned event in Oregon and others I guess)where he could only have so many people attend by law and Democrats flooded it and refused to sign the petitions to give him acess. Normaly only supporters show up and by Democrats watering down the expected Pro Nader attandance then signatures Nader though he would have he wasnt able to get.

I know nothing about this but it sounds pretty low to me (to put it mildly)when you have Democrats signing up to go to an important campaign meeting thus preventing people who belonged there from making the attandance and then just to ruin those people's chances of enabling their canidate to be on the ballot which means WE DEMOCRATS disenfranchised voters and progressive ones.

I tell you , that if Kerry actualy does loose because of Nader voters then it will be because he doesnt speak out about this sickening crap. I think Nader will (or would have)consider(ed) dropping out should Kerry decide to condem in the strongest (or at least SAY SOMETHING)terms this Naziesque direction our party has taken.

[Comicstripper]

48. Yes

It is a subversion of the Democratic process. Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Next question.

[mzmolly]

49. Ralph promised not to campaign in swing states last time round, and did.

He has also made many mistatements and or lies about Democrats. I'd also like to note that far more Republicans are signing to get him on the ballot in many states then leftists, so I'd say, we don't owe Nader crap.

:hi:

[LimpingLib]

50. Yea because he realized he needed to bring new voters in.

It became obvious that progressives werent supporting him(Nader) in large numbers and werent enthused enough about Gore to work their butts off and help him much beyond simply voting.

Nader took the attitude that Gore can have his and he would work hard to bring in his own voters.And Nader tried. He always does what is right for progressive causes and the nation ultimatly , problem is he is either all by himself like he has been his entire life (though he moved mountains with such selfless hard work)or (as of late)is actualy being stymied by a bunch of frauds calling themselves liberals.

[mzmolly]

57. I beg to differ with "he always does what's right"

He is not working for progressive causes by helping to swing the election TO Bush.

Nader said in 2000 that if he had to vote for either Bush or Gore he would choose BUSH. He has also said Wellstone, Feingold and Holt must be defeated.

Yeah, my kinda progressive alright :eyes:

Nader is a lying windbag often mistaken for a progressive.

[ScreamingMeemie]

51. And yet, that didn't happen in Michigan. The GOP marched right in

with his knowledge, and did the deed for him. And that, that's no lie. Prove it otherwise. There were no scheduled meetups here...

[LimpingLib]

52. Shame on Nader.

Shame Shame Shame!!!!!

Wanting to be on the ballot despite the Democrats noble effort to kill his chances.

There have I gotten your pride and a spot in the band now? I sure hope you have the pride because frankly Im having increasing trouble while being a Democrat these days.This whole episode is just sad.

[ScreamingMeemie]

53. Again...There was no Democratic force to run him, oh, I mean the GOP

out of town. Would you dance with the devil? I'm a Dean Democrat, and there were times I wished he'd gone out on his own. But I'm glad he didn't, and I'd have dropped him like a rock if he held hands with the GOP to see his name on a ballot.

[LimpingLib]

54. I was a Dean supporter too but for different reasons than most.

I didnt worship or even accept him as some sort of progressive icon to worship.My support got weaker and weaker but I still prefered him the whole time.By the end it was mainly because I feared Clark would win if he didnt (and I liked Dean mentioning his possible intention to reform the media).

Honestly of all the top canidates I think Kerry is perhaps the best deal we got from a ideological perspective (somewhat liberalish views but moderate image and tone) and as far as our chances of winning.

This all misses the point. We need genuine progressives on the ballot (and preferably ones who are somewhat well known)to bring in new voters. Nader is the one for now. Dean is too partisan and his major issue early on (aside from health care though even that was a very modest plan , I just appreciated that he came out early for health care when it was abandoned for a decade)being his war stance was really erratic and not grounded with frim views but again I appreciated somebody coming out early against it (though like Kerry he supported much of the war infrastructure like Biden-Lugar).Sadly I fear if Gore or Liebermann were President pushing the war then Dean and especially Clark would have been the strongest supporters. Edwards would have been an even stronger supporter than he was on Bush's Iraq war.

[mzmolly]

58. Nader is not a progressive.

That's where your confused.

[DarkToe0]

56. Yup!

Yup!

[mzmolly]

59. Nope, and Goodbye!

:hi:

Sorry we didn't get a chance to rap before your forced departure.

[Tweed]

60. Yes I believe in theory that trying to get Nader off the ballot is absurd

and undermines democracy. On the whole though, I think the Bush administration is a threat to democracy itself and they must be taken out of power. It's a toss-up, but I think that Nader should be on the ballot and Kerry should be able to win still.