Kerry Edwards sued as conspirators

[zorkpolitics]

Independent voters sue Democrats, alleging conspiracy against Nader
http://www.cuip.org/

Democrats, apparently do not want voters to have too many choices.  I guess they learned from FL in 2000 that many Democratic voters are easily confused.  So to help out those poor voters, Kerry and the DNC is mounting a multi-state effort to bump Nader off as many ballots as possible.  No concern about voters intent here!  Any technicality is good enough reason to throw out a voters signature.

[MODU]

I would back their movement.  We've discussed the actions of the DNC over the past few months in the attempts to block Nader from getting on State tickets.  So much for the party "of the people."  More like the party "of the people we want you to be."

[Smash255]

If Nader could actually legally get on the ballots this wouldn't be an issue, however in most of these cases Nader is getting on the ballot ILLEGALLY, thats what the Democrats are challenging.

In any state their are various rules and regulations about the process of getting on the ballot.  One of those in many states with 3rd party candidates involves signatures and where the signatures come from.  While an Individual republican or Democrat can sign in order to get  a 3rd Part candidate on the ballot their can't be any correlation between the Republican or Democrat part as a whole as getting the signatures to get the 3rd Party candidate on the ballot.  That is what is going on in many of these states.  The republican Party as A WHOLE is cordniating efforts to get Naderas many signatures possible to get on the ballot, NOT Individual Republicans which is legal, but the party as a whole which is illegal in most cases.  So what the Democrats are challenging is the legality of many of these signatures since they were organized by the Republican Party.

Bottom line is a tad shady that the Dems are rying to block Nader from getting on the ballot, granted, however so is cordinating efforts to get a 3rd Party candidate on the ballot to help your own party.  Laws are laws, if Nader LEGALLY gets on the ballot, with his own supporters fine he can do that, and its all good & legal, but efforts from within the Republican Party to get him on the ballot isn't right nor is it legal in most cases, and the Dems have every right to challenge it because Nader is getting on the ballot in a legal manner.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is just a front group for the Nader campaign.

I wholeheartedly support the tactics the DNC is using against Nader. Anything to hurt that utterly worthless piece of crap. He doesn't deserve anything.

[A18]

If I was a Nader supporter, I'd vote Bush just to get back at the idiots who actually filed a lawsuit over ballot access. "No fair, we don't want to compete for their votes..."

[zorkpolitics]

If Nader could actually legally get on the ballots this wouldn't be an issue, however in most of these cases Nader is getting on the ballot ILLEGALLY, thats what the Democrats are challenging.

In any state their are various rules and regulations about the process of getting on the ballot.  One of those in many states with 3rd party candidates involves signatures and where the signatures come from.  While an Individual republican or Democrat can sign in order to get  a 3rd Part candidate on the ballot their can't be any correlation between the Republican or Democrat part as a whole as getting the signatures to get the 3rd Party candidate on the ballot.  That is what is going on in many of these states.  The republican Party as A WHOLE is cordniating efforts to get Naderas many signatures possible to get on the ballot, NOT Individual Republicans which is legal, but the party as a whole which is illegal in most cases.  So what the Democrats are challenging is the legality of many of these signatures since they were organized by the Republican Party.

Bottom line is a tad shady that the Dems are rying to block Nader from getting on the ballot, granted, however so is cordinating efforts to get a 3rd Party candidate on the ballot to help your own party.  Laws are laws, if Nader LEGALLY gets on the ballot, with his own supporters fine he can do that, and its all good & legal, but efforts from within the Republican Party to get him on the ballot isn't right nor is it legal in most cases, and the Dems have every right to challenge it because Nader is getting on the ballot in a legal manner.

The most common illegal, if you will, infraction is the Ballot Petition Laws is that the signer did not use their correct signature:  it must match their voter registration and many times people forget if they signed with their middle name, middle initial, or not.

Second most common illegal infraction is that the signer may have been registered with another party.  Again often the individual forgets if they registered as Independent, a Green, a Reform, or a major party.

So do you still support, in the words of the FL Supreme Court a "hyper technical" interpretation of the voting law, or would you support giving the voter (signer) the benefit of the doubt when he expresses a clear intent, and letting the will of the people prevail?

[MODU]

Smash, Red,

Any person has the right to gain ballot access in the election.  It's a Constitutional right.  The tactics the DNC used this year to bar Nader violates Nader's rights, and on that I believe he has a fair case.

[A18]

I disagree that everyone has the right to ballot access, period. I mean, if you can't get x number of signatures, it's not as if you could win the election.

[MODU]

Well yes, that's a given (I have mentioned before that potential candidates have to meet the federal and state requirements for ballot access).  However, some of the tricks that the DNC has pulled this year has intentionally blocked Nader from getting the needed votes.  Therefore, his Constitutional right to run for President has been impeded, and that lays the case out against the DNC.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

All the Democrats have done is challenge his signatures, many of which are invalid, and get people in Oregon to fill up his rallies and not sign the petitions, which is not illegal.

[A18]

lol. Which is pathetic.

[MODU]

All the Democrats have done is challenge his signatures, many of which are invalid, and get people in Oregon to fill up his rallies and not sign the petitions, which is not illegal.

Democrats sue to block Nader in Arizona, "although state law prohibits a political party from filing or financing such suits."  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A626-2004Jun23.html

Democrats sue to block Nader in Iowa (and loses), accusing Nader's group of altering signatures.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818326/

Democrats attempt to block Nader in Oregon by taking up space in his election hall before Nader-supporters could arrive.  "We need as many Oregon Democrats as possible to fill that room and NOT sign that petition,'' Ross wrote. ``If we attend in large numbers and politely refuse to sign, Nader is denied his needed numbers. It's that simple. Please make every attempt to attend this important event.
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/06/27/a1.wst.nader.0627.html

Shall I list more?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

none of that was illegal. the suite in Arizona was not actually filed by the actual party.

[MODU]

The case in Oregon surely could be made out to be, and all the other states could be defined as harassment.  Oregon could also be taken down the rought of infringement on his 1st amendment right by barring those he wishes to communicate with (though I hate suits based on the 1st amendment, since it is so subjective).

[Smash255]

The case in Oregon surely could be made out to be, and all the other states could be defined as harassment.  Oregon could also be taken down the rought of infringement on his 1st amendment right by barring those he wishes to communicate with (though I hate suits based on the 1st amendment, since it is so subjective).

& the Republicans organized event so they were lining up in Oregon also so they could sign a petiton for Nader even though they were Bush supporters and had no intention of voting for Nader violating the spirit of the petiotn rule.  

Both sides have their hands dirty on this one

[MODU]

What side would you rather be on?  Intentionally impeding someone's right to gain ballot access, or helping them?