“Clean Elections” New Jersey Libertarian Fails to Get Injunctive Relief
October 30th, 2007New Jersey has a pilot program in this year’s legislative elections. Candidates in 3 particular legislative districts (but no other districts) could qualify for public funding, if they received $5 contributions from 400 voters in their district. One Libertarian, Jason Scheurer, in one of those 3 districts, did qualify, as did his major party opponents. However, the ballot will say “Clean Elections Candidate” next to the names of his opponents, and not next to Scheurer’s name. Also, since Scheurer is not a Democrat or a Republican, his amount of public funding is only a small fraction of the amount that his major party opponents are receiving.
Scheurer filed a lawsuit on October 10, arguing that the discriminatory treatment is unconstitutional, and also that he should also have “Clean Elections Candidate” next to his name on the ballot. On October 26, the court denied injunctive relief on the matter of the ballot label, on the grounds that Scheurer should have filed his lawsuit no later than September, when the ballots were printed. The other issues in the case are still alive and will be heard later.
October 30th, 2007 at 8:17 am
“Clean Elections” and “New Jersey” would seem to be mutually exclusive terms.
October 30th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
New Jersey is in the beginnings of more clean elections across the country. Get ready for Clean Elections Week November 12-16, at http://www.cleanelectionsweek.org.
October 30th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Sorry! That’s http://www.fairelectionsnow.org. David
October 31st, 2007 at 6:49 am
State funded and endorsed candidates? It is not the campaign donations that lead to corruption, the cause of corruption is the massive amount of money collected by the state that is made available for redistribution. If the state had a budget of $1, how much corruption would there be? As our country moves closer to The United Socialist States of America, you’ll only see corruption increase.
I live in New Jersey and have witnessed in the District 14 trial of “Fair and Clean” that it is neither fair nor clean! It’s just another way to promote D’s and R’s which are virtually indistinguishable here and keep independents from running.
For example, News 12 New Jersey excluded Mr. Scheurer from the televised debate. If the qualified candidates have a responsibility of running fair and clean, why didn’t they oppose his exclusion as requested on the youtube video below? I saw him debate in Hamilton and he did very well at connecting with the audience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Nyq2WG9RU
October 31st, 2007 at 10:26 am
Some thoughts;
If eight different candidates will not confuse voters, then why not just let the eight top parties maintain their ballot access status?
October 31st, 2007 at 11:10 am
When did he become qualified for the funds. He should have filed soon after becoming eligible. Although his point is still valid and since most cases end up being decided after the election the court should still here the case.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:43 am
He may not know after becoming eligble that “Clean Elections Candidate” would not have been printed by his name. This is the first year the law went into effect. He may have only found out after the sample ballots were mailed. The judge still could have ruled for future elections so I don’t believe the issue should be moot.
Of course he may have been pre-occupied with trying to run for office. It is unfortunate that third party candidates have to spend what little resources they have suing judges instead of running for office. but if you are reading this, you already know this.