On June 4, Ralph Nader will be turning in approximately 50,000 signatures to be an independent presidential candidate in Arizona. The requirement is 21,759 signatures. Assuming Nader has enough valid signatures, he will be the first independent presidential candidate to qualify in Arizona in the history of the existing law, which was passed in 1993.
Before 1993, the Arizona independent candidate petition deadline was 10 days after the primary, but signatures could not be gathered until primary day, and only voters who had not voted in the primary could sign. This law was especially tough on Ross Perot in 1992, because he officially wasn’t running for president between mid-July 1992 and October 1, 1992. He really knew he would be getting back in the race, but publicly he wasn’t running. The old Arizona requirement required that all his petitions be gathered during September, which was very awkward. After the 1992 election, Perot supporters and other independent activists successfully lobbied for a change.
Unfortunately, that change turned out to be almost as restrictive as the old law. The new law changed the number of signatures from 1% of the last vote cast, to 3% of the number of registered independents. Whereas the old law had a deadline in late September, the new law had a deadline in June. Whereas the old law said no one could sign who had voted in the primary, the new law said no one could sign who was a registered member of a qualified party.
In 1996, Nader supporters challenged the part of the new law that said only registered members who were not members of a qualified party could sign. That case was won in 1999 (too late for Nader to use in 1996) and is called Campbell v Hull. But even with that improvement, the new Arizona independent candidate law has been an impediment, and all presidential independents who tried to qualify 1996 through 2004 failed, including Nader himself in both 1996 and 2004. Nader’s 2004 lawsuit against the June deadline is still pending in the 9th circuit. The Arizona legislature has made the independent candidate even earlier, on two separate occasions since 1993, so that this year the deadline is June 4. Arizona has the second earliest independent presidential petition deadline of any state (only Texas is earlier).
No one else has turned in signatures to be an independent presidential candidate in Arizona this year. The ballot-qualified parties are the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian and Green Parties. The Constitution Party tried to qualify but did not succeed.
Why Ralph Nader does not run inside the Green Party is inexplicable.
Why Nader doesn’t run as Mckinney’s VP is an enigma.
50,000 means Nader paid $100,000 to petition gatherers.
Go NADER Go !!!
I do agree he should have seeked the Green Party nomination. This alone was reason enough for me to switch to Bob Barr. If Nader can make such a bad decsion, he doesn’t deserve my vote in 2008.
If he chose to be irrelevant again in 2008 by going Independent then I needed to go elsewhere where the candidate actually wants to win which is Bob Barr !
Please donate to http://www.bobbarr2008.com Less government , more freedom, bring the troops back, donate to win ! Help the Libertarians get on 50 states and actually make a difference not to Nader who will be on maybe 35 states.
I wish he was running as a Green also, but would an unhealthy Arizona law get attention otherwise? This determination sends a strong message.
For those of us trying to build a real Green Party, the Nation’s Third Major Party….we ar very weary of Ralph sending messages in a bottle..
Look as we all do, he does what he’s personally and politically capable of doing. Great man.
Time for him to make smart choice. Be national chairman of the Green Party. Help Cynthia.
It would be nice if Nader and the Greens could unite, but the fact that they didn’t in 2004 and 2008 is hardly an inexplicable choice on Nader’s part. The Greens nominated a candidate who VOLUNTARILY AGREED not to campaign in so-called battleground states in 2004. Until the Greens recognize that they have as much right to participate in federal elections as anyone else, I don’t blame Nader for not seeking their nomination. It makes perfect sense for a candidate for national office not to seek the nomination of a party that is unsure whether it’s willing to compete on a national scale. Plus, opening up another front on the two-party duopoly has its advantages. For example, it won’t be so easy for the Democrats to try to suppress voter choice by forcing both Nader and the Greens off state ballots.
Does even Nader have ANY lawyers with some BRAINS regarding SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL — Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954 — a mere 54 years ago ???
Brown was NOT brought up in Williams v. Rhodes in 1968 – the first *modern* ballot access case in the Supremes.
Result – 40 years of the moron courts screwing around with separate and unequal ballot access laws — part of the EVIL minority rule gerrymander systems in the Fed and State regimes.
Nader has his strategy and the Green Party has theirs. Also, anyone who has more than a passing familiarity with the Nader and McKinney campaigns knows that they are emphasizing different issues and targeting VERY different constituencies, which do not necessarily overlap. Ralph has good things to say about Cynthia McKinney as a candidate and wishes the Green Party well. I (virtually alone among Greens, apparently) believe him when he says there’s room for multiple progressive candidacies. Finally, there is what should be the obvious point that, in some states if not many states, only one or the other (Nader or McKinney) will be on the ballot anyway, not both.
The system is rigged by the two corrupt Parties
I hate these ballot access laws. I would support Ron Paul’s ballot access reform bill for Congressional and Presidential Elections. It adds a quite genuine add-on: if a party gets 1% of the vote in a U.S. Senate or U.S. Presidential race in a state, that party would be automatically on the ballot.
Wonderful news I can only hope that enough will be valid for Mr.Nader to make the ballot.
Nader is the Don Quixote of the election cycle.
McKinney is Pancho.
NOTA is looking better and better this year…
The Green party is not without it’s own internal politics. The story of why Mr. Nader isn’t running with the Green party is public and pretty well known. It makes more sense than a lot of other candidate’s reasons for leaving or flipping parties. I admire the Green party for their stance on issues and their goals in general, but if they are going to develop into anything more than a little sister to the R&D’s they’ll have to work together a little better, communicate a little better, just plain Be Better.
Hey Richard,
The Nader Campaign will submit over 55,000 signatures.
Great read!
Christina Tobin
Ralph Nader 2008
National Ballot Access Coordinator
Wow, that is an impressive amount of signatures.
Ya looks real good any updates on the Peace and Freedom Direct Primary?
Actually David, you’re not alone in believing Nader when he says that having multiple progressive voices in the race is good for building the green movement. I believe him too, and I think he is right. Personally I would love to see people who are rejected by the Democrats or Republicans choose to remain in the race a-la Gravel. Imagine if Edwards had decided to run as an Independent. Toss in a dash of Romney the Independent and Bloomberg with the Independent Greens (tries really hard not to chuckle) and it could be really interesting.
Re: #16, I agree.
I will vote for McKinney, so long as her tactics do not follow Cobb’s. What a disappointment that was. A candidate with no will to run a campaign has no business running.
The Green party is not as strong as it once was. Ross Perot made it into he own media outlet. Even Jesse Ventura knocks on the Green Party. Going independent only means you are unsatisfied with the party or parties. Nader will still get my vote.
Bp5U8J comment6 ,