Home General Nader Submits Iowa Petition Using "Peace & Freedom" Ballot Label
formats

Nader Submits Iowa Petition Using "Peace & Freedom" Ballot Label

Published on August 6, 2008, by in General.

On August 6, Ralph Nader submitted his Iowa petition. Instead of just qualifying as an independent candidate, in Iowa he qualified using the ballot label “Peace and Freedom.” This means that if he gets 2% or more of the vote, the Peace and Freedom Party will become a ballot-qualified party in Iowa. Currently the only qualified parties in Iowa and the Democratic and Republican Parties. Nader did poll over 2% in Iowa in 2000 under the “Green” label, and therefore the Green Party was ballot-qualified in Iowa for the 2002 election. However, since it didn’t poll as much as 2% for Governor in 2002, its qualified status only last two years.

22 Responses

  1. NE

    Very interesting. I wonder how many more states Nader will be on as Peace and Freedom. This might work out quite well for the PFP, provided that they have enough supporters in those states to build the new parties there after this election.

  2. Mike Gillis

    Any word on the turn-in in New Hampshire? Signature count?

  3. I say we all use our minds and make it 45 states like Ralph imagines he will have. I could live with this party if I knew that one of its goals is cracking the 2 parties…that is as important as socialist ideas anyway…

    I always love the Zapatista’s “Everything for Everyone and Nothing For Ourselves” and the idea of caracoles… I wonder what the largest scale that’s been tried successfully has been? Whatever success means in this case..I still read about women in the zapatista zones having troubles…Whereas I was happy to read that P&F has guidelines for female/male balance in their party…

    -Alice

    I understand Ralph Nader a lot better today than I did yesterday…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNuulGNZvY
    Ralph on Sesame Street with Bob and the People in the Neighborhood

    :)

  4. It will not be merely the number of registrants, but the logic and efficiency and fairness of the administration of the party…..

  5. Student Nader Raider

    That’s very kind of Nader. It’s becoming clear that what Nader is doing is laying the ground work nationally for future independent candidates, and future third parties to be on the ballot in the future, and hopefully be allowed into the debates if they capitalise on the opportunity.
    If the media wouldn’t block him out, he would be a very credible threat this election. It shows how the corporate media is afraid of the influence of even 1 voice speaking for justice that can threatnen their power.

  6. Trent Hill

    Nader should have started this LAST year. The Peace and Freedom Party is the one that is the most similar to him. Cobbling together the random Green Parties that support him, the Liberty Union party in Vermont, the Peace and Freedom Party—Nader could actually have a national progressive party, and one far stronger than the slowly-dieing Green party.

  7. Matt

    What is the point of another left wing national party? Why would someone not just join the Greens or the Socialist Party?

  8. Just talked to the person at the Iowa Sec. of State who takes the papers. Despite the press release saying they would file this morning and hold a 9:30 a.m. press conference, Nader has NOT actually filed yet (as of 3 PM)

  9. Paid Nader petitioners are working downtown Kentucky (Fourth Street Live in Louisville).
    Kentucky has the same 2% of presidential race to be a party as Iowa does (without the governor requirement so the ballot access would last four years, not two), so why is Nader running as an Independent in Kentucky instead of Peace and Freedom? If he gets 2%, would there be an “Independent Party of Kentucky?”

    Note: If someone from that group is reading this, please replace your Boston Red Sox caps with a University of Louisville or University of Kentucky (or even Louisville Bats, the minor league baseball team) cap. If will hide the fact that you are out-of-towners (although your accent gives you away).

  10. California Screaming

    This is ridiculous an independent has to go throught this many hoops to put his name on the ballot. I think the Dems and Repubs have one interest in common, make sure independents dont get on the ballot. If Jesse Ventura or Lou Dobbs got on the ballot, those two parties would be crapping thier shorts now. Ventura or Dobbs would not pull punches on the Repubs on thier failed war and would show how ineffective and hypocritical the Dems always are. The Dems promised an end to the war and investigation of oil executives after 2006 election and havent done a thing. Plus Dems say they are for labor and helped pass free trade each time. We need Patriots like Nader, Gravel, Paul, Ventura or Dobbs. Sick and tired of manufactured candidates like Bush, Clinton, Obama, Romney and the rest.

  11. To California Screaming:

    Sandy Ego Sam says’ “Well Duh!”

  12. A Nader campaign rep. told me a FedEx package with Nader’s signed documents got delayed so they’re filing in IA tomorrow.

  13. Shiu Hung

    What about NY, Wisconsin and Florida?

  14. Michael Richardson

    Because the Kentucky petition was already in circulation it was too late to run under the Peace and Freedom banner.

  15. Andy

    I seem to recall reading that the Libertarian Party and the Green Party had become qualified political parties in Iowa within the last couple of years ago.

    Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.

  16. The Libertarians and Greens, with ACLU help, sued then Sec. of State Chet Culver over Iowa law, which required 2% for president or governor every general election for full party status. After Culver became governor, new SOS Mike Mauro settled out of court and established a new status. With an 850 signature petition a party can become a “political organization.” The Greens and Libertarians qualified effective 1/1/08, and the 2008 legislature enacted the settlement into law.

    End result: you can REGISTER as a Green or Libertarian, but they don’t have primaries and they still have to petition to get on the November ballot. Full party status still requires the 2%. My Green friends (I’m a Democrat myself) are OK with this as they feel Iowa’s ballot access laws are not unduly restrictive; the big goal was to get registration. Some folks are just as happy there’s no primary since a low turnout primary leaves a small party vulnerable to a Pat Buchanan style hostile takeover.

  17. Phil Sawyer

    Actually, John Deeth, the Pat Buchanan take over of the Reform Party in 2000 was not hostile. It was a friendly take over.

    By the way, how come you have not changed your registration to the Peace and Freedom Party of Iowa yet?

  18. I agree with comment #7 and have felt that way for a long time. Could someone explain the point of making the Peace & Freedom Party national instead of simply devoting those resources to an already existing national party (the Socialist Party) from which it is essentially indistinguishable? On what grounds would the Peace & Freedom Party and the Socialist Party compete with each other? Do PFP people simply dislike using the word “Socialist” in their name?

  19. Philip, Philip, Philip,

    *Actually, John Deeth, the Pat Buchanan take over of the Reform Party in 2000 was not hostile. It was a friendly take over*

    I was not [oh for the good old days!] in the official Reform/ Deform Movement in 2000, but as a Perot Perot voter I remember the print media and television and the TWIN conventions and near fist fights in Long Beach!

    Some kinda ‘friendly’!

    Phil, post after post after post, where do you come up with this stuff? Lordie, what a vivid imagination you must have. Time after time, Phil, ‘every one is out of step but Sawyer….’

  20. If I remember right, the Reform factions are STILL fighting it out in court…

  21. Phil Sawyer

    John Deeth: Pat Buchanan won the Reform Party nomination in 2000 fair and square. It is not his fault that the Reform Party of the United States is now in splinters. It is a very sad situation but it is not all that rare of a thing to happen to new political parties. The ones who are at fault are the people who refuse to work with others because they have some differences of opinion. To put it another way, the ones who are at fault are the people who are doing the splintering. They need to stop doing that.

    In 2000, by the way, I was still a member of the Reform Party (a founding member, actually, of both the Reform Party of the United States and United We Stand America). In the California Reform Party primary, that year, I voted for John B. Anderson for president. In the official Reform Party mail-in ballot, I cast a blank ballot (in other words, I did not vote for either Pat Buchanan or John Hagelin, the only two people on the ballot).

  22. Phil Sawyer

    Matt Says:
    August 7th, 2008 at 8:13 am
    What is the point of another left wing national party? Why would someone not just join the Greens or the Socialist Party?

    David Gaines Says:
    August 8th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
    I agree with comment #7 and have felt that way for a long time. Could someone explain the point of making the Peace & Freedom Party national instead of simply devoting those resources to an already existing national party (the Socialist Party) from which it is essentially indistinguishable? On what grounds would the Peace & Freedom Party and the Socialist Party compete with each other? Do PFP people simply dislike using the word “Socialist” in their name?

    Phil Sawyer responds to both messages:

    First of all, the Green Party of the United States is not a socialist party. So it would not work for the Green Party of California and the Peace and Freeeom Party of California to merge. We in the Peace and Freedom Party of California love the phrase, “democratic socialism,” and we make it very clear in our platform and our literature.

    Secondly, regarding the Socialist Party USA, the writers ask a very profound question. I have been in and out of both SPUSA and PFP-CA for many, many years. One of the reasons that I let my membership lapse (the most recent time) in SPUSA was due to a rigidity, by the Party, about the very question that the two of you pose. Neither the leadership of SPUSA nor the prior leadership of PFP-CA would seriously entertain the idea of a merger (PFP-CA could simply have affiliated with SPUSA). Every time that I brought it up, I was always told (by both Parties) all the reasons why it would not work. Never did they ever desire to consider why the idea would work. That’s the deal, as Ross Perot would say.

    Now that the Peace and Freedom Party of California is actually going national (and being really serious about it this time, thanks to the Nader-Gonzalez campaign), the point of a merger between PFP-CA and SPUSA is no longer so crucial. SPUSA lost out big time – whether they realize it our not!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>