Comments on: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Won’t Re-Open 2006 Green Party $80,000 Case

By: Shane Novak

Shane Novak — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:37:30 +0000

Jacob

I must put this politely, your an f#cking idiot!

By: Jacob

Jacob — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:28:44 +0000

Fact is, the Greens did submit petitions with dodgoy names on them, which is why they lost the legal case and have to pay costs. The Greens seem to include some of the best people, determined to work for real social justice and protect the environment, and some of the worst who really believe that the truth doesn’t matter and undermining the democratic system is a positive. Cynthia McKinney, now pushing a fairy story about the Government having shot 15,000 prisoners in the head during hurricane Katrina, is in the latter camp. And it seems to me Ralph Nader deliberately focused on the swing states in 2000 and seemed to have no problem with helping Bush into office and to be even happier about producing a disputed result.

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 21:09:23 +0000

There is an alternate idea, that a federal lawsuit could be filed, arguing that the US Constitution prevents governments from charging people money to exercise their voting rights, unless there is a compelling interest. Mandatory filing fees are unconstitutional, at least for poor candidates; poll taxes are unconstitutional. The 8th circuit ruled that if a state requires parties to pay for their own primaries, the government must pay to administer the primaries. Federal courts have struck down fees for candidates and parties to pay to have their own ballot access petitions checked. So there is plenty of good precedent.

By: JimN

JimN — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:16:19 +0000

PLEASE take this to the US Supremes

By: Coming back to the LP

Coming back to the LP — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:50:01 +0000

Richard,

The loss in CT and now this one.

There is a major court bias against ballot access rights. It is not getting better. Some judges have and are building their careers by promising to protect the two major parties and always vote against the rights of voters, candidates, 3rd parties and independents.

With one Supreme Court vote GUARANTEED to always vote against democracy, the cards are stacked against us, and many lower court judges are following in his footsteps.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:36:13 +0000

This is disgusting!