Home General 13 States Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Arizona's Appeal in Nader Case
formats

13 States Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Arizona's Appeal in Nader Case

Published on December 23, 2008, by in General.

On December 17, Montana’s Attorney General asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Arizona’s appeal in Brewer v Nader, the case in which the 9th circuit struck down Arizona’s early June petition deadline for independent candidates, and also struck down Arizona’s ban on out-of-state circulators. Here is a copy of the brief. The brief was co-signed by Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

This amicus brief is 26 pages long, just as long as the brief Arizona itself filed. Like the Arizona brief, the amicus focuses most of its fire on the issue of out-of-state circulators. It is odd that Alabama, Delaware, Florida, and New Hampshire signed the amicus, because those four states don’t bar out-of-state petition circulators.

The brief cites the U.S. District Court decision in Oklahoma last year that upheld the ban on out-of-state circulators. Ironically, the 10th circuit reversed that decision the very day after the amicus was filed.

20 Responses

  1. Michael Morrison

    Governments try to have it both ways, with apparently the intended result of keeping off the ballots as many people as possible.
    If petitions required only a reasonable number of voter signatures, say just enough to show interest in the candidate (50 to a 100, perhaps), and the candidate himself had to gather those signatures, most or even all of these problems would disappear.
    If, though, petitioning and huge numbers of signatures continue to be required, then it becomes obvious, at least to me, that “democracy” has no part in the United States electoral process.

  2. Could not have said it better Mister Morrison! We are not paranoid, the Democans and the Republicrat are after us!

  3. Michael Seebeck

    10th reversed OK the day after the brief was filed? Ain’t timing a b*tch? That kind of kills their arguments.

  4. CaliforniaScreaming

    Outrageous attempt by states to circumvent free speech rights. More and more politicians loathe the constituents they represent.

  5. Richard

    Another dishonest aspect of the amicus brief is that it says the Arizona independent deadline was upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court in 2002. The deadline upheld in 2002 (in Harry Browne’s lawsuit) was not the same as the current deadline. The deadline in the 2000 election was June 29. Afterwards, the legislature twice made the deadline even earlier.

    Another funny aspect of the amicus brief is that all the presidential independent deadlines in the states that filed the amicus are between July 15 and September 8 (except for Colorado). So these states are arguing that a state needs a deadline as early as June 4 to get ready for the November election, and yet all but one of the amicus states have deadlines that are almost one and one-half months later! Their own practice contradicts their words.

    It is especially absurd for Alabama to have put its name on the amicus, because Alabama has a September 8 presidential independent deadline and Alabama lets out-of-staters circulate petitions. Anyone in Alabama ought to complain to the state Attorney General about Alabama’s participation in the amicus.

  6. Tom McLaughlin

    Could it be an attempt to get a ruling that would let them move their deadline to a least as early as Arizona?

  7. Demo Rep

    What genius Nader or Amicus lawyer / prof has the brain cells to bring up –

    SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL

    Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954

    i.e. For constitutional law MORONS — ALL of the ballot access cases since 1968 did NOT mention Brown and ALL of them must be overruled.

    Equal ballot access via equal nominating petitions.

    Way too difficult for the armies of lawyer MORONS involved in ballot access cases to understand.

  8. D. Frank Robinson

    The brief alleges fraud in obtaining petition signatures. I was unable to locate any footnote or reference citing cases of conviction for fraud against petition circulators. No evidence, no argument.

    If the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to persons, not just citizens, then can resident aliens circulate petitions which only American citizens can sign or vote upon? Can residents of American territories circulate petitions within states? Can residents of Washington DC circulate petitions in states? Can persons with dual citizenship (US-UK?) also circulate petitions within states?

    The validity of a petition must ultimately rest upon the validity of signers qualifications. The qualifications of the circulators has little, if any, relevance.

    Much of this obstructionism by the entrenched parties and their official government puppets is a form of trade protectionism for political parties. The economic arguments against trade protectionism largely apply to political protectionism as well.

    Will these asses argue that American voters may not drive a foreign made automobile to the polls to vote? The analogy is rather close. Circulators are like vehicles for transporting the evidence of the intent of the voter-petition signer to political authorities.

    Killing or obstructing the messenger will not make the message the voter is sending go away.

    Free Paul Jacob!

  9. Winger bias again: Doesn’t even mention the fact that THE MONTANA ATTORNEY GENERAL IS A DEMOCRAT!!!!

    My gosh Winger. Are you that much of a patsy for the Democrat Party? What are you on their payroll or something? These are the same jerks – Schweitzer and his thugs – who blocked us libertarian petitioners for 4 months all over Montana in 2006 for our property rights/anti-eminent domain petitions. I had one blocker fhired by the AARP follow me around for 3 days. Jake Wittmer had 12 (!!!) Union Thug blockers on him in Butte at the downtown Arena on primary day.

    Schweitzer is a Thug with a Capitol ‘T’! And he’s directly tied to Obama. Now his right-hand man, the AG is bringing a lawsuit to overturn our recent libertarian victory in Oklahoma. And you don’t even mention the fact ANYWHERES IN YOUR REPORT that he’s a Democrat!!!

    You have zero credibility on initiatives and referendum. You are COMPLETELY BIASED!

  10. Gene

    Give it a rest Dondero. Richard is one of the greatest allies ballot access activists have. By lashing out at an ally this way, you undermine your own credibility – not his.

  11. No, I ain’t giving it a fucking rest. This pisses me off!!!!!

    Richard is NOT one of the greatest allies of ballot access and initiatives and referendum. He’s a phony. A poser for George Soros and Movon.org, just like his pal Eric Garris (who is probably going to censor this post).

    Tell me please, WHY IN THE HELL WAS THE FACT THAT THE AG IS A DEMOCRAT COMPLETELY LEFT OFF OF THIS ARTICLE????????????

    Any time Winger can spin something as Anti-Bush, or some Republican who does something anti-Ballot Access oh my gosh, it’s a glaring headline here at Ballot Access News. But any time it’s a Democrat, the fact is hidden, or not mentioned at all.

    I’m a friggin’ plaintiff in the Oklahoma case that won the out-of-state rights. But I’m a Republican. Notice how Winger, neglected to even mention me in the piece the other day?

    A big Fat Fuck You Richard Winger, and every one of you mother-fuckers that support his ugly dumbshit America-hating ass.

  12. Hmmn, are you the same scraggly-haired pothead Gene Berkman from Riverside? The same Berkman with that loser of a run-down bookstore in that Riverside ghetto? The same Berkman who hates America, and hates the Military?

    Yeah, buddy. You sure do have a great deal of credibility there Berkman.

  13. You can read an expose of Wingers’s collusion with the Left, now up at Libertarian Republican blog.

  14. As my newer post makes clear, 8 of the “bad” Attorneys General are Republicans; 5 are Democrats. Furthermore, two of the Democrats won’t be Attorney General after next week; they are at the end of their terms and didn’t run for re-election.

  15. The other AGs are beside the point to this story. The Montana AG is the one who sparked this all.

  16. BTW, for the record, one of those AGs is a Republican – Mike Cox of Michigan. I know the guy. He’s barely a Republican. He’s the only “Republican” serving in the entire Michigan Statewide cabinet level offices. And he’s largely regarded as a RINO, much like the “Republican” SoS in Washington State.

  17. D. Frank Robinson

    Memo to Mr. Dondero: Have some eggnog and chill.

  18. Phil Sawyer

    Eric Dondero Says:
    December 24th, 2008 at 5:22 am
    Winger bias again: Doesn’t even mention the fact that THE MONTANA ATTORNEY GENERAL IS A DEMOCRAT!!!!

    My gosh Winger. Are you that much of a patsy for the Democrat Party? What are you on their payroll or something? … [snip] …

    Gene Says:
    December 24th, 2008 at 5:53 am
    Give it a rest Dondero. Richard is one of the greatest allies ballot access activists have. By lashing out at an ally this way, you undermine your own credibility – not his.

    Phil Sawyer adds:

    That is really funny (but sad) that Eric Dondero implied that Richard Winger is “a patsy for the Democratic Party.” Mr. Dondero is one of the people famous for not being able to decide whether he is a Libertarian or a Republican (the party that will be a minor-sized party by the year of 2012). At any rate, both parties (along with the Constitution Party) are bourgeois conservative parties that are going to end up on the trash heap of history. The Proletarian Revolution is now happening in this country and it is probably irreversible at this point.

    Watch what happens in California. The bourgeois ruling class is attempting to cure the state’s budget problems by loading everything on the backs of the working class. We are simply not going to let that happen.

    Stop the bail-outs of the ruling-class financial institutions and start to heal the suffering of the people!

  19. jalp

    Mike Cox is not the only state-level Republican now serving. Both he and Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land are Republicans, and will be serving for another two years. (These two positions are not appointed; they are elective offices. Land and Cox were elected in 2006 for their second & final four-year terms.)

  20. jalp

    And that’s not counting the Justices of the State Supreme Court. Those folks are elected in nominally non-partisan races, but the candidates are nominated by state-party conventions(!). The balance is now 5-2 Republican, but that will be 4-3 shortly.

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>