Comments on: Minor Party/Independent Candidate Constitutional Lawsuits Pending in 21 States

By: conflict resolution v behavior modification

conflict resolution v behavior modification — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 02:02:37 +0000

How is it that a “federal judge” would determine “that Hispanics were being treated unfairly” and allow them “to flip the lever six times for one (presumably Democrat or Republican Party) candidate”, while Minor Party and Independent Candidate Constitutional Lawsuits are Pending in 21 States just to obtain ballot access?

See the Associated Press article: Residents get 6 votes each in suburban NY election at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100615/ap_on_el_st_lo/us_voting_rights_election

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:26:56 +0000

There is a lawsuit in Maryland which affects third parties although I don’t believe any are a part of it. The Maryland Board of Elections changed their criteria for validating petition signitures from a common sense approach of whether they could reasonably make out the name to a literal interpretation of the law which requires full surname, one full given name and initials of all other names for both the printed and signed names.

Validation rates have plummeted since they implemented this and several issues petitions have failed to make it onto the ballot. The Green Party and Libertarian Parties will be petitioning this year and we are concerned about the affect this will have on our efforts.

A lawsuit has been brought to return to the common sense interpretation.

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 05:55:02 +0000

Jeff, I recommend that on Monday, you phone the attorney who has been handling the post office sidewalks case since 2000 and ask him your question. He is David Klein, 202-339-8629. His e-mail is dklein@orrick.com. It is possible your experience will be useful to him. He is fairly easy to reach.

By: Jeff Becker

Jeff Becker — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:54:25 +0000

So do you think I should go back there and stand my ground and get arrested so as to have basis for a new case… in the 4th Circuit? :))

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 03:14:44 +0000

It was only lost in the First Circuit, which covers 4 New England states. I think it is a goofy opinion that wouldn’t be especially persuasive against us outside of the First Circuit.

By: Jeff Becker

Jeff Becker — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 01:49:31 +0000

“that regulation would not affect petitions to put a new party on the ballot that don’t mention any particular candidate.”

But a ballot access petition for a particular candidate, or set of candidates listed by name is thus “campaigning”, so we lost that? (yes, different from a ballot “measure”)

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 01:14:48 +0000

The Massachusetts case was not about the postal regulation passed in 2000 that imposes a flat ban on petitioning on post office sidewalks. The Massachusetts case was about a much older postal regulation that bans “campaigning” on postal property.

So that is two separate postal regulations, both of which inhibit petitioning. However, even with the strange interpretation that petitioning for a candidate is “campaigning”, that regulation would not affect petitions to put a new party on the ballot that don’t mention any particular candidate.

By: Jeff Becker

Jeff Becker — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:40:06 +0000

I thought we lost the post office battle last year:

From BAN April 2009:
“Federal law: on February 25, the First Circuit upheld a Postal Regulation that bans “campaigning” on interior post office sidewalks. The plaintiff had been arrested in 2004 for petitioning on a post office sidewalk in Massachusetts. The decision assumes that petitioning is “campaigning”, and upheld the regulation. The decision says that petitioning for a ballot measure is not “campaigning.” The decision was written by Judge Sandra Lynch, a Clinton appointee, and co-signed by Judge Kermit Lipiz, a Clinton appointee, and Judge Michael Boudin, a Bush Sr. appointee. Del Gallo v Parent, 08-1511.”

Hopefully I am just misinterpreting this. Just asking since I got kicked off of a sidewalk in front of a Post Office that is located in an outside strip mall yesterday in WV.

BTW, I understand that the USPS is no longer federal and is now a private corporation. (Postal “Service” vs. Post “Office”) Is this correct? Implications?

By: Demo Rep

Demo Rep — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:00:13 +0000

1. Separate is NOT equal — many of the cases.

Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954

i.e. EQUAL ballot access laws for ALL candidates for the same office.

2. 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 *right to vote* — write-in cases.

3. Every election is NEW and has ZERO to do with ANY prior election or other event — many of the cases.

Election *LAW* [which AIN'T atomic physics] has been mystified and subverted by the party hack Supremes for many decades — result — the growing chaos in the lower courts.

By: Gregg Jocoy

Gregg Jocoy — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:03:42 +0000

The fascinating thing about #18, as Richard has pointed out, is that if we are successful in the ACLU law suit, the establishment Democrats will be able to have their preferred Senatorial nominee on the ballot under the Working Families Party line. Then again, I suppose that the democratic Party county chair who sued to keep Eugene Platt off the ballot for signing a “loyalty oath” pledge would, of course, sue Rawl if he tried to do as Platt wanted to do, and appear as the nominee of the other party which nominated him…before the democrats rejected him.

I guess that what goes around *does* come around, eh>?