|
September 1st:
Texas Libertarians Call Nader Ruling "Miscarriage of Justice"
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Patrick Dixon, Libertarian Party State Chair: 512-771-3936 chair@lptexas.org
Wes Benedict, LPT Executive Director: 512-442-4910 wes220@aol.com
Kris Overstreet, LPT Media Coordinator: 936-685-4992 cell 936-425-6523
redneck@wlpcomics.com
AUSTIN - Federal judge Lee Yeakel's ruling against independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader is a defeat for free and open political competition, according to Libertarian Party of Texas spokespersons.
The Federal district court ruling, issued Wednesday, September 1, ruled that Texas ballot access restrictions in general, and specifically the greater difficulty for independent candidates to attain ballot access, did not violate Nader's First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as was argued by Nader's campaign.
"In Texas the ballot-access requirements for independent candidates and minor-party candidates differ significantly," said Yeakel in his ruling, "but yet, in the final analysis are similar in degree." Since the legal requirements on a political party to organize, report to the state government, and hold conventions balance the shorter petition time and higher petition requirements for independent Presidential candidates, Yeakel held, the Texas law is "non-discriminatory," and thus constitutional.
Libertarian Party spokespersons referred to this line of reasoning as a miscarriage of justice. Libertarians, who advocate free and open access to the ballot and a broad range of political options for voters, regard Texas' ballot access restrictions as Draconian, among the worst in the United States.
"Although I obviously intend to vote for the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, I collected over 100 signatures for the Ralph Nader petition," said Wes Benedict, who headed the Libertarians' successful ballot access effort in 2004. "Clearly there was enough support from voters out there to justify his being on the ballot."
"From a fairness point of view, it is hard to explain why the Libertarian Party only needed 45,540 signatures to get 71 candidates on the ballot, while Nader needed 64,076 signatures to get just one candidate on the ballot," said Benedict. Although the Libertarian Party and the Nader campaign each turned in over 80,000 signatures on the same day, Nader's signatures were two weeks late for the deadline for independent Presidential candidates- and, according to statistical analysis, only contained between 56,000 and 63,000 valid signatures- more than required by a party, but less than required by an independent.
Yeakel's ruling relied heavily upon precedent cases, especially the last attempt by independent candidates to challenge Texas' high requirements, Texas Independent Party v. Kirk.
The U. S. Fifth Circuit Court's ruling in TIP v. Kirk, which also claimed that the stringent requirements of Texas ballot access were non-discriminatory, reminded ballot access law expert Richard Winger of an quote about 18th Century French law. "The law, in its majesty, forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges."
With judicial relief unlikely in the near future, the Libertarian Party of Texas plans to join with other political parties and independent campaign activists to lobby for ballot access reform. "There's a difference between screening out frivolous candidates and prohibiting all competition," said Kris Overstreet, organizer for the Libertarians' lobbying efforts. "The government says voters need to be protected from confusing variety of candidates; I say the voters can deal with more than two choices. We can do with a little confusion."
Benedict agrees with Overstreet's sentiments, confident in ballot access reform's chances for success. "With Libertarians being the only third party on the ballot, and since Libertarians traditionally take more votes from Republicans than Democrats, perhaps the Republican controlled legislature will be in the mood to lower the ballot access requirements in the future so that the Greens, independents, or other third parties will have an easier time to get on the ballot."
The complete ruling, styled Nader v. Connor, may be found here (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader).
#
Previous Page
|
