portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts oregon & cascadia

government

Nader Campaign Appeals to US Supreme Court

Oregon Supreme Court Removes Independent Campaign from the Ballot
September 22, 2004

A few minutes ago, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a decision removing Ralph Nader from the Oregon ballot. The Nader Campaign is taking steps to appeal the Oregon Supreme Court decision to the US Supreme Court.

In reaction to the decision Ralph Nader said:

"This is a sad day for democracy in America. It is evident that our independent presidential campaign has greatly stressed a corrupt exclusionary system, and that the Democratic Party will stop at nothing to deny voters the opportunity to vote for our candidacy. They would rather limit voters' choices—in an attempt to force them to vote for a candidate they do not believe in and do not support or stay at home in disgust. The anti-democratic approach of the Democratic Party is weakening a democracy already rendered anemic."

The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Marion County Circuit Court, which had found against Secretary of State's Bradbury's refusal to count over 3,000 of the 18,000 voter signatures that had been submitted by the Nader campaign and found valid and verified by Oregon County Boards of Elections. The Circuit Court had concluded that the Secretary of State had applied "unwritten rules" to the Nader petitions:

"These unwritten rules, however longstanding, are not supported by the written administrative rules as set forth in the Manual, and they are inconsistent with ORS 247.005, as well as with the prior policy of the Elections Division as set forth above. Additionally, it was obvious from the testimony of Mr. Lindback that the Secretary's unwritten rules were not applied either uniformly or consistently in actual practice."

The Oregon Supreme Court's decision allows the Secretary of State to use 'unwritten rules," pertaining to the appearance of the circulator's signature on each petition, to disqualify the valid and county-verified voter signatures on each petition. The decision refers to "directives" that the Secretary of State issued to the county elections offices but fails to recognize that those directives were not "rules" but instead were internal directives that were not provided to the public. Further, there was nothing in the said internal directives that authorized the Secretary of State to remove the 3,000 signatures in question after the counties had all already competed their work.

The Nader campaign will be arguing to the US Supreme Court that the Secretary of State's actions violated the rights of voters and circulators under the United States Constitution.

homepage: homepage: http://naderoregon.org

Gotta love this 24.Sep.2004 09:10

Kevin Coughlin

So the same Supreme Court that refused to count all the votes in Florida for Gore in 2000 is what Nader turns to to get him on the ballot in Oregon. They have a right wing political agenda so my guess is that they will put Nader back on the Ballot.

Wow it seems as if we are all pawns in this game. I shake my head in disbelief...

Hard for me to do 24.Sep.2004 10:23

teddy ruxpin (the lousy typist)

I have to force myself to not be a hypocrite here. It is really really hard, but I have to admit that Nader does have every right to be on this balot, and people who hate the environment have every right to vote for him, thus ensuring another four years of Bush environmental rollbacks. Nader is a mere shadow of the man he used to be, and this campaign is entirely about his ego since he has long ago stopped caring about his issues. But he still has the right to run.

Free country=letting everyone have equal access to the ballot. The hillariously saddening thing is that this country will likely use its freedom to vote itself less free. Remember: Hitler was a freely elected leader.

teddy 24.Sep.2004 12:04

Dim-Bulb/Flip-Flop in 2004!!!

RE: "Nader does have every right to be on this balot, and people who hate the environment have every right to vote for him"

Your implication is that people that don't hate the environment DON'T have that right. Sort of like, if you don't vote for Bush, then you hate freedom.

Also, Hitler was not freely elected as you claim, but instead came to power much the same way that Bush did. You may want to review your claim.

hypocrisy abounds 24.Sep.2004 12:13

sick of democrites and republicrites

"Nader is a mere shadow of the man he used to be"

So, if Nader is a mere shadow in going to the RNC and calling for Bush to be impeached, what does that make Kerry who spent the RNC on vacation?

What's so funny to me is the democrats want it both ways: they want to blame Nader for the 2000 election while simultaneously claiming that the election was fixed. Can't have it both ways guys, sorry. Either admit Bush was legitimately elected or that he stole the election. One is truthful, and the other will allow you to continue your misdirected anger. It's your choice, make the most of it.

And one more thing, isn't it funny how everyone agrees that Nader got enough signatures to be on the ballot. The democrats have lost all respect for our democracy by continuing to work against the will of the people. They may find that subverting democracy isn't a winning strategy when one wants to appeal to those who believe in the principles of democracy.

Living wage 24.Sep.2004 14:04

George Bender

Nader is the only serious candidate representing the third of working Americans who make less than a living wage. The Democrats have long since abandoned us in favor of the middle and upper classes, especially the rich who pay for their campaigns. For those of us with low incomes, it is against our self-interest to vote for Democrats. Time to say no. I'll be writing in Nader.


Hilarity Ensues 24.Sep.2004 14:40

Jaded

I heard on NPR that Nader supporters are vowing to wage a write-in campaign if the US Supreme Court doesn't let Nader on the ballot. That's very funny. Bush and Kerry are shaking in their boots at the prospect of literally dozens of people writing in Nader.

tadow 24.Sep.2004 16:40

how you like me now!

Keep Nader of the ballot, I'll vote for Bush.

Predicting a 5-4 Decision 24.Sep.2004 18:01

Anarchy-nonymous

The same 5-4 distribution of the Supreme Court that stopped any chance of a recount in 2000 and, against the US Constitution, appointed George Bush. Except this time Clarence Thomas, Sandra O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and company will (wow, gosh, golley) support Nader's right to be on the ballot in a swing state! The reason is, of course, that Nader is in the fold himself. I'm sure that on their next hunting trip Scalia and Cheney will have a good laugh about the "progressive/liberal Nader supporters." Cheney might even refer to them as "fuckers."

more democrat doublethink 24.Sep.2004 18:36

sick of hypocrats and hypoplicans

Come one, which is it democrats: did Bush steal the election or did Nader "spoil" it? Is Nader the worst threat to democracy or a candidate no one will be voting for?

Your lack of grasp of any political reality is truly hilarious.

"Predicting a 5-4 Decision"

You'll be proved wrong soon enough but at least your "predication" betrays your superficial understanding of the political situation in this country.

If the democrats really believe that Nader isn't a threat they must be pissed by the tremendous amount of money being spent to defeat him by the democrats not to mention the fact that everyone can now see the democrats contempt for democracy and it's principles and practices; indeed it's very spirit.

I'm sure Nader is such a "spoiler" that the republicans are sure to invite him into the debates. His exclusion in 2004, 2000, and 1996 must have been just an oversight, right? Surely the republicans wouldn't fail to use Nader to their full advantage, right?

But wait, if the republicans don't invite Nader to the debates what does that say about what the republican leadership knows about the "spoiler" myth. Hmmm, I guess they remember 1992 all too well. It's a shame the democrats don't. You'd think one would look to past victories to find examples of effective strategies, but not the democrats. That puts them one important step behind the republicans who have learned from their mistakes, and avoided those of the democrats (can you imagine what would happen to the republicans in 2000 if they had attacked Perot as a "spoiler").

Well, you can lead a donkey to water...

Attention 24.Sep.2004 19:47

George Bender

There is an old joke about a guy who hits a mule over the head with a 2 by 4. Someone asks him, "Why did you do that?" He replies, "First you have to get their attention." I guess the same applies to donkeys.


clarification 25.Sep.2004 08:42

teddy ruxpin (the lousy typist)

I did not mean to say that any people do not have the right to vote for Nader, just that voting for Nader (in swing states only) will cause harm to the environment. I am not a Kerry booster or anything, just a person who is able to count. The polls all show that Nader has enough support to draw from the left just enough votes to tip the scales to a Bush victory.

No matter what side of the issues you are on, Bush victory=bad for the environment. Kerry probably bad too, but not quite as bad as Bush on that issue.

As for Hitler's election to power, yes it was VERY similar to Bush's, but unlike Bush's, there was an actual ascention to power that was "legal" under the laws of the time, where in the USA it is proven many laws were violated and the scention of Bush was not "legal" under our laws. Thin technicality, but most political history, especially that cited in debates such as this, is founded on this technicalities.

And Nader IS a mere shadow of the man he used to be, I am old enough to remember when he was a revolutionary and not a mere publicity hound like he is today. But Nader's good points (such as his RNC speaches) have nothing to do with Kerry's bad points (windsurfing). Politics is not a ero sum game, what makes one strong does not make the other weak, these candidates are all individuals. We make the mistake of saying "Well this guy sucks, so that must mean this other guy is great!"

Bush sucks, this does not make Kerry great. Kerry sucks, this does not make Nader great. Nader sucks, this does not somehow make Bush great. That is just not the way it works. If I did not live in a swing state, I would vote Nader partly out of respect for who he once was, partly out of hope that guy can come back from obscurity, and partly because I just want a multiparty system and he is the only national candidate that has a hope of bringing that. But I live in a swing state, and the risk of four years of Bush is the risk of instant death to thousands, permanent damage to my planet and long-term harm to democracy.

Kerry would just be barely better, but I can not bring myself to cast a vote that I know would stand a mathematical good chance of killing people and fucking the planet. Thus, I can not vote for Nader in this state (though I urge those in non-swing states to do so).

My personal opinion, nothing more.

got to stop voting duopoly 25.Sep.2004 11:46

EndTheDuopoly

Simple math and counting doesn't take the complexities of elections into accoutn. In florida 2000, for instance, Nader got 25% who would have voted Bush, 38% who would have voted Gore, and the rest would have non-voted. As a matter of logic, you can't say that Gore would have "gotten" Nader's percentage. But, the idea that you can give votes that one candidate has to another is just inherently paternalistic and undemocratic.

Hey, check out what happens with Nader in Oregon. He sure isn't "helping" Bush much:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/08/295244.shtml
Here's the site, you can see what happens with Nader in and out of the race:
 http://www.theunitycampaign.org/battleground

About florida (and the iraq war, and the patriot act), why don't the democrats do anything about it? If anyone thinks that Bush is akin to Hitler, if they really believe that, why are the democrats NOT up in arms about it??? Why did they let Bush get in office unchallenged? Why did they vote for the Iraq war? Why did they vote for the Patriot Act? why haven't impeachment hearings begun? Really, doomsayers -- if things are SOOO Bad, how come the "good" democratic party isn't doing anything about it except using it for election-time propaganda?

Anyways, I think that Bush-as-Hitler arguments have gotten a little overboard. It's very sensationalistic. Bush is not doing this all on his own. Dont' fall into the trap of scapegoating everything on Bush. Democrats are using Bush as a distraction for the rank and file. Are democrat representatives doing anything about this evil Bush running amuck? Bush isn't doing all this shit on his own, and he's got a lot of democrats, Kerry included, helping him out with votes and such. It's gotten very surreal the sort of hysteria alot of democrats are in over Bush. Hey, how come your reps in the congress aren't as hysterical as you?

Well, I don't have any reassurance that Kerry will be any better than Bush on the environment. Kerry doesn't even talk about the envrionment much. Also, take a look into Plan Columbia and see about some of the environmentalism that Kerry has supported. Kerry's "voting record" might look all right, but his free trade-support sure isn't environmental.

The thing is that Duopoly is always BAD for the environment, either way. YOu'll always have another "Bush" to defeat every 4 years, and that will be the excuse for the "lesser" evil. Duopoly is a corporatist tool used to "keep people in line", so that they will never be offered GOOD choices, and stray from the corporatist agenda. Nothing will change unless people stop voting-for-Duopoly.

teddy ruxpin (the lousy typist) 25.Sep.2004 12:59

George Bender

I can't see any logic, nor do you offer any, behind your opinion that Nader sucks or is a mere shadow of who he used to be. Take a look at Nader's platform on the  http://votenader.org website. Radical enough for me. I've heard Nader speak, read some of his writing and some interviews. I'd say he's still quite sharp and vigorous. I wish Kerry had half of Nader's intellectual capacity and willingness to tell the truth. Who are you comparing Nader to?

Also, this isn't really about Nader as a person. There is no chance of his being elected, nor is that the purpose of the campaign. We are using Nader to stage a revolt against the Democrats and to send a message that we won't tolerate present policies. The Nader campaign is a tool to kill the Democrats, destroy the two party system, and force change. It is the only tool we have.


I Would Go A Step Further Than Even Bender 26.Sep.2004 08:06

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

Democrats don't care about the middle class in this country, either, except when it's time for us to meekly dump money and votes in their laps. If they did care, there's no way that Clinton would have pulled so much of the shit agaisnt us that he did. Much of the middle class in this country was momentarily cushioned by an economic boom that we thought would go on forever (even though booms never do), so we didn't notice what was happening to us on a global scale. As for the free-market-loving DLC shits running the Democrats (into the ground), they either don't know or don't care that continually funnelling good jobs out of the country while expecting American consumers to boost the economy through spending is nothing but a massive pyramid scam. There are only so many credit cards I can apply for to pay for, so many house payments I can skip, so many COBRA payments I can afford if I lose my job in another round of cutbacks or overseas "outsourcing." Once that limited space cushion dissolves, I am no longer a middle-class consumer. When enough of us take this tumble on a national scale, there will simply be no more middle class. Period.

As for "Anarchy," whose all a-flutter because now the Supreme's might get to decide Nader's fate on the ballot... Please. If Bradbury and his thug squad didn't want Nader's case in front of the Supremes, they should have left him the fuck alone in the first place. Oh, and don't make me trot out one more time just how many Democratic heavy-hitters cleared the path for the worst assholes on the Supreme Court in the first place. Grow the fuck up.

More 26.Sep.2004 15:12

teddy ruxpin (the lousy typist)

As for who I am comparing Nader to, I am comparing Nader to Nader. I hate that we can't seem to have a discussion about this guy without automatically dragging in whichever Dem is frontrunning at the moment.

I compare the Nader of today with the Nader of 20 years ago. Really, there is a difference. Look, you won't take my word for it, and you should not. Just go and look up old news articles and maybe you will see what I mean. There is a big difference between the guy 20 years ago and the guy today. Don't just look at various essays, nobody ever accomplished much with just an essay (an essay and some guns maybe, but that is another argument alltogether).

20 years ago, Nader would never have welded himself to this one course of action even at the risk of another four years of "Healthy Forest Initiatives." He would have looked at this situation, said "wow, guy A sucks, guy B sucks too but could be talked into making some slight improvements," and figured out another way of fighting that stood a chance to improve things. Lawsuits, protests, action. Not this endless "Look At Me" ego fest of campaigns.

This could just be me acting a cranky old fart, it is possible. But I don't think so. I see the Modern Nader in the same veign as the Modern Jesse Jackson, a man who is no more a fighter but a leech milking supporters for cash and prestige, who would rather be seen than felt, who will never try to actually solve the problems they care about because their reason for living would go away. Yeah, Nader has some nice campaign platforms and speaches. So what? He is no longer trying to actually DO anything with them. He writes them down, collects your donations and gets his face on camera, and the cycle repeats.

Nowhere in this cycle will you find the adgenda item: "fix a problem with society." Only "Whine about it and get some face time." People get old, they lose their fighting spirit, and they don't want to give up the good life. So they get haircuts and book deals.

I don’t know how simple I can make this? 26.Sep.2004 17:29

Red neck

You need to vote Green. Not for Dems not for Nader, Green!
You need to save the only party that your voice will be heard.
You can see how hard the 'Democrats' can make, how much time, energy and MONEY they can waste. Do you want to go back to zero with no ballot access? 12 years down the tube, all that effort! Save a party for Nader to run on, in 2008.
Don't let the 'Democrats' destroy another progressive movement. Save the Party, Vote Cobb-LaMarche!