>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/11/04 3:03 AM >>> At 1:03 AM -0400 8/11/04, Michael Hoover wrote: >of course, my point was that nader people have not - and will not - >raise equal protection matter (although they'll - no doubt, and >rightly so - complain about being exluded from prez debates)...
Have you actually looked into all the lawsuits that the Nader campaigns have filed? Here are a couple of lawsuits (probably among many more) that the Nader campaigns this year and in the part have filed, singly or jointly with other parties: the 2004 Texas General Election and all subsequent General Elections in Texas, and the facts and circumstances relating thereto, are illegal and unconstitutional, in that they are violative of the rights of the Plaintiffs under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to <blockquote>1. This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs challenge the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's requirement <blockquote>Ohio had authority to list the name of presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the November 2000 ballot without his Green Party affiliation, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. Ohio officials said the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling upholds the state's position that it has authority to impose reasonable requirements for ballot listings to ensure orderly, fair elections. The Green Party and Nader had argued that keeping the party's designation off the ballot violated their constitutional rights of free speech, free association and equal protection of law. As a matter of fact, in his writing, Nader indicted violations of the equal protection clause as early as in 1958 in the context of noting the court's turning a blind eye to them: The Illinois law was challenged by the Progressive Party just before the 1948 elections. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court where it was argued that the statute's disproportionate favoring of rural counties violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, the court disagreed and upheld the law. Writing the dissent, Justice Douglas stated: "The notion that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to our standards for popular representative government." He was referring to the fact that 25,000 signatures from 50 of the least populous counties could form a new party while the same number from 49 counties with 87 percent of the registered voters could not. . . . <<<<<>>>>> stand corrected re. reference to 14th amendment, although none of above addresses point i was making, they're all *within* states, not *among* them.. texas example is about differential filing deadlines between parties and independent candidates in texas, not differential deadlines throughout states... penn example is about absence of waiver for filing fee in penn (other states make allowance for such, thus, to not do so could be determined 'unreasonable' under 83 supreme court decision btw: 83 supreme court decision allows for differential definition of 'reasonableness'... ohio example is about differential number of petition signatures needed in ohio, party vs independent candidate... re. illinois example in 58 nader co-authored article, douglas dissent refers to differential number of signatures among state's counties, interestingly, this does begin to get at my point if douglass critique is applied *among* the states, similar to warren's 64 majority opinion in _reynolds v sims_ (case from alabama, if memory serves correctly) holding that one-person one-vote apportionment principle applied to state senates as well as to state lower-houses, if so, similar *principle* could also apply to u.s. senate irrespective of 1787 constitutional arrangement, same for douglass dissent if one considers differential numbers in various states (which could be addressed with use of percentage since states do have different size populations)... many technical/procedural/justice problems arise from 1787 constitutional language assigning each state authority to determine times, places, manner of holding elections... >Sorry, I meant to write the Liberty Party. "Although its vote never >exceeded 3% of the votes cast in a presidential election, the party >did further political abolitionism. In closely contested state and >local elections, the Liberty party often held the balance of power, >sometimes causing major party candidates to take advanced antislavery >positions in a bid for its support" (Kinley J. Brauer, "Liberty >Party," Encyclopedia Americana). More importantly, many Libertymen >eventually joined with anti-slavery factions of Whigs and Democrats >to form the Free Soil Party, many of whose former members would later >form the core of the Republican Party. Only out of many seeming >failures can a movement grow -- in fact, there is no way people can >gain political experience except by trying, failing, and trying again >over at least several decades. Yoshie <<<<<>>>>> is lesson of above that 'minor parties' offer 'safety valve' or 'protest' option whose issue/s will, at some juncture perhaps, be picked up by major party/ies (and usually softened in some ways) if they have resonance... michael hoover -------------------------------------------------------------- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
