Looks like some judge that likes to ignore the law has just ruled that Nader be taken off the ballot on Florida. The reason given was because his political party 'is no longer what it used to be'. Geez thats an interesting turn of events.

Judge deals Florida ballot setback to Nader

 

The ruling for now: Nader can't be on the state's presidential ballot. Time is against him as he plans an appeal.

 

By STEVE BOUSQUET, Times Staff Writer

Published September 10, 2004

 

TALLAHASSEE - For now, Ralph Nader is off the Florida presidential ballot.

 

While he fights to get back on the ballot, time and the legal system are working against him.

 

The state Division of Elections on Thursday told elections supervisors across the state to list seven candidates for president on the Nov. 2 ballot. Nader was not one of them.

 

The ballot must go next week to overseas voters, including Florida soldiers fighting in Iraq.

 

Circuit Judge P. Kevin Davey ruled late Wednesday that Nader failed to meet legal qualifications as a minor party candidate. Davey said the Reform Party is not a party under state law, and that Nader did not collect enough valid voter signatures and was not nominated by a party's national convention.

 

He suggested his temporary order will likely become permanent. "I'm quite confident in the ruling. There's at least 15 reasons as to why they won't qualify, at least 15 that I counted up," Davey said. "If it was one or two, I'd be worried about it, but there's a whole lot of reasons."

 

State officials must give elections supervisors time to print overseas ballots to mail them by Sept. 18. Florida is under a consent decree with the U.S. Department of Justice requiring it to mail overseas absentee ballots at least 45 days before the election.

 

State lawyers also told the judge that Monroe County must send its overseas ballots to the printer as early as today because Hurricane Ivan is forcing an evacuation of the Keys.

 

"It's essential that we move forward as quickly as possible," said Richard Perez, an attorney for Secretary of State Glenda Hood.

 

After several hours of off-and-on court proceedings Thursday involving a steadily expanding group of lawyers, Davey stood by his decision to keep Nader off the ballot. "I think I'm right," Davey said.

 

The judge could not hear arguments today, but agreed to do so next week, though Ivan and Rosh Hashana will shorten the court calendar.

 

Nader did not have an attorney at Wednesday's six-hour session and much of the time was used up by attorneys for four voters, the Democratic Party and the Ballot Project, an independent political group challenging Nader's candidacy in Florida.

 

"We believe due process was not observed," said Theresa Amato, Nader's national campaign chairman. "What the judge did was, in effect, turn the clock against the campaign."

 

Amato said she had to hunt for a local attorney to represent Nader. The lawyer she chose gave more ammunition to Democrats' allegations that Republicans are helping Nader.

 

Nader's Florida lawyer is Kenneth Sukhia, 51, a partner in the Fowler White firm in Tallahassee and a former federal prosecutor.

 

Sukhia was a member of the team of Republican lawyers who assisted President Bush in the 2000 recount, and was nominated by President Bush to a federal judgeship in 2001. His name was withdrawn because of Democratic opposition in the Senate.

 

Asked who suggested Sukhia, Amato said: "I don't know. I'll have to check." She said there's no "political litmus test for a lawyer."

 

On short notice, Sukhia showed up in court Thursday in blue jeans, and told the judge he needed more time to prepare.

 

Also appearing in court on behalf of Secretary of State Hood were attorneys Peter Antonacci and George Meros, two Tallahassee lawyers with Republican ties. Nader got about 92,000 votes in Florida in 2000, in an election in which George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 527 votes. Democrats say his presence on the ballot would siphon votes from John Kerry, and they filed a lawsuit challenging his qualifications.

 

"It's a farce," Democratic Party chairman Scott Maddox said of Nader's minor-party credentials under Florida law. "We welcome anyone to the ballot as long as they adhere to Florida's election laws. If George Bush and John Kerry are both required to follow Florida statutes, so should Ralph Nader."

 

With Nader still arguing his case in the Florida courts, the list that was circulated to 67 counties Thursday carried a warning from the Division of Elections: "This is ongoing litigation and therefore the list of presidential candidates may change."

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/10/State/Ju...Florida_b.shtml

 

it's interesting that buchanan had no problem getting on the ballot as the reform party candidate in 2000.

where is lcyberlina on her soapbox now preaching how kerry and democrats want to protect democracy? I doubt bushies would be up to this.

Not cool

where is lcyberlina on her soapbox now preaching how kerry and democrats want to protect democracy?? I doubt bushies would be up to this.

550213[/snapback]

 

Do as we say, not as we do...

 

Free speech for me, but not for thee...

550221[/snapback]

everyone in florida should write in nader for this hideous move

where is lcyberlina on her soapbox now preaching how kerry and democrats want to protect democracy?? I doubt bushies would be up to this.

550213[/snapback]

 

Do as we say, not as we do...

 

Free speech for me, but not for thee...

550221[/snapback]

everyone in florida should write in nader for this hideous move

550236[/snapback]

Most who were going to vote for him will do that anyway.

That's not cool :mad :

America needs to change the system (like some of Europe) that allows for a multiple party system. Both the Republican and Democratic party contain factions that could be parties within themselves, however the parties themselves are guilty of collusion (yes, they work together on something! Its not party exclusive) to keep smaller parties out and to stifle dissent with party ranks. Something has gotta change.

America needs to change the system (like some of Europe) that allows for a multiple party system. Both the Republican and Democratic party contain factions that could be parties within themselves, however the parties themselves are guilty of collusion (yes, they work together on something! Its not party exclusive) to keep smaller parties out and to stifle dissent with party ranks. Something has gotta change.

550263[/snapback]

 

Amen!

 

:notworthy

America needs to change the system (like some of Europe) that allows for a multiple party system. Both the Republican and Democratic party contain factions that could be parties within themselves, however the parties themselves are guilty of collusion (yes, they work together on something! Its not party exclusive) to keep smaller parties out and to stifle dissent with party ranks. Something has gotta change.

550263[/snapback]

if we have it where the percentage a party wins nationally determines representation in congress, we will hand our powers of electing individuals ENTIRELY to organizations. this way, we cannot hold individuals accountable. I favor the current system.

I'll be surprised if the Florida Supreme Court doesn't wind up overturning this.

 

Certainly there are qualifications that need to be met to get on state election ballots, (& many states differ), but I can't find any clear details that explain the ruling.

 

I find it hard to believe that the judge ruled on this just because the reform party just "isn't what it used to be".

 

The Reform Party certainly isn't what it was when Perot or Buchanan ran. But so what? To say that the Reform Party is no longer a viable political organization.... what's the qualification here? # of registered members? From what I read I thought they had the required number of petitions to get on the ballot.

 

I mean true they've had no candidates for any election whatsoever since 2000, but why that would necessary disqualify them I have no idea.

The reason the 2 party system works is because it balances out. Independent parties like Nader's are there for the reason that they like to weigh in on several key issues somewhere near the other parties but do not agree with the issue.

 

I like the 2 party system because back in the day when we had Whigs, Federalists, and Democratic-Republicans it was too difficult to get things done orderly and the differences between the parties was not enough to warrant so many being around.

 

You pick the party you most agree with or become an independent. You have your voice and vote either way.

Im actually curious as to why nader is running with the reform party and not the green party like in 2000

i don't think the greens wanted him

The reason the 2 party system works is because it balances out. Independent parties like Nader's are there for the reason that they like to weigh in on several key issues somewhere near the other parties but do not agree with the issue.

 

I like the 2 party system because back in the day when we had Whigs, Federalists, and Democratic-Republicans it was too difficult to get things done orderly and the differences between the parties was not enough to warrant so many being around.

 

You pick the party you most agree with or become an independent. You have your voice and vote either way.

550326[/snapback]

 

I don't think the Federalist party was around by the time the Whigs were.

 

And do you mean that any system that allows 3 parties is too cumbersome? what if the republican party started getting too far to the right, or the opposite for the democrats, I'm sure a moderate third party could get a lot of support. It's what (to an extent) the libertarian party is trying to do.

whigs and democrats were only around at the same time until the lincoln election brought 4 large parties. then it has been republican democrat ever since.

The reason the 2 party system works is because it balances out. Independent parties like Nader's are there for the reason that they like to weigh in on several key issues somewhere near the other parties but do not agree with the issue.

 

I like the 2 party system because back in the day when we had Whigs, Federalists, and Democratic-Republicans it was too difficult to get things done orderly and the differences between the parties was not enough to warrant so many being around.

 

You pick the party you most agree with or become an independent. You have your voice and vote either way.

550326[/snapback]

 

I don't think the Federalist party was around by the time the Whigs were.

 

And do you mean that any system that allows 3 parties is too cumbersome? what if the republican party started getting too far to the right, or the opposite for the democrats, I'm sure a moderate third party could get a lot of support. It's what (to an extent) the libertarian party is trying to do.

550351[/snapback]

The Republicans are not running too far to the right. Our party is very healthy. The Democrats are the ones alienating people causing them to jump ship to Independent or Republican status. In the United States, a 3 party system is too cumbersome in the current political situation.

The reason the 2 party system works is because it balances out. Independent parties like Nader's are there for the reason that they like to weigh in on several key issues somewhere near the other parties but do not agree with the issue.

 

I like the 2 party system because back in the day when we had Whigs, Federalists, and Democratic-Republicans it was too difficult to get things done orderly and the differences between the parties was not enough to warrant so many being around.

 

You pick the party you most agree with or become an independent. You have your voice and vote either way.

550326[/snapback]

 

I don't think the Federalist party was around by the time the Whigs were.

 

And do you mean that any system that allows 3 parties is too cumbersome? what if the republican party started getting too far to the right, or the opposite for the democrats, I'm sure a moderate third party could get a lot of support. It's what (to an extent) the libertarian party is trying to do.

550351[/snapback]

The Republicans are not running too far to the right. Our party is very healthy. The Democrats are the ones alienating people causing them to jump ship to Independent or Republican status. In the United States, a 3 party system is too cumbersome in the current political situation.

550366[/snapback]

I know right! John Kerry is such a radical. :lol Get real dood.

Wow, its great to know we live in a democracy where a single liberal judge can take a candidate off the ballot. :o

Wow, its great to know we live in a democracy where a single liberal judge can take a candidate off the ballot. :o

550711[/snapback]

Fortunately, we got it right in Maine. The democrats were denied their petetion which claimed some of the Nader signatures were unauthorized. Although they will most likely appeal the Secretary of State's decision, for now Nader is on the ballot here.

1. Did anybody actually read the ruling? I read it on the Herald and it sounds as if Nader didnt meet any of the elements necessary to qualify. Of course the local media highlights one element. Why dont we get the ruling first before we rant about activist judges that rule againt your views but are sound and solid when ruling for your views.

 

And how is he ruling outside the scope of the law? The FLORIDA LEGISLATURE says that those who are not a legit party are not allowed. Maybe if the nitwit legislature would be more specific and not so politically inclined all the time then judges wouldnt be in this position.

 

Note also that there were 15 other reasons according to the judge so the media probably screwed this one up as they often do with courtroom stuff.

 

It amazes me to hear this activist judges crap when I just read about 10 cases where liberal judges basically said they WANTED TO rule against immunity for these companies but Congress had spoken and they had no choice. Of course the right never brings this up.

 

2. It might have also helped if Nader had sent a representative to the hearing! The Republican paid attorney showed up in Jeans? Are you kidding me?

 

3. Oh brother. I love how the conervatives here all of a sudden have become the torchbearers of democracy. Why is Glenda Hood then fighting so hard to prevent a paper trail for the electronic machines? If this was a conservative causing trouble, then theyd be all over him, especially in this election. These conservatives dont give a damn about Nader. Just as long as it means their guy wins. Reminds me of Iraq..alterior motives and all.

1. Did anybody actually read the ruling? I read it on the Herald and it sounds as if Nader didnt meet any of the elements necessary to qualify. Of course the local media highlights one element. Why dont we get the ruling first before we rant about activist judges that rule againt your views but are sound and solid when ruling for your views.

 

And how is he ruling outside the scope of the law? The FLORIDA LEGISLATURE says that those who are not a legit party are not allowed. Maybe if the nitwit legislature would be more specific and not so politically inclined all the time then judges wouldnt be in this position.

 

Note also that there were 15 other reasons according to the judge so the media probably screwed this one up as they often do with courtroom stuff.

 

It amazes me to hear this activist judges crap when I just read about 10 cases where liberal judges basically said they WANTED TO rule against immunity for these companies but Congress had spoken and they had no choice. Of course the right never brings this up.

 

2. It might have also helped if Nader had sent a representative to the hearing! The Republican paid attorney showed up in Jeans? Are you kidding me?

 

3. Oh brother. I love how the conervatives here all of a sudden have become the torchbearers of democracy. Why is Glenda Hood then fighting so hard to prevent a paper trail for the electronic machines? If this was a conservative causing trouble, then theyd be all over him, especially in this election. These conservatives dont give a damn about Nader. Just as long as it means their guy wins. Reminds me of Iraq..alterior motives and all.

551001[/snapback]

:notworthy

 

 

 

F_M, that was awesome.

I'm sure the democrats wouldn't support a candidate in the race who takes votes from bush.

I dont think they would be starting active drives to help him and paying for his attorneys.

I dont think they would be starting active drives to help him and paying for his attorneys.

551498[/snapback]

The dems will do anything to get their guy elected, just like the republicans.