Nader Voters File Federal Lawsuit Naming Kerry, Edwards, McAuliffe and others as Co-Conspirators
A lawsuit was filed yesterday in federal court in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, naming John Kerry and John Edwards as defendants who have actively conspired to prevent the development of a national third party by impeding the effort of Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo to be listed on the ballot in states across the country, including Illinois.
Along with Kerry and Edwards, the lawsuit names as defendants organizations and individuals who have played key roles in the effort to deprive Nader/Camejo access to the ballot including: the Democrat National Committee and its chair Terry McAuliffe, Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives Michael Madigan, former Congressman Toby Moffet, TheNaderFactor.com president David Jones, Multnomah County Democrat Party chair Jeff Merrick, and others.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are independent voters from seven states who want the opportunity to vote for the Nader/Camejo ticket to further the process of developing America's independent political movement and to create a broad based national third party.
The suit charges that in early 2004 defendants urged Nader not to run for president as an independent and when he did not acquiesce in their demand, embarked on a conspiracy to deny him ballot access in as many states as possible, thereby impeding the development of a third party.
Plaintiffs include independent voters from Illinois, New York, Texas, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Georgia are joined by The Committee for a Unified Independent Party, a not-for-profit whose purpose is to expand political participation and further the growth of independent politics.
"For the first time in American history a major party and its candidates are attempting to win the White House by preventing independents from even competing," said attorney for the plaintiffs Harry Kresky. "That is a very dangerous precedent for democracy."
Meanwhile in Illinois...
In Illinois, the Nader campaign has filed a separate suit in state court to gain ballot access.
Andrew Spiegel, the campaign’s attorney, is suing the Elections Board in Cook County Court, asking that the objector’s petition be invalidated. The objector is Illinois Speaker of the House Michael Madigan. The suit also requests subpoenas be issued for Madigan’s payroll records.
“We are litigating the argument that the whole objector’s petition should have been thrown out because they violated the Election Interference Act,” Spiegel told IllinoisLeader.com.
“It is a fraud upon the voters of Illinois to use state employees to object to a candidate such as Ralph Nader,” the state suit charged.
Madigan, who also serves as the chairman of the Illinois Democrat Party, is accused “on information and belief” to have used “state employees and state interns at taxpayers’ expense to both prepare and now to litigate the objections filed by John Tully” Nader argued. “An appropriate sanction for the misuse of state employees in such a fashion is to strike and dismiss the objector’s petition that was prepared as a product of such misbegotten labor.”
Nader accused Madigan of “criminal conduct” by his objector’s team. “The Board must issue subpoenas to the Office of Michael Madigan, the office that is orchestrating this objector’s petition, so that it can be determined to what extent state employees have been used in violation of…the Election Code.”
Efforts to elicit a comment from Steve Brown, spokesman for Madigan, were unsuccessful.
Nader’s suit stated the Election Board hearing examiner “acknowledges” the alleged use of Madigan’s state employees “raise[s] serious and troubling allegations about the illegal use of state employees on state time for prohibited political purposes.”
The suit then noted the hearing examiner concluded the Board of Elections “has no power to do anything about these allegations.”
Spiegel said use of state employees for political purposes would require the filing of campaign disclosure forms with the Board of Elections and that state law allows the board to issue subpoenas to investigate such subpoenas. Spiegel argued, “the suffering of direct injury” is “the only requirement for standing under the Election Interference Prohibition Act.”
Citing case law, the attorney alleged that violations in the past “pale in comparison” to, in Nader’s case:
the illegal use of state employees to examine the nomination petitions,
comparing those petitions with voter registration records,
preparing 19,300 objections to the Nader signatures and then to “dragoon state employees and state interns in to the records examination process in order to preserve those objections.”
“Why do we even have a State Board of Elections if it is going to refuse to protect the integrity of the electoral process in this state?” the suit asked.
Nader’s suit also requested that the signatures of 5,246 voters who signed his petitions be accepted, because they are registered in the State of Illinois, although not at the address they signed on the petition.
That would bring Nader’s total over the 25,000 threshold required on third party candidates.
The suit said this is a “constitutional” question that the State Board of Elections should not have ruled on “as a matter of law.”
When the State Board of Elections determined Nader had 21,182 viable signatures, while 25,000 were required for ballot access, the campaign went to federal court.
The candidate challenged inequities in the law, including a special statute passed to allow President George W. Bush on the ballot after the previous legal deadline.
Judge Mark Filip, the first judge assigned the case, asked to be excused from the case because he had signed the Nader petition. The next judge, Matthew Kennelly, a 1998 appointee of President Bill Clinton, followed the Election Board’s example and refused to order Nader on the ballot.
The Nader campaign has filed Freedom of Information requests with the Speaker’s Office, asking for sign-in sheets for people being paid by Madigan’s legislative office. But even after an appeal, no information has been provided.
IllinoisLeader.com also filed an FOI request with Madigan and was also denied his state employees’ time sheets for the month of June. An appeal was sent personally to the Speaker in mid-August. The Speaker responded yesterday, August 27, saying he was still denying IllinoisLeader.com's request because time sheets are personnel files, and the new ethics legislation does not apply.
© 2004 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved
Along with Kerry and Edwards, the lawsuit names as defendants organizations and individuals who have played key roles in the effort to deprive Nader/Camejo access to the ballot including: the Democrat National Committee and its chair Terry McAuliffe, Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives Michael Madigan, former Congressman Toby Moffet, TheNaderFactor.com president David Jones, Multnomah County Democrat Party chair Jeff Merrick, and others.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are independent voters from seven states who want the opportunity to vote for the Nader/Camejo ticket to further the process of developing America's independent political movement and to create a broad based national third party.
The suit charges that in early 2004 defendants urged Nader not to run for president as an independent and when he did not acquiesce in their demand, embarked on a conspiracy to deny him ballot access in as many states as possible, thereby impeding the development of a third party.
Plaintiffs include independent voters from Illinois, New York, Texas, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Georgia are joined by The Committee for a Unified Independent Party, a not-for-profit whose purpose is to expand political participation and further the growth of independent politics.
"For the first time in American history a major party and its candidates are attempting to win the White House by preventing independents from even competing," said attorney for the plaintiffs Harry Kresky. "That is a very dangerous precedent for democracy."
Meanwhile in Illinois...
In Illinois, the Nader campaign has filed a separate suit in state court to gain ballot access.
Andrew Spiegel, the campaign’s attorney, is suing the Elections Board in Cook County Court, asking that the objector’s petition be invalidated. The objector is Illinois Speaker of the House Michael Madigan. The suit also requests subpoenas be issued for Madigan’s payroll records.
“We are litigating the argument that the whole objector’s petition should have been thrown out because they violated the Election Interference Act,” Spiegel told IllinoisLeader.com.
“It is a fraud upon the voters of Illinois to use state employees to object to a candidate such as Ralph Nader,” the state suit charged.
Madigan, who also serves as the chairman of the Illinois Democrat Party, is accused “on information and belief” to have used “state employees and state interns at taxpayers’ expense to both prepare and now to litigate the objections filed by John Tully” Nader argued. “An appropriate sanction for the misuse of state employees in such a fashion is to strike and dismiss the objector’s petition that was prepared as a product of such misbegotten labor.”
Nader accused Madigan of “criminal conduct” by his objector’s team. “The Board must issue subpoenas to the Office of Michael Madigan, the office that is orchestrating this objector’s petition, so that it can be determined to what extent state employees have been used in violation of…the Election Code.”
Efforts to elicit a comment from Steve Brown, spokesman for Madigan, were unsuccessful.
Nader’s suit stated the Election Board hearing examiner “acknowledges” the alleged use of Madigan’s state employees “raise[s] serious and troubling allegations about the illegal use of state employees on state time for prohibited political purposes.”
The suit then noted the hearing examiner concluded the Board of Elections “has no power to do anything about these allegations.”
Spiegel said use of state employees for political purposes would require the filing of campaign disclosure forms with the Board of Elections and that state law allows the board to issue subpoenas to investigate such subpoenas. Spiegel argued, “the suffering of direct injury” is “the only requirement for standing under the Election Interference Prohibition Act.”
Citing case law, the attorney alleged that violations in the past “pale in comparison” to, in Nader’s case:
the illegal use of state employees to examine the nomination petitions,
comparing those petitions with voter registration records,
preparing 19,300 objections to the Nader signatures and then to “dragoon state employees and state interns in to the records examination process in order to preserve those objections.”
“Why do we even have a State Board of Elections if it is going to refuse to protect the integrity of the electoral process in this state?” the suit asked.
Nader’s suit also requested that the signatures of 5,246 voters who signed his petitions be accepted, because they are registered in the State of Illinois, although not at the address they signed on the petition.
That would bring Nader’s total over the 25,000 threshold required on third party candidates.
The suit said this is a “constitutional” question that the State Board of Elections should not have ruled on “as a matter of law.”
When the State Board of Elections determined Nader had 21,182 viable signatures, while 25,000 were required for ballot access, the campaign went to federal court.
The candidate challenged inequities in the law, including a special statute passed to allow President George W. Bush on the ballot after the previous legal deadline.
Judge Mark Filip, the first judge assigned the case, asked to be excused from the case because he had signed the Nader petition. The next judge, Matthew Kennelly, a 1998 appointee of President Bill Clinton, followed the Election Board’s example and refused to order Nader on the ballot.
The Nader campaign has filed Freedom of Information requests with the Speaker’s Office, asking for sign-in sheets for people being paid by Madigan’s legislative office. But even after an appeal, no information has been provided.
IllinoisLeader.com also filed an FOI request with Madigan and was also denied his state employees’ time sheets for the month of June. An appeal was sent personally to the Speaker in mid-August. The Speaker responded yesterday, August 27, saying he was still denying IllinoisLeader.com's request because time sheets are personnel files, and the new ethics legislation does not apply.
© 2004 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved
posted by R7 | 8/30/2004 02:18:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home