That is just morally wrong.
And, it is also foolish for the overall goal of progressives. Because having the ability to create third parties is one way that the grassroots can bring progressive issues into the political discourse. Unfair ballot access laws, and individual, collective and governmental attacks on the right of third party candidates to run stops important issues from appearing on the ballot with a party who champions those issues. Harming the electoral ability of third parties stifles grassroots movements and movements for social justice.
At the 2007 Green Party Annual National Meeting, Nader noted:
“Historically, the great ideas that have animated social justice and driven it to some sort of success in our country, have all come from 3rd parties. And, aren’t we glad that ballot access barriers were much lower in the 19th century than they are today, much less obstructive?
Because, that allowed the Liberty Party, the Anti-slavery Party, the Women’s Right to Vote Party, the Labor Party, the Populist Party, the Farmer Party to get on the ballot.”
I would also like to believe that as progressives, we could be as fair as our somewhat conservative court system. In the matter of Collins v. Heffernan, in the Supreme Court of New York, it refers to another case, Lefkowitz v. Cohen, to state that “The courts have hesitated in depriving a citizen from being a candidate in a primary or general election.”
If the courts hesitate to deprive a citizen of their right to run for office, why would we, as progressive citizens, want to do anything to deprive a fellow citizen of running for office?
Some people in the media, and some people in the Democratic Party, have so slandered Nader, it is difficult to hold him up as an example. It is probably difficult to identify with him. But, truly, just as I was oppressed when I had to face unfair signature requirements and a challenge by the local Board of Elections, Nader is oppressed when he has to meet the unfair ballot access requirements many states hold out for non-major party presidential candidates. But, let’s put Nader aside for a moment, and look at another right.
You, as a citizen, have a right to nominate candidates to run for office.
So, if there are unfair ballot access laws, then it is difficult or impossible for you to have the right to place on the ballot candidates who you believe in and want to vote for. There is an explanation of this right in case law from New York State. In the matter of Hopper v. Britt, the case law shows that, “Section 1 of article I of the Constitution of the State of New York provides that ‘[no] member of this state shall be disenfranchised’. Where a statute amounts to an unnecessary or unreasonable restraint on the freedom to nominate candidates it is in conflict with the Constitution.”
It is frustrating that otherwise well-meaning progressives can stand by and just watch while a candidate like Nader struggles to get on the ballot. And, somehow, if that progressive has already decided that they are betting on whichever Democrat wins the convention, they can ignore Nader’s struggle, or even come out against Nader. At some point, if we are to be sincere, if we are to guard our own rights from erosion, we have to look past Nader and his, personal situation, and see that by denying and attacking Nader, we are more importantly denying the fundamental right of all of Nader’s supporters to put someone on the ballot who they wish to vote for.
Even if a citizen belongs to a third party, it should not be difficult for her to choose a candidate whom she would like to place on the ballot. If a citizen belong to a third party, or if he gets together with independent citizens in his town for a certain cause, he should be able to choose a candidate who represents his wishes, and have that candidate placed on the ballot.
If we were at the meeting of a local organization, or a board meeting, would we praise measures to block people from nominating candidates? I do not believe we would find that democratic or fair.
If we were aware that a local candidate debate was going to exclude an independent, third party, or even write-in candidate, would we encourage that exclusion? Many of us have probably spoken up for including all candidates.
Even during campaign season, even when we think we know which seemingly progressive candidate has the best chance of winning, progressives need to slow down and respect the democratic process. We need to respect the right of every candidate to run. We need to respect the right of every citizen to place someone on the ballot who they wish to nominate.
Richard Winger notes, “In order to keep our political system healthy, we must once again allow people the freedom to vote for the qualified candidate of their choice. Such freedom is not only essential to the health of our government but also to our right as citizens of the United States.”
And, it is also foolish for the overall goal of progressives. Because having the ability to create third parties is one way that the grassroots can bring progressive issues into the political discourse. Unfair ballot access laws, and individual, collective and governmental attacks on the right of third party candidates to run stops important issues from appearing on the ballot with a party who champions those issues. Harming the electoral ability of third parties stifles grassroots movements and movements for social justice.
At the 2007 Green Party Annual National Meeting, Nader noted:
“Historically, the great ideas that have animated social justice and driven it to some sort of success in our country, have all come from 3rd parties. And, aren’t we glad that ballot access barriers were much lower in the 19th century than they are today, much less obstructive?
I would also like to believe that as progressives, we could be as fair as our somewhat conservative court system. In the matter of Collins v. Heffernan, in the Supreme Court of New York, it refers to another case, Lefkowitz v. Cohen, to state that “The courts have hesitated in depriving a citizen from being a candidate in a primary or general election.”
If the courts hesitate to deprive a citizen of their right to run for office, why would we, as progressive citizens, want to do anything to deprive a fellow citizen of running for office?
Some people in the media, and some people in the Democratic Party, have so slandered Nader, it is difficult to hold him up as an example. It is probably difficult to identify with him. But, truly, just as I was oppressed when I had to face unfair signature requirements and a challenge by the local Board of Elections, Nader is oppressed when he has to meet the unfair ballot access requirements many states hold out for non-major party presidential candidates. But, let’s put Nader aside for a moment, and look at another right.
You, as a citizen, have a right to nominate candidates to run for office.
So, if there are unfair ballot access laws, then it is difficult or impossible for you to have the right to place on the ballot candidates who you believe in and want to vote for. There is an explanation of this right in case law from New York State. In the matter of Hopper v. Britt, the case law shows that, “Section 1 of article I of the Constitution of the State of New York provides that ‘[no] member of this state shall be disenfranchised’. Where a statute amounts to an unnecessary or unreasonable restraint on the freedom to nominate candidates it is in conflict with the Constitution.”
It is frustrating that otherwise well-meaning progressives can stand by and just watch while a candidate like Nader struggles to get on the ballot. And, somehow, if that progressive has already decided that they are betting on whichever Democrat wins the convention, they can ignore Nader’s struggle, or even come out against Nader. At some point, if we are to be sincere, if we are to guard our own rights from erosion, we have to look past Nader and his, personal situation, and see that by denying and attacking Nader, we are more importantly denying the fundamental right of all of Nader’s supporters to put someone on the ballot who they wish to vote for.
Even if a citizen belongs to a third party, it should not be difficult for her to choose a candidate whom she would like to place on the ballot. If a citizen belong to a third party, or if he gets together with independent citizens in his town for a certain cause, he should be able to choose a candidate who represents his wishes, and have that candidate placed on the ballot.
If we were at the meeting of a local organization, or a board meeting, would we praise measures to block people from nominating candidates? I do not believe we would find that democratic or fair.
If we were aware that a local candidate debate was going to exclude an independent, third party, or even write-in candidate, would we encourage that exclusion? Many of us have probably spoken up for including all candidates.
Even during campaign season, even when we think we know which seemingly progressive candidate has the best chance of winning, progressives need to slow down and respect the democratic process. We need to respect the right of every candidate to run. We need to respect the right of every citizen to place someone on the ballot who they wish to nominate.
Richard Winger notes, “In order to keep our political system healthy, we must once again allow people the freedom to vote for the qualified candidate of their choice. Such freedom is not only essential to the health of our government but also to our right as citizens of the United States.”
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
