Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Supreme Court hits Ralph Nader with $89,821 bill for his 2004 Pennsylvania ballot bid upholding first-of-kind ruling

By       Message Michael Richardson       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   4 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 3874
Become a Fan
  (2 fans)
- Advertisement -
The U.S. Supreme Court, by refusing to review a decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, has upheld a hefty $89,821 penalty levied against Ralph Nader for his failure to obtain ballot access in 2004 during his presidential campaign.

Nader has been ordered to pay the costs of the nineteen lawyers hired by the Democratic Party to challenge his nomination petitions in the Keystone State. This ruling will have a pronounced chilling effect on future candidates in Pennsylvania concerned about large legal bills if they lose. The original bill was $81,102, but has swelled because of interest accrued during the appeal.

Many Democrats blame Ralph Nader for the outcome of the 2000 presidential election where he supposedly siphoned off Democrat voters from the candidacy of Al Gore. Because of that animus, the Democrat Party waged a powerful war of attrition on Nader's 2004 candidacy bringing litigation against Nader in twenty lawsuits in seventeen states. Nader won fifteen of the lawsuits but lost after a hard-fought legal battle in Pennsylvania.

Around the nation, the Democrat Party hired eighty-nine lawyers from forty-eight law firms for the battle to keep Nader off the ballot. Coordinating the legal army was a command group called The Ballot Project whose stated goal was to "neutralize" Nader's campaign by forcing him "to spend money and resources defending these things."

Pennsylvania's restrictive ballot access law required Nader to submit 25,697 nomination petition signatures. Nader doubled that number up and turned in 51,273 signatures. The Democrats sued to challenge Nader's petitions and eleven Pennsylvania judges were assigned to hear the case in courtrooms around the state. Judge James Colins led the judicial team and eventually decided that Nader only had 18,818 valid signatures.

Dissenting from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court majority, which upheld Judge Colins, was Justice Saylor who found that 8,976 of the disqualified signatures should have been permitted, enough to have placed Nader on the ballot.

Emboldened by the state high court support for unbounded discretion, Judge Colins has since assessed the 2006 Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate, Carl Romanelli, with another punitive penalty of $89,668 for failure to make the ballot in a challenge brought again by the Democrats. This new doctrine of imposing stiff financial penalties to losing candidates is expected to sharply reduce candidacies of independent and minor party candidates who can little afford to take the risk of bankruptcy to run for office.

Romanelli had the additional burden, due to a quirk of the election cycle, of needing a whooping 67,000 signatures to place his name on the ballot under Pennsylvania's restrictive election code.

The ruling against Nader is the first of its kind in Pennsylvania and since followed by a similar ruling against Romanelli signals a new method of attack against political opponents that will have a chilling effect on candidate's First Amendment rights. Whether the two major parties start using the tactic against each other, or save the punitive penalties for independent and minor party candidates remains to be seen. Nader's attorneys argued in their brief to the Supreme Court that the Pennsylvania ruling would spread to other states and greatly diminish voter choice in future elections.

[Permission granted to reprint]

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Michael Richardson is a freelance writer living in Belize. Richardson writes about Taiwan foreign policy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Black Panther Party. Richardson was Ralph Nader's ballot access manager during the 2004 and (more...)
 

Michael Richardson Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

J. Edgar Hoover personally ordered FBI to initiate COINTELPRO dirty tricks against Black Panthers in 'Omaha Two' case

Angela Davis Demands 'Omaha Two' Be Freed

FBI agents that spied on Martin Luther King also ran COINTELPRO operation against 'Omaha Two'

Did RFK's search for JFK's killers lead to his own murder?

FBI used United Airlines in planned COINTELPRO action against Black Panthers in 'Omaha Two' case

Roger and Julian Lin are at center of Taiwan Civil Government fraud allegations