This appears in today's Raleigh (NC) News-Observer. It's beginning to look
like N.C. won't be much help to Illinois as a precedent for a favorable
ruling for Nader/LaDuke ballot access.
Interesting at least that NC's board of elections lawyers based their oral
argument in part on 2 things that don't apply to the Illinois case - an
unlimited time to begin gathering signatures (Ill. has that 90-day window)
and an evident lack of effort by NC Greens in gathering sigs - whereas
we've continued doing so even post-deadline.
Jim
--------------------------
>Published: Tuesday, August 1, 2000
>
>Judge gets arguments in Nader ballot plea
>
>By MATTHEW EISLEY, Staff Writer
>
>RALEIGH -- Lawyers for Ralph Nader, the crusading consumer-rights
advocate
>and Green Party candidate for president, asked a federal judge in
Raleigh on
>Monday to force the State Board of Elections
>to put Nader on North Carolina's Nov. 7 presidential
ballot.
>
>The Green Party fell far short of getting the 51,000 voter
signatures by May
>17 that state law requires to get new parties on the ballot. The
party says
>having to get that many signatures that early in an
>election year is unreasonable and an unconstitutional violation
of
>candidates' and voters' free-speech rights under the First
Amendment.
>
>"When you combine those, it's an impossible burden," Green Party
lawyer
>Glenn Moramarco told U.S. District Judge Earl Britt in a
half-hour hearing
>on a lawsuit Nader and the Greens filed in May. "Even
>though [politics] is just starting up, for some reason North
Carolina has
>said it's all over for third-party candidates. What is the harm
of having
>him on the ballot?"
>
>The harm is chaos and unfairness, the state's lawyers
argued.
>
>Chaos, they said, because allowing last-minute additions of minor
parties
>that have not followed the rules would open the flood gates for
all sorts of
>fringe groups, which would confuse and deter voters.
>
>Unfairness because other minor parties, the Libertarians and the
Reformers,
>successfully played by the state's rules and will have candidates
on the
>fall election ballot.
>
>"If our statute is thrown out, any third party, any fourth party,
any group
>of individuals can put their candidate on the ballot," special
deputy
>attorney general Jim Smith argued to the judge. "The state has
a
>legitimate interest in having the candidate demonstrate a
reasonable modicum
>of support. Mr. Nader may be running at 9 percent in California
[polls], but
>he doesn't have the least modicum of support in
>North Carolina."
>
>Both the Libertarian and Reform parties back the Greens'
ballot-access
>lawsuit. Nader did not attend the hearing Monday.
>
>Britt questioned both sides, but seemed sympathetic to the
state's position
>that voiding the law could cause electoral confusion.
>
>"There are not dozens of people clamoring to be on the ballot in
North
>Carolina," Moramarco said.
>
>"You say so, but the Ku Klux Klan could come forward with a
candidate
>tomorrow," Britt replied.
>
>"You're not asking for one person to be put on the ballot," Britt
noted.
>"You're asking the court to declare invalid the state's
qualification
>requirements for political parties. If that happens, the door is
open for
>political parties, is it not?"
>
>The elections board in May denied the Green Party's request to
give it three
>more months, until August, to collect the voter signatures; at
the time, it
>had about 2,000 signatures. The party sued. Its lawyers
>are from the New York University law school's Brennan Center for
Justice.
>
>The elections board argues that the problem isn't the state's
election law,
>but the Greens' laziness: They waited until March to start
gathering voter
>signatures -- instead of starting four years ago, as they
>could have under state law.
>
>"They could have gone to the Rodin exhibit and other places where
people
>have gathered," Smith argued. "They could have gone to the
University of
>North Carolina campus, where there are 20,000
>students we would have called 'left-wing' in my day. They've done
nothing.
>...They've done the harm to themselves."
>
>Moramarco countered that the Greens were in a Catch-22: until
Nader
>announced his presidential candidacy in February, the party drew
little
>public interest. By then, he said, there wasn't enough time
to
>meet the state's requirements.
>
>Britt did not rule Monday on the party's request for a
preliminary
>injunction against the elections board. His ruling is expected by
Aug. 9,
>the last day the elections board says it could reasonably change
its
>ballot-printing plans in time for the November election.
>
>Staff writer Matthew Eisley can be reached at 829-4538 or
meisley@nando.com