An immediate appeal is planned, according to the story. I'm guessing
(hoping) it will be important for the Illinois lawsuit to point toward
differences from the NC case - we had just 90 days to June 26, we showed
significant support since the deadline with our further drives to reach 50
percent over the minimum signatures, etc. Can only hope that appeals courts
are more insulated from politics than the district courts appear to be, at
least in NC.
Interesting too how Britt implicitly buys into the 'money is speech'
argument - that if the Libertarians and Reformistas paid signature
collectors and got on the ballot despite burdensome requirements, well, the
Greens should've 'spent the necessary money,' too, as the story puts it.
Sheesh.
>Judge rejects Green Party's request to get on the November
ballot
>
>
>RALEIGH (AP) -- North Carolina voters will not see Ralph Nader's
name on the
>November presidential ballot.
>
>A federal judge rejected Wednesday the Green Party's request to
order the
>State Board of Elections to put Nader on the ballot.
>
>The Green Party argued that the state's rule for getting a new
party on the
>ballot is unreasonable and an unconstitutional violation of
candidates' and
>voters' free-speech rights.
>
>U.S. District Judge Earl Britt ruled that the party had not come
close to
>meeting the state's requirements for getting on the ballot.
>
>Wednesday was the last day the elections board said it could
change its
>ballot-printing plans.
>
>"It wasn't a decision about whether Ralph Nader ought to be a
candidate or
>whether the Green Party should be a party," said Don Hobart,
legal counsel
>to Attorney General Mike Easley. "It was about
>whether the Green Party had shown sufficient support to be placed
on the
>ballot this year."
>
>The party's attorney said he will file an emergency appeal with
the U.S. 4th
>Circuit Court of Appeals.
>
>"I'm disappointed and surprised," said Green Party attorney Glenn
Moramarco.
>"I thought we had the better of the legal arguments. But we'll
take it up to
>the 4th Circuit and see if they agree."
>
>In his ruling Wednesday, Britt suggested that he will rule later
that the
>state law setting standards for qualifying new political parties
is
>constitutional. He wrote that the Green Party stood little chance
of
>proving otherwise.
>
>The party had argued that the state's requirement that it file
about 51,000
>voter signatures by May 17 to get Nader on the ballot was
unconstitutionally
>onerous.
>
>The party got only about 2,000 signatures by the deadline. It
asked the
>elections board for a three-month extension, which the board
denied. The
>party sued.
>
>Britt ruled Wednesday that the party had caused its own problems
by waiting
>until three months before the deadline to begin collecting voter
signatures
>and then admittedly not trying very hard because it
>did not want to spend the necessary money. Under state law, he
noted, the
>Greens could have begun collecting signatures right after the
1996 elections.
>
>The judge also agreed with the state that it has an interest in
ensuring
>that new parties have a significant amount of public support
before putting
>them on the ballot.
>
>The state had argued that the requirements for qualifying new
parties help
>keep from confusing voters and cluttering ballots with
insignificant parties.
>
>Britt, a Democrat, rejected the idea that state law "freezes the
status quo,
>limiting the political field to representatives of the two major
parties."
>
>He noted that other minor parties, including the Libertarian and
Reform
>parties this year, have qualified about 10 times to place
candidates on the
>state's ballots.
>
>Moramarco said Britt's ruling means no late-emerging candidate
can get on
>the ballot unless he or she represents an established
party.
>
>"North Carolina is trying to discourage competition, and it has
been very
>successful. It has denied ballot access to the third-highest
polling
>candidate," he said.