Also, Richard Winger of Ballot Access News reports that the Fourth Circuit court will hear oral argument in Greene v Bartlett on September 22, which challenges the number of signatures required to get an independent candidate on the ballot for U.S. House, which is 4% of the number of registered voters as of early in the election year. The requirement is so strict, it has never been used by a candidate for U.S. House. North Carolina has had government-printed ballots since 1901 and never has any independent candidate for U.S. House appeared on a government-printed ballot.

A U.S. District Court had upheld the requirement, mentioning that in 2010, it appears that an independent candidate for U.S. House did collect enough signatures to be on the ballot, but then the candidate (who had not initiated the petition drive) refused to run. The SEIU had sponsored that petition drive. No evidence about that petition drive was ever presented as evidence in the case. It is possible the drive cost as much as $100,000, certainly a very high and discriminatory entry barrier for average citizens intending to run for Congress.

Also regarding the California Top Two lawsuit, the scope of the case was potentially expanded on July 18, when a write-in candidate for U.S. House in the July 12 special election, for an office in the 36th district in western Los Angeles County, asked to intervene in the case.

Tea Party candidate Julius Galacki voted for himself, because the ballot contained write-in space, but his vote was not counted because the law implementing the top-two system says write-ins can never be counted in the general election for Congress and partisan state office.

Section 15340 of the California election code guarantees the right to cast a vote for any write-in candidate in any election, stating that

“Each voter is entitled to write the name of any candidate for any public office, including that of President and Vice President of the United States, on the ballot of any election.”

Yet Section 8606, added to the election code by SB6, prohibits the counting of such votes in a general election, stating:

“A person whose name has been written on the ballot as a write-in candidate at the general election for a voter-nominated office shall not be counted.”

So, under California’s Top Two system, you have the right to cast a write-in vote, but the state is prohibited by law from counting it!

Galacki was also critical of the aspect of Top Two allowing only certain recognized parties to appear on the ballot. Currently, Tea Party and all other minor-party candidates are be forced to falsely state on the ballot that they have “No Party Preference”. According to Galacki, “this law creates an inferior, second-class status for anyone from a small party, and that’s truly un-American, unconstitutional and just plain wrong.”

The two lower courts last year had upheld the Virginia law that makes it illegal for anyone to circulate a candidate petition outside of his or her home U.S. House district. Both U.S. District Court decisions, the Lux decision, and the Libertarian Party decision, had said the law is needed to prevent the ballot from being too crowded. This conclusion ignored the evidence in these cases that in the entire history of government-printed ballots in Virginia, there has never been a U.S. House race with more than six candidates on the general election ballot, even though before 1936, independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, did not need any signatures or any fee to get on the ballot.

The July 6, 2011 decision of the 4th circuit rebuts the “crowded ballot” argument. It says that the requirement that an independent or unqualified party nominee obtain 1,000 signatures to run for U.S. House is sufficient to keep the general election ballot from being too crowded. It also says that the restriction cannot be justified by the need to prevent fraud. It said that possibly a requirement that the circulator live in Virginia would help combat fraud, but the law doesn’t just require residence in Virginia, it requires it inside the congressional district.

The 4th circuit remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court, to see if the state wishes to present any new rationale on why the requirement is necessary. However, it is difficult to imagine what new interest Virginia may suggest. Constitutional lawsuits on residency requirements for circulators have been fought in at least 17 other states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin), and none of these states has ever come up with any state interest in a residency requirement for circulators, other than the two rejected by the 4th circuit.

Source: Ballot Access News

Ralph Nader
P.O. Box 19312
Washington, D.C. 20036
June 21, 2011

Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
1818 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Dear Chief Justice Castille,

This open letter is prompted by your recent opinion in In Re Farnese, which repeats the demonstrable falsehood that the Nader-Camejo 2004 petition drive involved “extensive fraud and deception,” yet fails to acknowledge that the challenge to our petitions – filed by several partners in your former law firm, Reed Smith, LLP – was a product of the criminal conspiracy at the heart of former Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett’s subsequent “Bonusgate” prosecution. See In Re Farnese, No. 13 EAP 2008, 21 (Pa. March 29, 2011) (Slip Opinion enclosed). Such distortion of the facts, if not deliberate, is inexplicable. It is now a matter of public record that state employees working for the Pennsylvania House Democratic Caucus illegally prepared Reed Smith’s challenge to the Nader-Camejo nomination petitions at taxpayer expense. Further, according to sworn testimony in the Bonusgate proceedings – which remains undisputed – Reed Smith partner Efrem Grail coordinated the state employees’ effort. Yet in Farnese, you maintain that the unprecedented award of $81,102.19 in costs to our challengers was justified by the “extreme circumstances” in our case – ironically, a reference not to the criminality associated with the challenge effort, nor to the evidence and testimony identifying Efrem Grail and Reed Smith by name, but to the unfounded accusations about our petition drive. Slip Op. at 21.

Farnese purports to clarify the circumstances under which lower courts may impose costs in petition challenges, but in fact your opinion establishes no standard at all. Instead, Farnese holds – contrary to the statutory text and legislative intent of 25 P.S. § 2937 (“Section 2937″) – that a court may impose costs against any candidate “as it shall deem just,” subject only to “the discretion of the judicial officer.” Slip Op. at 19. Farnese thus reaffirms the dangerous precedent set in our case, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court first invoked Section 2937 to assess costs against candidates who defend nomination petitions that they are required by law to submit. Chief Justice Castille, the Jim Crow era ended in large part because the United States Supreme Court struck down such financial burdens in a series of landmark civil rights cases protecting candidate and voter rights. You acknowledge those cases in Farnese but choose to disregard them, Slip Op. at 16, 24, and proceed to enter an opinion that threatens candidates with financial ruin if they defend their right to run for public office. This is not just bad law; Farnese is a direct threat to the “free and equal” elections guaranteed by Article I, Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The purpose of this open letter is to correct the public record regarding the falsehoods in Farnese, which would be defamatory were it not for the doctrine of judicial immunity. In addition, Pennsylvania voters must decide whether to retain you in 2013, and they should be informed about the havoc that the “least dangerous” branch (THE FEDERALIST No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton)), under your stewardship, is wreaking upon their democratic form of government by denying voters their free choice of candidates. Finally, we still hold out hope that you will bring your views into conformity with the facts and law, by joining your esteemed colleague, Justice Thomas Saylor, in rejecting both Farnese and the discredited decisions in our case.

To begin, Farnese states that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “addressed the merits of the challenge to the [Nader-Camejo] nomination petitions” when it affirmed former Commonwealth Court Judge James Gardner Colins’ decision setting them aside. Farnese Slip Op. at 11 n.9 (citing In Re Nomination Paper of Nader (“Nader II”), 860 A.2d 1 (Pa. 2004) (affirming In re: Nomination Paper of Nader (“Nader I”), 865 A.2d 8 (Pa. Commw. 2004)). That is incorrect. In fact, the Court never addressed the merits of Judge Colins’ decision, but affirmed without opinion. See Nader II, 860 A.2d 1. Only Justice Saylor entered an opinion addressing the merits, and he dissented on the ground that Judge Colins had improperly invalidated thousands of our petition signatures, see id. at 2-8 (Saylor, J. dissenting), and that Judge Colins had therefore erred by removing our candidacy from the ballot. See id. at 10. Further, Justice Saylor concluded, the record contains “no evidence” to support Judge Colins’ contrivance regarding the supposed “fraud” in our petitions. Id. at 8 n.13.

To confirm Justice Saylor’s analysis – which is also undisputed – one need look no further than the record itself, because the record unambiguously demonstrates that, while Judge Colins invalidated more than 30,000 of the 51,273 signatures on the Nader-Camejo nomination petitions, he did so not based on any finding of “fraud,” but rather based on contested, questionable and highly technical grounds. See Nader I, 865 A.2d at 18 (consolidating findings of ten reviewing judges). Specifically:

* 8,976 signatures were struck because qualified electors were not registered to vote on the day they signed the petition, even though Pennsylvania law imposes no such requirement (based on this error alone, Justice Saylor concluded that the Nader-Camejo ticket should have remained on the ballot, see Nader II, 860 A.2d at 2 (Saylor, J. dissenting));

* 7,851 signatures were struck because omitted data like incomplete dates or addresses was filled in after electors signed the petition – for example, if a “2004″ or a “PA” or a zip code was deemed not to match the elector’s handwriting, the signature was struck even though there was no dispute that the signature itself was valid (the Nader-Camejo ticket also would have remained on the ballot if these valid signatures had not been stricken);

* 6,411 signatures were struck because the elector’s current address did not match the elector’s registered address – i.e., because electors had moved;

* 3,513 signatures were struck because of unspecified “other” defects;

* 1,869 signatures were struck because information like dates or addresses was incomplete – again, even though there was no dispute that the signature itself was valid;

* 1,855 signatures were struck because of unspecified “affidavit problems”;

* and 206 signatures were struck because signatures were illegible, printed or included initials.

See Nader I, 865 A.2d at 18. Thus, a total of 30,681 signatures were struck on the foregoing technical grounds, even though tens of thousands of them were undisputedly signed by living, breathing, qualified Pennsylvania electors. See id. Another 1,087 signatures were designated as duplicates. See id. Finally, 18,818 signatures were found to be valid. See id. The findings in Judge Colins’ own opinion therefore demonstrate that 50,586 out of 51,273 total signatures on our nomination petitions were either valid, or struck based on dubious technicalities that are virtually impossible to avoid in a petition drive. See id.

Nonetheless, after summarizing the findings in our case, Judge Colins wrote that he was “compelled to emphasize” that our signature-gathering effort had been “the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this Court.” Id. at 18-19. Presumably, Judge Colins was referring to the remaining 687 signatures on our petitions, which unknown parties signed using bogus names, and which the Court designated as “forgeries” after they escaped detection by our petition circulators. See id. at 18. But our circulators, working under tremendous time pressure, had caught and removed thousands of those signatures before submitting the petitions, and as Justice Saylor emphasized, the small number that they missed amounted to only 1.3 percent of the 51,273 total. See Nader II, 860 A.2d at 8 n.13 (Saylor, J. dissenting). Further, not only is there “no evidence” to support Judge Colins’ assertion that these bogus signatures resulted from “fraud” by anyone associated with our campaign, see id., but also, as we have always maintained, they were obviously the work of pranksters or saboteurs. This conclusion is bolstered by the Bonusgate Grand Jury’s finding that the criminal effort to remove our candidacy from the ballot “began before [our] petitions were even filed.”

Judge Colins may have exaggerated the number and percentage of so-called “forgeries” in our petitions because he personally designated 568 of the 687 signatures in that category, whereas the other ten reviewing judges combined designated a total of only 119. See Nader I, 865 A.2d at 12-13, 17-18; see also Mark Brown, Politics in Pennsylvania, Stifling Open Ballots, JURIST LEGAL NEWS & RESEARCH (August 24, 2006), available at http://jurist.org/forum/2006/08/politics-in-pennsylvania-stifling.php (reporting that Judge Colins only claimed to have found evidence of “fraud” after his first failed attempt to set aside our petitions on other grounds was rejected). Regardless, the record confirms that Judge Colins’ own findings contradict his otherwise libelous dicta re garding the supposed “fraud” in the Nader-Camejo petitions. See id. at 18. Even your former law firm admitted as much when, following our objection, Reed Smith immediately deleted from its website the false claim that “30,000 signatures” on our petitions “were forged or otherwise fraudulent.” Yet this is the discredited canard that you inexplicably perpetuate in Farnese, without addressing the facts in the record, without addressing Justice Saylor’s unassailable dissent debunking Judge Colins’ bombastic rhetoric, and without acknowledging that then-Attorney General (and now Governor) Corbett’s Bonusgate prosecution subsequently revealed a massive criminal conspiracy to remove our candidacy from the ballot. Compare Slip Op. at 21 with Nader II, 860 A.2d at 8 n.13 (Saylor, J. dissenting) and Presentment at 54-58.

As you know, before the Bonusgate investigation revealed that taxpayer funds had been illegally used to finance Reed Smith’s challenge to our petitions, a sharply divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed Judge Colins’ order directing us to pay $81,102.19 in costs to our challengers. See In Re Nomination Paper of Nader (“Nader III”), 905 A.2d 450 (Pa. 2006). This was the first time in history that the Court had invoked Pennsylvania’s petition challenge statute to impose costs against defending candidates, see id. at 457 & n.5, and yet, once again, the majority simply ignored Justice Saylor’s dissent, which demonstrated by close textual analysis that Section 2937 only authorizes such costs against challengers. See id. at 461 (Saylor, J. dissenting). The majority’s twisted reading thus transformed Section 2937 into a punitive statute, sweeping in scope, that threatens any candidates who defend their nomination petitions with potentially bankrupting costs. In practice, of course, Section 2937 poses a far greater threat to minor party and independent candidates, because only they must submit tens of thousands of signatures under Pennsylvania’s discriminatory and excessively burdensome ballot access laws.

So construed, Section 2937 is undoubtedly unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court of the United States observed more than 40 years ago, in striking down Virginia’s poll tax, “It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution.” Harman v. Forsennius, 380 U.S. 528, 540 (1965). The Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have thus struck down not only poll taxes, but also mandatory filing fees, per-signature verification fees and other state-imposed costs on candidates and voters. Yet in Farnese, you reaffirm that courts may order candidates to pay costs of $80,000 or more if they defend their nomination petitions when challenged under Section 2937, and further, you specify that courts need not even make any finding of “fraud” or “bad faith” to justify such a draconian penalty. Slip Op. at 22. That makes Pennsylvania unique in the entire nation: no other state threatens to penalize its citizens simply because they seek to run for public office. The resultant damage to Pennsylvania’s democracy is as severe as it was predictable – in the 2010 elections for statewide office, voters were denied any choice but to vote for major party candidates. See Oliver Hall, Some Political Parties Remain Outlaws in Pa., PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER (Oct. 18, 2010) (reporting that every minor party or independent candidate for statewide office in Pennsylvania withdrew due to the threat of incurring costs under Section 2937).

The opacity of the proceedings in our case make it difficult to know exactly how or why the Pennsylvania courts arrived at this perilous juncture. What is clear is that the courts violated their own rules of civil procedure in upholding the $81,102.19 in costs assessed against us, by denying us any opportunity to take discovery regarding the criminality of the challenge effort, or even to have a hearing, in violation of our express rights. Pa. R.C.P. 206.7(c); Pa. R.C.P. 211. Instead, in an unpublished decision entered in 2008, the Commonwealth Court held as a matter of law that our challengers “did not act improperly or illegally in asserting the challenge” – despite the fact that the Attorney General was actively pursing felony charges against those who orchestrated the challenge effort. See In Re Nomination Paper of Ralph Nader, No. 568 M.D. 2004, 7-8 (Dec. 4, 2008), recon. denied, No. 568 MD 2004 (Dec. 31, 2008). In so ruling, the Court simply ignored the undisputed testimony delivered under oath in the Bonusgate proceedings that Efrem Grail – the Reed Smith partner who requested the $81,102.19 in costs – coordinated the state employees’ effort to prepare the challenge, that on several occasions he personally accepted the state employees’ work-product at Reed Smith’s Pittsburgh offices, and that he “definitely knew” that the individual with whom he met was employed by former Rep. Mike Veon, who is now in jail, convicted of multiple felonies in the Bonusgate scandal. See id. Once again, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed without opinion. See In Re Nomination Paper of Ralph Nader, No. 94 MAP 2008 (Oct. 23, 2009).

The result, as reflected in Farnese, is a complete inversion of reality. Our candidacy has been smeared with unsupported and demonstrably false allegations of “fraud,” while our challengers, represented by your former law firm, are rewarded with $81,102.19 in costs for litigation which, they do not deny, relied upon work-product that was prepared illegally using taxpayer funds and resources. Further, Efrem Grail has publicly admitted that the costs are payable not to the nominal challengers whom he and his Reed Smith partners purported to represent, but to Reed Smith itself.4 See Thomas Fitzgerald, Pa. Law Firm Duns Nader for Expenses, PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER (July 14, 2007) (“‘I just want my firm’s money,’ said Efrem Grail, the Reed Smith partner in charge of the case”).

Sadly, ours is just one in a pattern of cases in which the appearance of impropriety has drawn national attention singling out the Pennsylvania Supreme Court – and you in particular – for pointed criticism. See, e.g., Editorial, Untenable Judicial Ethics, NEW YORK TIMES (Nov. 27, 2010) (criticizing Chief Justice Castille for accepting “gifts of dinners, event tickets, golf outings and plane rides…some from people with cases decided by his court,” and concluding, “Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court needs to change its ethics rules”); Editorial, What’s the Deal, Castille?, PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER (Nov. 24, 2010) (“Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille has set a poor example that no other Pennsylvania judge should follow with his frequent acceptance of…gifts from lawyers and businessmen”); Editorial, Castille Must Resign, PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER (June 20, 2010) (“serious conflict of interest issues” and a “perception of collusion” regarding Chief Justice Castille’s handling of Family Court building contract “undermine trust in the chief justice’s impartiality surrounding legal matters” and “disqualif[y] him to lead the court during this dark period”).

Such criticism is all too familiar, given the undisclosed conflicts of interest that we discovered after our own case was decided, including your former employment by Reed Smith, and the managing partner’s offer, memorialized in a March 15, 1991 press release, that you could contact Reed Smith if you were “interested in a position with the firm at any time in the future.” In addition, while our case was pending, Reed Smith began representing your predecessor, former Chief Justice Ralph Cappy, as his defense counsel in a state ethics investigation, and also gave thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to former Justice Sandra Schultz Newman, who authored the opinion affirming the award of $81,102.19 requested by Reed Smith. In total, Reed Smith, its attorneys and its co-counsel gave at least $67,900 in past and present campaign contributions to five out of six justices who voted to award costs in Reed Smith’s favor. (Reed Smith appears not to have given Justice Saylor, author of the two unrebutted dissents in our case, any campaign contributions.) None of these facts were disclosed while our case was pending.

Chief Justice Castille, it is never too late to vacate the judgment in a wrongly decided case. See Estate of Gasbarini v. Medical Center of Beaver City, Inc., 409 A.2d 343, 345 (Pa. 1979) (“Where equity demands, the power of the court to open and set aside its judgments may extend well beyond the term in which the judgment was entered”). That is what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should do in our case, and in the case in which the Court upheld another $80,000-plus assessment of costs against 2006 Green Party senatorial candidate Carl Romanelli. See In re Rogers, 959 A.2d 903 (Pa. 2008). To the extent that Farnese reaffirms those decisions, it too should be vacated. You will find the rationale for such action set forth in Justice Saylor’s two learned dissents cited herein, his opinion in Farnese (concurring in the result only, which vacated an award of costs), and in those federal court decisions striking down poll taxes and the other unconstitutional fees and costs long since repudiated in every state except Pennsylvania. See supre n.3.

Should you decide to stand for reelection in 2013 — that is, if you do not resign before then — voters no doubt will take a keen interest in your response to the matters raised in the letter. See generally Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 1 (“Judges should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary); Canon 2 (“Judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities); Canon 3 (“Judges should perform the duties of their office impartially and diligently”). In particular, voters may inquire about your relationship with your former law firm, and whether Reed Smith received preferential treatment in our case as a result thereof. We therefore look forward to any response that may be forthcoming. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

cc: Citizens of Pennsylvanis
     Justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
     Judges of the Cmmonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

As former Republican Chair for Cumberland County, Stabile had previously praised GOP actions to remove Green, Libertarian and Tea Party candidates from the ballot. He said: “I am very pleased to report to you that challenges to the Green, Tea Party, and Libertarian candidates for state-wide office have been successful and these third party candidates will not be appearing on the November ballot.”

Pennsylvania Libertarian Party Chair Lou Jasikoff asserted last week that Stabile was biased, and unfit to hold judicial office. According to Jasikoff, “being a party partisan should not be the qualification for a Superior Court Judge.”

Jasikoff also took issue with Stabile’s assertion that “voters do not get disenfranchised when fraud is uncovered.” According to Jasikoff, over 2,000 signatures were challenged because the person collecting them used “Betsy” instead of “Elisabeth” when signing her name. Some of the other challenges included the use of two digit years in dates instead of four digits, or voters who signed where they should print their names and vice-versa.

According to Jasikoff, lawyers for the Republican Party gave Libertarian candidates a choice: drop out now or face fines personally of over $100,000 if the challenges prove successful.

Election law expert Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News, said that Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania are the only three states “which permit candidates to challenge their opponents’ petitions on the basis of technical defects,” and that Pennsylvania was the only state in which candidates could face personal bankruptcy.

Christina Tobin, President of The Free and Equal Elections Foundation, said that “Victor Stabile appears more concerned with partisan politics, than he is with upholding his oath to the Pennsylvania Constitution.”

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania states that “Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.”

HB1058, introduced earlier this year by Rep. Charles Key, would in its current version reduce the signature collection requirement for forming a new political party to 22,500 signatures. Currently, the requirement is 5% of the total vote cast for Governor in the last election, which in 2012 would result in a requirement of 51,379 signatures. This is more than the 5,000 signatures in Key’s original bill, but would at least eliminate Oklahoma’s poster child status in the electoral dysfunction department.

However, this bill is now stalled in the Senate Rules Committee. This is where the lack of coordination becomes a problem for state legislators. Another bill which would help military service members vote, by moving the primary date from July to June, is now likely to be tossed as unconstitutional by the courts.

The second bill, known as HB1615 or the “Let the Troops Vote Act”, would in the process move the deadline for new political parties from May 1 to March 1 of the election year. Petitioning deadlines that early have been ruled unconstitutional 15 times. Given Oklahoma’s already difficult requirements, without HB1058 to reduce the number of signatures needed, the law stands no chance in court.

“The people of Oklahoma, and the United States, have a right to have their voices heard at the ballot box,” said Micah Gamino of Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform, which supports the bill. “If we won’t support democracy here, how can we claim to be supporting it in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan?”

Free & Equal finds this an apt observation. “State legislators are putting the voting rights of active duty service members in jeopardy, just because they’re getting cold feet about opening up the ballot to competition,” Free & Equal founder and chair Christina Tobin said in a statement. “This is unacceptable.”

Supporters of HB1058 are being asked to contact the members of the Senate Rules Committee as soon as possible, to let them know that HB1058 must pass as it currently stands to restore the right to vote of every Oklahoma voter. Also be sure to contact the Rules Committee Chairman, Senator Rob Johnson, at (405) 521-5592 and Vice-Chairman, Senator Jonathan Nichols, at (405) 521-5535 to urge them to take action on HB1058.

“WLS ABC Channel 7 should follow the example set by WFLD Fox Channel 32, which during the gubernatorial race hosted a truly inclusive debate, including all six candidates,” said Christina Tobin, Founder and Chair of the Free and Equal Elections Foundation.

Free & Equal also criticized WTTW Channel 11, which is facing a half-million dollar lawsuit as a result of holding a similar non-inclusive gubernatorial debate in 2010. Rich Whitney, candidate for governor, and LeAlan Jones, candidate for US Senator, were excluded from debates broadcast by WTTW last fall, after repeated requests for inclusion were denied.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting funds and oversees the programming at WTTW and is a defendant, along with Daniel Schmidt, WTTW’s CEO. The lawsuit alleges that by selecting certain candidates and giving them free air time, they were engaged in partisan political activity, in violation of the IRS tax code and FCC regulations.

“As a licensed broadcaster, WLS has an obligation to operate in the public interest. They abrogate this responsibility by limiting the debate to exclude ballot qualified candidates,” said Tobin.

That same year saw the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by Congress. It is notable that for decades, southern states had been engaged in a cat-and-mouse game, amending their laws in response to federal court decisions requiring them to allow black people to vote.

Georgia now requires a petition signed by 5% of registered voters in the district. The state also requires that all petition sheets be notarized, that all petitions be collected on over-size paper, and forbids the petition drive to begin until six months before the July petition deadline. Also, candidates must pay a filing fee of 3% of the annual salary, or approximately $5,000. The filing fee must be paid before the signatures are filed, and is not refundable.

Along with the Coalition for Free and Open Elections (COFOE) and the Center for Competitive Democracy, Free & Equal filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the case.

Faye Coffield, the plaintiff in the case, was an independent candidate for U.S. House in 2008 in Georgia’s 4th district. Incumbent Democrat Hank Johnson, was the only candidate on the ballot for the office, in either the primary or general election. “We have done the best we can,” Coffield said regarding the decision. “It is apparent the Courts will continue to refuse to address the disenfranchisement of the millions of independent and non-party affiliated voters.”

Other candidates who have been denied access to Georgia’s ballot include Ray Boyd and Jeff Anderson. Boyd, who attempted to run for Governor of Georgia in November 2010, had this to say: “Every registered voter in every state in the union for every elected office should have the same opportunity to be on the ballot if they meet the minimum standards required for the two major party candidates to appear on the ballot.”

Jeff Anderson, who attempted to run for Congress in Georgia’s 11th District, said: ‘While disappointing, today’s declination by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Georgia ballot access case, “Coffield v. Kemp” is an understandable reflection of the national misimpression that this issue is no big deal; certainly not for just one state or any small jurisdiction. But the driving principle behind appropriate ballot access, at least in the case of federal offices, is of critical importance to all citizens interconnected by our federal government — improvement of the candidate pool through wider and more clear opportunity, leading to better quality elected officials and in the end, better governing across all constituencies. Our tasks now are to continue working toward improved governing using the existing election structure, while illuminating its shortcomings and pressing for the corrective legislation that only principled lawmakers will bring.’

Free and Equal will be there every step of the way.

In the suit, 2008 independent Congressional candidate Faye Coffield filed suit in U.S. District Court in Georgia, asking that the Georgia ballot access law for independent candidates for U.S. House of Representatives be declared unconstitutional. This case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. For more information please read this article on Free & Equal’s website.

Past candidates Jeff Anderson, Brad Ploeger and Mary Norwood are mentioned in the amicus brief, along with others who attempted to fulfill Georgia’s unreasonable and discriminatory requirements for independent candidates. In response to the amicus filing they had this to say:

Anderson, an independent candidate for U.S. House in Georgia’s 11th district, said: “I fully endorse the corrective effort that is represented by the Coffield case and support the amicus filing by Free and Equal and others. It is most noteworthy that a broad group of dedicated Americans has, without any consideration or comparison of their individual political ideologies, joined together here to challenge something that should be of deep concern to every citizen – the direct and intentional denial of their representative right to run for office and to vote fairly.”

Norwood is a former Atlanta City Council member who was denied access to the ballot as an independent candidate for Chair of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners. Said Norwood, “Georgia’s Ballot Access rules make the task of running as an independent a herculean task and one that is virtually impossible. As a seasoned candidate who has run in three nonpartisan citywide races, I was prepared to mobilize volunteers; raise funds; and conduct a campaign. However, the task of collecting valid signatures of 5% of the registered voters of the county required more in resources than I could have imagined.”

Ploeger sought to run as a Libertarian Party candidate for the Georgia State House. He was the only minor party nominee to bother trying after so many years of being locked out of the democratic process. In response to the filing, he said: “Georgia’s Ballot Access rules present a de-facto bar to participation by Independent and Third-Party candidates in the political process. These rules represent an infringement on the civil rights of all Georgians to select their elected representatives.”

Free & Equal supports all those in Georgia for whom the promise of democracy is denied, and will release further information as events develop.

Georgia law requires that new party and independent candidates submit a petition signed by 5% of the number of registered voters, in order to get on the ballot for any office that is not statewide (such as Governor).

Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans need collect no signatures whatsoever; they obtain access to the ballot by paying a filing fee. Independent candidates need to collect signatures and pay the filing fee.

On November 26, 2008, independent U.S House candidate Faye Coffield filed suit in U.S. District Court in Georgia, asking that the Georgia ballot access law for independent candidates for U.S. House of Representatives be declared unconstitutional. This case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Along with the Center for Competitive Democracy and the Coalition for Free and Open Elections (COFOE), The Free and Equal Elections Foundation will submit an amicus brief in the case, known as Coffield v Kemp, in favor of reducing the requirement for ballot access.

Several prior candidates for the office of Congress are expected to join the case via amicus. The briefs are due to be filed Monday, December 6th. Free & Equal will release more information as it becomes publicly available.

Attending were: state Sen. Mike Folmer; Bonita Hoke of the League of Women Voters; David Jahn of the Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition; Gil Freedman of Common Cause Pennsylvania; VotePA Executive Director Mark Kuznik; Democracy Rising PA President Tim Potts; Libertarian Party of Pa. Chair Mik Robertson; Constitution Party National Chair Jim Clymer; Green Party of Pa. representative Bob Small; as well as Libertarian Party nominees for governor, Marakay Rogers, and lieutenant governor, Kat Vallelay, both of whom were removed from the ballot.

The press conference is available online on the Pennslyvania Cable News website. Look for Campaign 2010 in the menu and scroll down to “Ballot Access”.

Ralph Nader was removed from the 2004 Pa. ballot after a legal challenge to his petitions. That year, a step was taken which was unprecedented in any state. Nader was ordered to pay the cost of the challenge which removed him from the ballot, adding up to tens of thousands of dollars. Since then, this tactic has routinely been used to remove third party and independent candidates from the ballot.

According to Rogers, on the second day of her attempt to validate her signatures against the state voter registration database, Republican Party lawyers approached her with a grim message. If she did not stop trying to prove her signatures valid by later that day, they would seek to impose thousands of dollars in fines, should she ultimately lose the challenge. By this means, she and every other third party or independent candidate for statewide office was successfully intimidated into forfeiting their legal right to due process.

“The imposition of exorbitant fees for candidates who are unsuccessful in the defense against a challenge adds yet another layer of deterrence to participation in the electoral process,” Robertson said.

Current Pennsylvania law “falls short of the free and equal elections provisions of our state constitution,” Jahn said. “These people will stop at nothing to remove good, decent people from the primary or general elections.”

This year, the Democratic and Republican Parties were required by law to collect only 2,500 signatures while third party candidates for the same office needed 20,000 signatures, Vallelay said. Even the 20,000 figure is unusually low — in 2006 the requirement for the same offices was 67,000.

Current Pennsylvania law uses a “complex mathematical formula” that produces widely varying and unfair requirements for alternative candidates, Sen. Folmer said.

Folmer is the primary sponsor of state Senate Bill 252, the Voters Choice Act, which would have Pennsylvania use the same standard as Delaware, a simple formula based on the number of registered voters in the state. According to Folmer, the issue of ballot access “isn’t rocket science” and reform is needed to “protect the constitutional rights of citizens.”

The League of Women Voters believes the requirements for all candidates should be equal, and it was unfair to deny access to the ballot to candidates “who lack the resources to defend their candidacy,” Hoke said. The League is concerned about reduced voter participation, which Hoke said can be traced to “a lack of meaningful choices on the ballot.”

On top of such disparities, signatures can be invalidated for trivial reasons such as a voter writing “Jeff” instead of “Jefferey” or failing to put the year when dating their signature. “It’s a truly sad state of affairs when so many of our soldiers have died in recent actions that have brought ballot choices to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan while so much effort is put into limiting the choices that voters have in Pennsylvania,” Robertson said when describing the overall situation.

“These acts of intimidation are unacceptable at best,” said Christina Tobin, founder and chair of The Free and Equal Elections Foundation. “Pennsylvania’s ballot access laws are in serious need of reform and Free and Equal will continue to fight for the rights of voters in Pennsylvania and nationwide to have the choices they want to see on their ballots.”

Caldwell removed himself as a plaintiff, August 25, one day before CBS affiliate WLKY in Louisville reported news of Caldwell’s recent arrest. Lawrence dropped the lawsuits against Martin and Hansen, August 27, insuring that both candidates will be on the November ballot. The defendant’s court hearings were scheduled for Monday, August 30, but have been canceled in light of these events.

Immediately after being notified about the lawsuits, a public campaign from several fronts pushed this issue into the media. Libertarian candidate Martin issued a statement as did the Libertarian Party of Kentucky. Martin’s campaign then asked Lally’s campaign to publicly call for his Republican associates to drop the lawsuit. The Free and Equal Elections Foundation added to the efforts with a media release and brought this to the attention of ballot access activists nationwide.

Journalist Sheldon S. Shafer for the courier-journal in Louisville reported on the lawsuit along with WHAS-ABC Channel 11. Louisville’s NPR news station, WFLP 89.3, ran a story and Louisville News and Politics, the Kentucky Freedom Digest, and Page One Kentucky continued their coverage.

The Libertarian Party of Kentucky has used these events as a call to action to get involved and help protect democracy in their state. This statement is from their website: “One supporter who had remained Republican to date tonight committed on Facebook to switch his registration to Libertarian to show his disgust. He’ll be following this action by sending a photocopied version of his voter card (with SSN redacted) to his local GOP chair, the Jefferson County (Louisville) GOP chair, and the GOP state chairman, along with a letter explaining his disgust with these dirty political antics as the reason for his switch.”

“This is the type of quick action and media attention that should be given to an issue as important as democratic elections,” said Christina Tobin, Chair and founder of Free and Equal Elections Foundation. “Republicans are running scared in this election cycle as evidenced by their attacks on equal access to the ballots by alternative candidates here in Kentucky, and in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York. Democrats use the same tactics as well. Free and Equal’s radio show is one avenue we are using to stop this bad political behavior, and we are glad to have Independent candidate Michael Hansen join us this week.”

In addition to Hansen, Ken Moellman, Libertarian Party of Kentucky Chair, will be a guest on the next Free and Equal radio show on Tuesday, August 31 from 10-11pm ET to talk about the lawsuit situation and Kentucky elections. Christi Gillespie, State Coordinator of Free & Equal Kentucky will join the show as well to talk about upcoming events. Ed Martin has also been invited to join us on the show, should his busy campaign schedules permit it. The Free and Equal radio show can be listened to live at BlogTalkRadio or at the Free and Equal website where it is also available for later enjoyment.

“The voters deserve to have as many choices as we can get on Election Day,” said Christi Gillespie. “It’s funny how the Republicans are all in favor of free market solutions until you start talking about the ballot box. I encourage voters to analyze all candidates including write-ins, regardless of their party affiliation, and vote for the one that truly reflects your values and beliefs. It is time we began voting for the best candidate, and not just voting for the lesser of two evils.”

Gillespie is helping to organize the Free and Equal Candidate Forum Saturday, September 25th from 2 – 6 p.m. at the Kentucky State Capitol steps. All candidates are invited to share their message with voters at this event. More details will be released about this all-inclusive event as it develops.

“I’m glad Martin and Hansen are now assured of their rightful place on the ballot,” Tobin said. “These tactics are not only designed to remove legitimate competition from the ballots, they are also designed to drain the resources of their competition, create uncertainty and confusion in the voting public as to who will be on the ballot, and distract both their competitors’ campaigns and the media from the important issues confronting the electorate. When people like Lawrence use these tactics it should be exposed and remembered.”

“Free and Equal is here to make sure more voters are educated about their election system and who is trying to game it for their own advantage,” Tobin said. “Another typical practice that only serves to hurt the voters is when they keep candidates off the stage of debates, forums and public speaking engagements. Recent rallies in Kentucky have been manipulated to exclude candidates in an attempt to keep their messages from being heard by voters. With our first Free and Equal Candidate Forum in Kentucky coming up in September we intend to start restoring the principles of fair elections that every voter deserves.”

The lawsuit was filed by Cordell Lawrence as Vice Chairman of the Jefferson County Republican Party and David Caldwell. Caldwell has since removed himself as a plaintiff. A hearing for Ed Martin will take place at the Jefferson Circuit Court Division 5, located at 700 W. Jefferson St. in Louisville, Ky., on August 30th at 10:45am, with Michael Hansen’s hearing at 1:00pm.

In a response to the lawsuit, Libertarian candidate Ed Martin pointed out the vague nature of the Republican’s court filing. “At this point, no cause of action or claim is stated in the complaint,” Martin said. “I’m at a loss right now as to what their claim is.”

Ken Moellman, Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky also responded to the attack on his party’s candidate. “Apparently, Republicans are so insecure about their lack of a substantive platform that they are trying to steal half of the options the voters have.”

Journalist Sheldon S. Shafer for the courier-journal in Louisville reported on the lawsuit along with WHAS-ABC Channel 11.

“Michael Hansen turned in his nominating papers in March and the Jefferson County Republicans are just now getting around to filing the lawsuit,” said Christina Tobin, Chair and founder of Free and Equal Elections Foundation. “That is either complete incompetence or cruel calculation, neither of which should be tolerated in a respectable democracy. Cordell Lawrence should resign his position with the Jefferson County Republican Party immediately for this abuse against free and equal elections that is wasting court time and taxpayer dollars.”

“This is exactly what Barack Obama and his ‘Chicago Way’ Democrats do to remove political competition from the ballot, and now Louisville Republicans are acting just like them,” Tobin said. “If Republican Todd Lally is in any way connected to these attempts to take choices away from Kentucky voters, he is unfit to hold an office with power and should drop out of the race right now. This type of anti-democratic behavior is not acceptable in Kentucky or anywhere in the US.”

Free and Equal Elections Foundation has started organizing at the grassroots in Kentucky to promote fair elections that will give all Kentucky voters the ballot choices they deserve. Free and Equal will sponsor a Freedom Rally and Candidate Forum Saturday, September 25th from 2-6 p.m. at the Kentucky State Capitol steps.

Ken Moellman will be a guest on the next Free and Equal radio show on Tuesday, August 31 from 10-11pm ET to talk about this situation. Candidates Ed Martin and Michael Hansen have also been invited as guests if their busy campaign schedules permit it. The Free and Equal radio show can be listened to live at BlogTalkRadio or at the Free and Equal website where it is also available for later enjoyment.

Kentucky Republicans are attempting to remove two candidates from the November ballot for the 3rd Congressional District with a lawsuit filed on August 20, 2010. Ed Martin, candidate for the Libertarian Party, and Michael D. Hansen, independent candidate, were notified of the lawsuit this week.

Michael Hansen will a guest along with Ken Moellman, Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Kentucky to talk about this situation and Kentucky politics. Christi Gillespie, State Coordinator of Free & Equal Kentucky will join the show also to discuss the upcoming Candidate Forum sponsored by Free and Equal. Ed Martin has also been invited as guests if his busy campaign schedule permits it.

Democracy is under attack. Revolution at the ballot box must be a possibility. Tune in and do your part. Call in at 347-633-9636 to get your two bits in.

Listen to the show live with chat right here:

Richard Winger, plaintiff in the lawsuit against SB 6, and Christina Tobin, CEO and founder of Free and Equal Elections Foundation and StopTopTwo.org creator, gave a press conference at the California State Capitol, Tuesday, August 17, where they called for Maldonado to help fix the problems in SB 6 that resulted in the lawsuit. While that was happening, Maldonado and the two groups were attempting to insert themselves into the lawsuit against SB 6. Torey Van Oot, from the Sacramento Bee’s Capitol Alert blog, announced the SB 6 press conference, and has an article on Maldonado’s attempted interference.

“Maldonado should be fixing the problems in SB 6, not trying to take over as a defendant for the other side,” Tobin said. “He might need a different kind of intervention if he actually thinks the write-in procedures of SB 6 are the least bit acceptable, not to mention for his behavior holding the state budget hostage in exchange for passing this unrelated legislation. They need to stop trying to cover up the blatant problems SB 6 creates. It was sloppy legislation passed in the wee hours of the morning without public input or expert opinion. Maldonado and his cohorts are being dishonest in refusing to admit that.”

“SB 6 creates a ballot with a specific space for voters to write-in a candidate, but it bans those votes from being counted,” Tobin said. “That little detail wasn’t on the ballot June 8th. Nor was there anything on the ballot mentioning that some candidates will be able to identify which political party they prefer, while other candidates cannot. When Abel or his friends start talking about those two issues we might start to believe they are sincere about reforming California politics.”

Maldonado’s statement, put out by NewsBlaze, said, “The measure overwhelmingly passed and is now being challenged by political insiders who strive to maintain a dysfunctional status quo.”

“With lies like this, Maldonado needs an intervention,” Tobin said. “He needs to stop drinking the typical politician kool-aid with his empty soundbite rhetoric, fake reforms, and meddling in lawsuits to cover up the problems he created. Proposition 14, getting 53.7% of the primary vote with only a 33% turnout is hardly overwhelming. The plaintiffs and Free and Equal are not rich or connected insiders, unlike Governor Schwarzenegger’s $5 million Yes on Prop 14 campaign. CAIVN and their cheerleader, Steve Peace, have their own special agenda as well.”

“Free and Equal strives for consideration of real election reforms such as proportional representation, which is used in 73 countries,” Tobin said. “Gautam Dutta, legal counsel for the lawsuit against SB 6, and Steve Chessin, plaintiff in the lawsuit just discussed proportional representation in depth on our radio show. If that doesn’t prove we’re political outsiders looking to truly break the dysfunctional status quo I don’t know what will.”

“Not one country uses a Top Two election system similar to what SB 6 and Proposition 14 creates,” Tobin said. “Washington’s Top Two system hasn’t done anything but further entrench the status quo there. Maldonado, CAIVN, and Schwarzenegger’s rich and connected Yes on Prop 14 campaign need to stop covering up the problems with SB 6 and Top Two election systems and look at real election reforms.”

StopTopTwo.org, through Free and Equal, has issued several statements regarding the lawsuit against SB 6 recently: StopTopTwo.org’s Christina Tobin Tells Governor Schwarzenegger to Chill Out, on July 30; Richard Winger and Christina Tobin to Host Sacramento Press Conference on Election Reforms, on August 13; and SB6 Lawsuit Discussed at Tuesday Press Conference at California State Capitol, on August 16.

Plaintiff Richard Winger, publisher of Ballot Access news, and Stop Top Two founder Christina Tobin will be on hand for the 10:30 a.m. news conference at the Capitol’s south steps.

Pictures from the Press Conference – Richard Winger and Christina Tobin.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Richard Winger, elections expert and plaintiff in the lawsuit against Senate Bill 6, and Christina Tobin, CEO and founder of Free and Equal Elections Foundation and StopTopTwo.org creator, will give a press conference on the south steps of the California State Capitol, near the corner of 11th and N streets, Tuesday, August 17, 10:30 a.m.

SB 6 set the procedures to be used for implementing Proposition 14, the Top Two election system that passed on June 8. Field v. Bowen, filed July 29, which charges that SB 6 is unconstitutional, is scheduled to be heard in the County of San Francisco’s Superior Court of California, September 14, 2010, 9:30 a.m.

“This is the lawsuit that challenges two aspects of the California top-two system: (1) the ban on counting any write-in votes in November for Congress and partisan state office; (2) the discriminatory policy that lets some, but not all, candidates list their party affiliation on the ballot,” Winger wrote at Ballot Access News.

SB 6 was originally drafted as a bill dealing with hazardous waste. The bill was introduced by then state Sen. Abel Maldonado, amended and passed by the Legislature between 3:40 a.m. and 6:55 a.m., February 19, 2009, without public notice, and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger the next day. Maldonado agreed to give a yes vote on the 2009 budget in exchange for putting Proposition 14 on the ballot and the passage of SB 6.

“Instead of running to the media with ill-informed sound bites, Schwarzenegger and Maldonado need to listen to the participants in this lawsuit and fix the problems they created with their sloppy legislation,” Tobin said. “Maybe Maldonado can find one of his moderate legislator buddies to help us out. If Maldonado can get someone to imitate him by holding this year’s budget hostage in exchange for fixing the obvious problems in SB 6, we can turn that dysfunctional behavior into a positive. That is the wrong way to pass meaningful election reforms, but it seems to be how the legislature works.”

“Schwarzenegger and Maldonado had plenty of time to sit down with the special interests who gave them millions of dollars to promote Proposition 14,” Tobin said. “Now they need to recognize the merits of this lawsuit and sit down with the people who know how to fix the bad legislation they passed with SB 6. They failed to hold hearings or to get public and expert input on SB 6 before it passed, and it is now time for them to make up for that dysfunctional mistake. This wouldn’t have to go through the courts if Schwarzenegger and Maldonado were looking out for the interests of the voters instead of their big money donors.”

“Free and Equal Elections Foundation will continue to work with the public, political parties, candidates, the media and organizations to defeat the spread of Top Two election systems nationwide,” Tobin said. “I will explain the direction of this important work in detail at the press conference.”

Richard Winger is publisher and editor of Ballot Access News, established in 1985, a founder of the Coalition for Free and Open Elections, COFOE, and a frequent expert witness in court proceedings and legislative hearings. He is currently providing expert support to a lawsuit against Washington state’s Top Two election system. Winger is also a Californians for Electoral Reform, CfER, board member.

The lawsuit against SB 6 will not overturn the vote on Proposition 14, as Governor Schwarzenegger and Lt. Governor Maldonado wrongly assumed. The lawsuit seeks to force the California State Legislature to fix two things before Proposition 14 is implemented.

Gautam Dutta, the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the SB 6 lawsuit, and Steve Chessin, a plaintiff of the SB 6 lawsuit and president and board member of CfER were recent guests on the Free and Equal radio show. They spoke at length about the lawsuit and related topics. That interview, starting at the 32 minute mark of the two hour show, can be heard on the Free and Equal website. Dutta recently had an article, “Why People Hate Politics”, published by the Huffington Post.

“The lawsuit Dutta, Chessin and Winger are working on against SB 6, and Winger’s involvement with the team appealing Washington’s Top Two election to the U.S. Supreme Court are important actions being taken to protect democracy in America,” Tobin said. “Free and Equal is here to help spread the word about their actions and to help their voices be heard so that we can continue to make this land a better place.”

“Right now, Governor Schwarzenegger and the California legislature need to listen to Dutta and the plaintiffs in the case against SB 6 instead of calling them names,” Tobin said. “We’ll be talking more about that, Tuesday.”

After the June 8 vote on Proposition 14, Free and Equal Elections Foundation has transformed StopTopTwo.org into a nationwide educational campaign to make voters aware of all the unhealthy aspects of a Top Two election system. Articles, such as Ralph Nader’s recent one titled “California Enshrines the Duopoly” can be found at StopTopTwo.org making it the internet hub for people interested in learning more about Top Two election systems.

In addition to producing the ongoing StopTopTwo.org campaign, Free and Equal is working hard to reform election laws through involvement with lawsuits, efforts to introduce and pass legislation in several states, and with the initiative and referendum process. Free and Equal also seeks to help amplify political voices wanting to participate by organizing candidate debates.

Free and Equal has organized debates for President and Vice President, three debates for Governor in Illinois, and has a U.S. Senatorial debate scheduled Thursday, August 19, at Northern Illinois University. Plans are also underway to hold a series of debates across the state of Calif. for the upcoming election in an effort to educate more voters about important issues.

In the US District Court of Northern Illinois on August 2, Judge John Grady issued a decision outlining the procedures that Illinois should use for the second election of the temporary US Senator. Judge Grady ordered that the same candidates will be on the ballot for both elections. Senator Roland Burris appealed that decision.

“Sen. Burris has a case,” said Christina Tobin, CEO and Founder of Free and Equal Elections Foundation. “These are two separate elections and they should be treated as such. Everybody in Illinois should be given an equal opportunity to run for that temporary US Senate seat, including Sen. Burris. Free and Equal will have a debate for the 6 year US Senate term next week, and we’ll have one for the 2 month term too. But first, Governor Pat Quinn needs to be a leader and immediately call a special session and fix this mess.”

“Speaker Michael Madigan and House Minority Leader Tom Cross have both demonstrated they can put together massive teams of petition checkers and lawyers to literally go through over a hundred thousand signatures in one week in an effort to kick competition off the ballots,” said Tobin. “If they can do that, surely they can spare a couple days right now to do actual public service work by fixing Illinois election laws that are among the worst in the US.”

Dane Placko had an excellent article on Fox News titled “‘Madigoons’ Investigated: Where Does State Work End, Politics Begin?” that every voter in Illinois should read.

FOX Chicago News examined three years of legislative payroll records, and then compared them with political campaign expenditures. We found 34 Democratic House employees under the control of Speaker Madigan taking off from their jobs for weeks, sometimes months at a time.

“Where are Madigan’s minions right now?” said Tobin. “Madigan refused the public outcry for a special election in early 2009 because Madigan was playing politics trying to keep a US Senate seat in Democratic hands. Madigan obviously put his political party ahead of the voters of Illinois and that is what created this mess. He needs to go to Springfield tomorrow and do his job.”

Media coverage of Illinois’ backwards ballot access system from Charles Thomas at ABC 7 in Chicago, News Director Jim Anderson’s “Eye of Illinois” from the Illinois Radio Network, Doug Ibendahl at Republican News Watch, and Fox Chicago Sunday is helping to educate every Illinois voter about the flawed system they have.

Illinois Republican staffers have a history of using the same tactics. The chief of staff to Republican leader Lee Daniels, Michael Tristano, went to jail for having state employees do political work on the state clock. There was also George Ryan’s political operation in 1998 being run out of his Secretary of State office. In 2002, most of Judy Baar Topinka’s staff from her Treasurer’s office in Chicago all took the same day off to work on Jim Ryan’s failed challenge against Cal Skinner, the Libertarian candidate for Governor.

“Tom Cross could probably call some of his staffers back from the challenges to the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party candidates going on right now and help solve some of the problems he is perpetuating in Illinois,” said Tobin. “Tom Cross and John Fogarty know each other well. Fogarty is playing games along with Bill Brady, Bill Brady’s niece Brittany, and Andrew Heffernan trying to kick the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party candidates off the ballot. How about putting those lawyers and policy analysts to proper use fixing bad election instead of trying to fix elections by abusing those bad laws?”

Illinois election laws are constantly being taken to court, as is the case with this special election for US Senate and Sen. Burris’ appeal. In 2006 the case Lee v. Keith in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ballot access requirements for independent candidates were in violation of the US Constitution. Lisa Madigan’s Attorney’s General office was on the losing side of that lawsuit, just like she was wrong about this special election. Republican Cedra Crenshaw was just put on the ballot in the 43rd State Senate district because a law passed last year by the General Assembly was sloppy and created conflicting statutes.

“The conflicting legislation they passed last year to create the Cedra Crenshaw situation shows Madigan and Cross are still incompetent when it comes to election laws,” said Tobin. “Illinois voters can not trust Madigan or Cross to come up with a fair plan to hold a free and equal special election for the temporary US Senate seat, so we have a plan for them. Madigan and Cross need to listen to this plan, have their Legislative Reference Bureau write it up, and then go implement it tomorrow for this special election instead of letting a judge decide which candidates are on the ballot. Burris might win his lawsuit and they need to be ready to act.”

Institute a filing fee of $500 in lieu of 500 petition signatures due on or before August 30, 2010. The same requirement for everyone. There will be no private petition challenge process by having the state board of elections automatically check the signatures. Since it is too late to hold a partisan primary, the election will have to be a winner take all free for all. That is the only realistic choice left that will give everyone in Illinois an equal opportunity to run for the temporary US Senate seat and that protects voter choice.

The three established parties, Democratic, Green, and Republican can have their central committees select their party’s official candidate for the special election. Those three candidates must pay the $500 filing fee or submit 500 petition signatures and they will be identified on the ballot as Democratic Party, Green Party, and Republican Party. Any other candidates from those three parties may file and run with the ballot labels Prefers Democratic Party, Prefers Green Party, or Prefers Republican Party.

For example, if the Democratic Party state central committee chooses Alexi Giannoulias as their nominee and he properly files, his name would appear on the ballot as Alexi Giannoulias, Democratic Party. If Sen. Roland Burris does not receive the state central committee endorsement but still wants to run and properly files, his name would appear on the ballot as Roland Burris, Prefers Democratic Party.

If Illinois voting machines could handle instant run-off, or ranked choice voting we would recommend those choices be considered but that is not possible for this election. Another realistic option would be to hold the special election similar to method California used in November 1946 to elect a US Senator to a special term. In that case, they used a write-in election and no names were printed on the ballot.

“Illinois can do better than a write-in election but only if they act now to implement our filing fee winner take all election,” said Tobin. “A court may stick us with a write-in election if Burris’ lawsuit is successful. Quinn needs to respect the voters of Illinois and call a special session to provide them a free and equal election with our filing fee plan.”

Seeking to overturn Georgia’s ballot-access laws, Coffield and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, Coffield v Handel, 09-13277, that is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. An en banc hearing by all the circuit judges has been requested after the three judge panel ruled against Coffield, March 22, 2010.

In the appeal, Coffield requests the court to consider the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Storer v. Brown, 1974, which suggests that if candidates only rarely are able to overcome steep signature requirements, then that should be used as a guide to determine whether those requirements should be set aside as too harsh.

The 11th Circuit panel noted in the Coffield v Handel ruling, that Coffield did not provide information on how many independent candidates had attempted to get on the ballot in Georgia, despite the fact that Coffield would have no way of knowing that information because Georgia does not keep such records and independent candidates are not required to give notice that they are petitioning. The panel also did not recognize Storer v. Brown, which calls for consideration of the number of candidates who have succeeded in overcoming the requirement. The panel instead asked how many candidates had failed at overcoming the requirement.

“Federal courts should be looking at how many candidates have been able to meet harsh requirements before they look at how many have failed,” said Christina Tobin, CEO and founder of Free and Equal Elections Foundation. “If they insist on wanting examples of failed candidates there is plenty of evidence from Georgia this year showing independent and alternative party candidates have real problems meeting some of the worst requirements in the US.”

At the statewide level, Brad Bryant, independent candidate for State Schools Superintendent, and Raymond Boyd, independent candidate for Governor of Georgia, failed to collect the legal minimum number of petition signatures, 44,089, and therefore decided against filing any petitions for candidacy.

Mary Norwood, independent candidate for Fulton County Commission Chair, has been denied a spot on the ballot despite her submission of roughly 33,000 signatures to meet the legal requirement of 22,598. Election officials never finished checking Norwood’s petition and denied her spot because she was four hours late to pay the filing fee, despite the petition deadline two weeks later. The deadline for the filing fee was at noon, instead of 5pm when offices close.

Despite precedents that have been set with party-affiliated candidates submitting late notice of candidacy, Norwood was denied ballot access. “We pursued ballot access, because in our view, we had ‘substantial compliance with the law,’ and we had accomplished the impossible – gathering over 33,000 signatures in less than 90 days. Had I not raised $2 million in the preceding year running for Mayor of Atlanta, I don’t believe we could have gathered the requisite number of petitioners,” Norwood said. “Georgia’s ballot access laws need to be changed for the sake of all candidates who want to serve our citizens.”

In addition, six independent candidates submitted petitions to run for state legislature, of which, two candidates’ petitions have been invalidated because they did not have enough valid signatures. The Times-Herald reported online, Tuesday, August 3, 2010, that Keith Tompkins, independent candidate for state Rep. of Georgia’s 70th House district, said he thinks that he was denied ballot access because some of his petitions were on 8.5 by 11 paper instead of the size required by law. Verification of the petition signatures turned in by the other four independent candidates have not yet been returned but results are expected to be returned soon.

“Georgia needs to reform their ballot access laws immediately,” Tobin said. “These are real people who wanted to run for office and they were wrongly denied that chance. Candidates being kicked off the ballot for using normal paper instead of the bigger legal size paper on a few petitions should not be tolerated in a free and equal democracy.”

Brad Ploeger, Libertarian candidate for the 59th District in the Georgia House, was also recently denied a place on the ballot. Ploeger collected more petition signatures than the number required but his petitioning efforts still came up short because many signers were unsure of which house district they lived in when they signed his petition.

“More than two-thirds of the states use a filing fee system in lieu of signatures for candidates to gain ballot access,” Tobin said. “Georgia requires both filing fees and high numbers of signatures. Following the lead from other states of using filing fees instead of petition signatures would provide Georgia voters more choices without cluttering the ballot. Georgians deserve to have more independent candidates on their ballot for US House than one every 46 years.”