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.

LENOIR (July 26) – House Bill 32, the Electoral Freedom Act of 2011 which passed the NC House of Representatives on June 7, 2011 by a 68-49 vote will finally get a hearing today. The North Carolina ballot access reform bill will be heard in the Rules and Operations of Senate Committee that will meet at 12:00pm in Room 1027 of the North Carolina Legislative Building.

The bill was introduced by Representatives Stephen LaRoque (R-Lenoir), Glen Bradley (R-Youngsville), Paul Leubke (D-Durham) and Jean Farmer-Butterfield (D-Wilson) in February this year coinciding with the formation of the Free the Vote Coalition in support of the measure. If enacted into law House Bill 32 would significantly lower North Carolina’s onerous ballot access restrictions to a level more consistent with democratic ideals.

President and Founder of Free the Vote North Carolina, the North Carolina organization coordinating the effort, Jordon M. Greene, said “The Electoral Freedom Act will bring North Carolina’s ballot access laws down to a more reasonable level that is closer to the vast majority of the other states in the nation.” Green went on to express his gratitude to Senate leadership, “We are grateful that the North Carolina Senate will be taking the bill up and hope they will give the bill a favorable report.”

At the Rules Committee meeting today, bill sponsor Representative Glen Bradley and the sponsor of the former Senate version of the bill Senator Andrew C. Brock (R-Mocksville) will present House Bill 32 to the Committee. It is their hope that the Rules Committee will give the bill a favorable report without amendment and send the bill to a vote on the Senate floor this week before adjournment. The Free the Vote Coalition is asking voters across the state to contact the members of the Rules and Operations of Senate Committee as well as their own State Senator in support of the bill.

North Carolina currently ranks as one of the nation’s most restrictive states in ballot access law, with only California requiring more actual signatures for a new political party to qualify for ballot status than North Carolina.

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

Tim Mullen’s nominating papers in jeopardy for lack of response

Wilkes-Barre, PA—Lou Jasikoff, Chair for the Pennsylvania Libertarian Party, blasted both Leonard Piazza–Director of Elections for Luzerne County—and the Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation in Harrisburg (BCEL) for foot dragging. Neither has given a written clarification and explanation as to what nominating papers the Libertarian Party should have been using prior to May 24th 2011, the date Luzerne County certified the 2010 election and the Libertarian Party as a minor political party in Luzerne County.

This saga began on March 1, 2011, when Betsy Summers and Brian Bergman–representing the Libertarian Party–met with Mr. Piazza in his office to determine what nominating papers should be used by Tim Mullen and other Libertarian candidates prior to collecting signatures to ensure ballot placement in November. Originally Mr. Piazza instructed both Ms. Summers and Mr. Bergman to use “political body” nominating papers. At that time, Ms. Summers pointed out to Mr. Piazza that the Libertarian Party qualified as a minor political party in Luzerne County because of the vote totals both she and Mr. Mullen received in the 2010 election. Mr. Piazza agreed and instructed both Ms. Summers and Brian Bergman that the Libertarian Party should then use “minor political party” nominating papers to gather signatures. What Mr. Piazza forgot to mention to Ms. Summers and Mr. Bergman is that Luzerne County certified the election two weeks prior on February 15th 2011 and the Libertarian Party was not included in that certification. Mr. Piazza’s error was corrected on May 24th when Luzerne County amended its certification to include the Libertarian Party.

On May 16th, the day before primary day, Jasikoff was informed from the BCEL that Luzerne County had still not certified the Libertarian Party as a minor political party. What was more disturbing was the information received from the BCEL that until the county does certify, any signatures collected on minor political party petitions would be subject to challenge and would most likely not stand up to a court challenge. On May 17th, primary day and the best day to collect signatures, Jasikoff personally met with Mr. Piazza and Neil O’Donnell, Solicitor for Luzerne County Board of Elections at the elections office. Jasikoff recounts, “Mr. Piazza assured me that this was ‘just a clerical error and he would go to court to defend the Libertarian Party in any court proceeding that might occur because of the error.’” On May 24, 2011 Luzerne County certified the Libertarian Party as a minor political party in Luzerne County.

Since May 17th Jasikoff states that he has made three requests that both Mr. Piazza and the BCEL state in writing what their positions are as it relates to signatures gathered prior to May 24th. Republicans and Democrats needed 250 signatures to qualify for the Luzerne County Council ballot in November, Libertarians and Independents need 995. Tim Mullen has over 700 signatures dated prior to May 24th.

Jasikoff then reviewed the situation: “Certain facts remain. Both the Democrat and Republican parties do not want competition. It is in their parties’ best interest–not the citizens of Luzerne County’s best interest — to exclude as many people from the ballot as possible in November. Because voter intent does not count when it relates to collecting signatures for Independents in Pennsylvania, because Pennsylvania is the only state in the United States where only judges validate signatures, because Pennsylvania was only one of five states that did not have a third party on its statewide ballot this past year, and because both the Democrat and Republican parties now use ‘economic intimidation’ to threaten candidates from participating in the electoral process, it is imperative that Independents gather double the required amount of signatures to ensure ballot access in November.”

Every day that goes by increases the uncertainty as to how many additional signatures Mr. Mullen will need to ensure his inclusion on the November ballot. Does he need an additional 2000 to make this happen or is the 700 already collected valid? The Libertarian Party is demanding a written explanation and clarification from both the Luzerne County Board of Elections and BCEL on the validity of signatures gathered prior to May 24, 2011.

“July 4th is Independence Day. We have men and women fighting and dying in all parts of the world to ensure democracy and free and equal elections in far away places,” Jasikoff remarked. “Yet right here in Pennsylvania Independents must fight antiquated laws and political chicanery to enjoy the same in our own backyard.”

Jasikoff concluded, “This July 4th, in Kirby Park, the Libertarian Party along with the Green Party and Independents will be conducting a massive signature gathering effort to place people on the ballot. We will be encouraging anyone looking to run this November to join our efforts. Only through competition in politics will we ever break the back on this ongoing corruption that is so prevalent in our society today. Our political system is akin to a rotten barrel of apples, taking a few rotten ones out and replacing them with a few good ones will not get rid of the stench. The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania encourages everyone to get involved, run for office.”

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.”

HB 2009 is a bill which would make it illegal to run for office as an independent candidate, if a person votes in a party primary. Many independents choose to vote in Illinois’ open primary system, a system which has benefited political parties, since independents who vote in a primary are more likely to vote for that party in the general election. HB 2009 would take away their right to run for office as independents.

HB 2854 is a bill that would make it easier to run for office as an independent, especially for lower income candidates who cannot afford litigation. The bill would give candidates two choices for getting on the ballot: either the current system of gathering a very large number of signatures on a petition, often followed by extensive litigation; or a filing fee.

Illinois is one of the most difficult states in the nation for independent candidates. For instance, independents need to collect 25,000 signatures to get on the ballot for Governor, while Democrats and Republicans need only 5,000. If independents manage to do this, extensive challenges and litigation follow, based on obscure rules which are often selectively enforced.

As well as helping those not experienced with “working the system,” HB 2854 would help lower income candidates, as the cost of litigation is almost always higher than the proposed filing fee. The State must also pay employees for petition review and judicial proceedings, whereas filing fees would generate revenue instead.

“HB 2854 is a win-win for everyone except party bosses,” said Christina Tobin, Chair of The Free & Equal Elections Foundation, which recently wrote a letter supporting the bill. “HB 2009 would take away voting rights. Legislators face clear choices, and the people of Illinois are watching.”

In Georgia, as in most other places, the two major parties controlled the offices of government. To the extent that these parties could, within themselves, limit the access of a rising black community to candidacy and thus elected office, they could maintain effective segregation; unless the black community went around the major parties and directly to the ballot. The answer was to institute non-racial but generically anti-independent/anti-alternative party election rules — rules designed to practically limit candidates for office to only those from the Republican and Democratic parties. In 1964, the State of Georgia did just that.

Since 1964, no independent or minor party candidate for Congress has managed to satisfy the Georgia petition requirements for getting on the ballot.

No other state in the nation can claim such an awful legacy.

Nearly five decades later, this is no longer about race. Were we to have a 47-year history of nothing but the best, most honest and incorruptible candidates advance to elected office, such statistics would be moot. Yet that is not the case and cannot be expected.

In the coming weeks, the Office of the Georgia Secretary of State will conduct two public hearings on the issue of election law reform. They are under-publicized and may only be intended to fulfill 2010 campaign promises, made in answer to strong public sentiment regarding the situation. If they receive only limited response and attention, the issue will be deemed “addressed” by those in power and pushed off once again, decades into the future.

Now is the time for you to make a date to personally, physically go and contribute to the fulfillment of America’s promise.

Calm but forceful, passionate but clear, Georgia citizens in large numbers from every social, political and ideological camp, must attend and lend their voice to these meetings.

The first hearing is to be held on Wednesday, April 27 at 10am in Room 341 of the Georgia Capital Building in Atlanta.

The second hearing is in Savannah, Georgia on Wednesday, May 25 at 1pm in the Savannah Marriott Riverfront Hotel, at 100 General McIntosh Boulevard.

Further details and directions are available through the Secretary of State website for the Elections Advisory Council (www.sos.ga.gov/GAEAC/) or by calling (404) 656-4269.

I have included information on looking up bills online, as well as links to find contact information for your State Senator and Assemblyperson. The State Senate website allows you to look up your State Senator using your address. The Assembly page is more rudimentary — you enter your ZIP code, and then are presented with a list of people who might be your Assemblyperson.

Bill search: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menuf.cgi
Contact your Assemblyperson: http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/
Contact your State Senator: http://www.nysenate.gov/

The bills in question are:

A582 – Instant Runoff Voting for NYC, replaces run-off, saves money spent on second round.

A2939 – Would reduce signature requirements by half for designating and nominating petitions.

A3664 – Reduces number of signatures required for a nominating petition for Congressional districts to 2000 from 3500.

S421 / A6398 – Would let any city or county use IRV for local elections, for both primary and general elections.

S2602 – Establishes standard of substantial compliance with election law provisions relating to nomination and designation of candidates for public office; so as to avoid the disqualification of candidates to the maximum extent feasible where there is no fraud.

Please help support this important legislation. No one should be kicked off the ballot over a technicality. Signature requirements are too high, particularly for independent nominating petitions in Congressional districts. This limits competition, which always results in an inferior product.

Instant Runoff Voting would eliminate the “lesser of two evils” conundrum. With IRV, you rank candidates in order of preference. If no one gains a majority (not a plurality) on the first round, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated — those voters who chose this candidate have their second choices substituted. Then the votes are counted again. So on until a majority winner emerges.

Not only would S421 / A3698 encourage people to vote third party, without fearing a wasted vote. You could also rank your preference in a primary, so many principled candidates could run without fear of hurting each other. IRV is the way to “let the best person win”. IRV also means candidates are less likely to “go negative” because they can still be a voter’s second choice — so why alienate another candidate’s supporters?

On March 16, Nebraska became the first state this year to enact ballot access reform, according to Richard Winger’s Ballot Access News, eliminating “the county distribution requirement for statewide non-presidential independent candidate petitions,” when Governor Dave Heineman signed LB 399 into law.

Three days later, Senate Bill 403, the New Mexico omnibus election law bill passed the New Mexico Senate unanimously after being passed by the House with a unanimous vote. The bill contains provisions to extend the petition deadline for independent candidates by three weeks, and lower the petition signature requirement for new parties in mid-term election years.

In Illinois, Rep. Jim Watson (R-Jacksonville) introduced House Bill 2854, to allow candidates to pay a filing fee in place of Illinois’ discriminatory petitioning requirements, “[helping] Illinois in this time of financial crisis, while opening up the electoral process,” according to Christina Tobin, founder of the Free & Equal Elections Foundation, which is backing the bill. Free & Equal held a press conference recently with former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, to highlight the national character of these reforms.

Moving east, the Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition is working with Rep. Eugene DePasquale (D-York) and Senator Mike Folmer (R-Lebanon) to push for passage of the Voters’ Choice Act (Senate Bill 21). The bill would lower the threshold for new parties to become recognized for the ballot, and reduce the number of signatures required for independent candidates.

In North Carolina, State Reps Stephen LaRoque (R-Lenoir), Glen Bradley (R-Youngsville), Paul Leubke (D-Durham) and Jean Farmer-Butterfield (D-Wilson) introduced the Electoral Freedom Act (House Bill 32) in early February. The Free the Vote Coalition, composed of fifteen organizations including Free the Vote North Carolina, the Free & Equal Elections Foundation, FairVote Action, the John Locke Foundation and Democracy North Carolina, are actively lobbying for the bill’s passage. State Senators Andrew C. Brock (R-Mocksville) and Eleanor Kinnaird (D-Chapel Hill) introduced Senate Bill 225, a companion bill, in the NC Senate in early March.

Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform (OBAR) is working with Rep. Charles Key (R-Oklahoma City) to promote House Bill 1058, which would cut the signature requirement for new political parties in half. The bill calls for a 22,500 signature requirement, rather than the current requirement of 5% of votes cast in the last statewide election.

In Alabama, an organization called Independent Alabama is backing a ballot access reform effort, while Marylanders4Democracy is pressing the issue in Maryland. The New Hampshire Libertarian Party is backing a ballot access reform bill in their state. Other states with pending ballot access legislation are Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Missouri, New York and Tennessee.

Christina Tobin of the Free & Equal Elections Foundation stated, “this is the largest number of states pursuing ballot access reform in over a decade. This is a sign that people are waking up, and demanding their right to vote for the candidate of their choice. We’re pleased with the number and quality of the legislation being introduced, and look forward to better government from the coming elections as a result.”

Watch a video of the press conference here:

Free & Equal will hold a press conference with Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson to support HB2854, a bill in the Illinois legislature which would allow filing fees as an alternative to the petition process.

The press conference will take place on Thursday, March 24th at 10:45am CST, at Free & Equal’s Chicago office at 407 S. Dearborn St., Suite 1170. There will be a live feed of this press conference at www.freeandequal.org .

HB2854 would generate revenue for Illinois, as opposed to the current system of petition reviews at taxpayer expense. Taxpayers United of America, one of the largest taxpayer organizations in MidAmerica, has endorsed the bill, which has also generated strong interest amongst Tea Party groups in Illinois.

Gary Johnson served as Governor of New Mexico for two terms, from 1995 to 2002. During his tenure, he vetoed more bills than the other 49 governors combined — 750 in total. Johnson also vetoed thousands of “line items” to reduce wasteful spending, cut taxes 14 times, and saw New Mexico’s GDP increase almost 30 percent during his tenure. When he left office, New Mexico had a balanced budget and a $1 billion surplus. He is considered a strong contender for the Republican Presidential nomination. Johnson will have a message to deliver to Illinois state legislators regarding this bill.

Gov. Gary Johnson is currently the honorary chairman of the OUR America Initiative, a policy advocacy committee that promotes fiscal responsibility, civil liberties, and rational public policy. Perhaps Illinois’ legislators can learn some fiscal responsibility from Governor Johnson.

New York is one of three states, the others being Illinois and Pennsylvania, where challenging an opponent’s petitions has become a commonplace practice. Politicians find it easier to knock their opponents off the ballot, than to win the favor of voters with ideas.

As happens all too often, all independent nominating petitions were invalidated by challenges. In New York officially recognized parties need to collect zero signatures in a special election, so three candidates will appear on the ballot: Green Party candidate Alex White, Democratic Party candidate Tom Richards, and Working Families Party candidate William Johnson.

Johnson attempted to also secure an independent line, but failed when Nichole Malec, an aide for Tom Richards’ campaign, successfully filed objections to more than 700 signatures on Johnson’s petitions.

Another candidate with strong community support, Ann Lewis, managed to collect almost 1,900 signatures in two weeks in the middle of February. Johnson campaign manager Mitch Rowe filed objections to Lewis’ petitions, leaving her with only 1,009 out of the 1,500 necessary to secure an independent line.

Alex White, who was knocked off the ballot for Mayor in 2009, leaving the race uncontested, did not challenge anyone and offered to help Lewis defend her petitions. When asked why he chose to do so, White said: “If my experience in this election has proven anything, it is that more voices produce better elections. To unnecessarily restrict people’s choices in elections grievously hurts our society.”

Free & Equal salutes Alex White for being the only candidate on the ballot in this race to respect the principles of democracy.

“If this had been a normal election with six weeks to gather signatures, or if a primary had been allowed with its smaller 1,000 signature requirement, none of these challenges would have succeeded. Only due to New York’s unfair special election law was this possible. Shame on Richards and Johnson for their undemocratic actions and their dissembling on this issue,” said Free & Equal Founder and President Christina Tobin.

In California, a political party can be officially recognized, and allowed to appear on the ballot, if it has enough registered voters. According to election law expert Richard Winger, “no party has used this method for getting on the ballot in the last 50 years without paying canvassers to get out on the street and persuade voters to change their registration.”

Ironically, Proposition 14, also known as the Top Two Primary, narrowly passed after a huge investment of corporate money. Prop 14 eliminated the easiest way for small political parties to get on the ballot — getting at least 2% of the vote for a statewide office in a general election. Prop 14 requires all candidates to compete in a single primary, with only the top two voter getters proceeding to the general election. Since the top two for statewide office are always Democrats and Republicans, this cuts third parties out of the process.

“After closing off one avenue for participation by passing legislation to put Prop 14 on the ballot, now the California legislature is conducting an all-out assault on democracy, trying to shut out third parties every way possible,” said Free & Equal President Christina Tobin. “Should disenfranchised voters turn to initiative or referendum as an alternative, the legislature would close the ballot to that avenue as well.”

The California legislature has passed similar bills twice before, in 2006 and 2009, which were vetoed by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

CHICAGO (Feb. 21) – Today, State Representative Jim Watson (R-97, Jacksonville) introduced House Bill 2854, a ballot access reform bill for Illinois elections. HB2854, originally proposed by the Free & Equal Elections Foundation, would allow candidates for public office an alternative to Illinois’ unequal and burdensome signature requirements by paying a filing fee in its place.

The bill would allow candidates to pay a filing fee equal to 1% of the annual salary of the office sought in lieu of gathering signatures. Illinois requirements for independent candidates are in many cases a great deal more restrictive than they are for political party candidates, effectively preventing independents from getting on the ballot. HB2854 would make the requirements equal for independents and recognized party candidates, so that Illinois voters have a choice.

According to ballot access expert Richard Winger, if the bill were to pass, Illinois would join Louisiana, Florida, and Oklahoma in allowing certain candidates to pay a filing fee in lieu of the petition requirement.

“Currently, Illinois’ ballot access laws disadvantage independent candidates by requiring them to obtain hundreds and even tens of thousands more signatures than their Republican and Democratic counterparts,” said Christina Tobin, founder and chair of the Free & Equal Elections Foundation. “A filing fee option will put independent candidates on a more equal footing.”

The filing fee option would also save the state money, by bringing in additional revenue through the filing fees, in addition to reducing the amount of time the state has to pay employees to verify signatures. According to Ms. Tobin, “the filing fee option will help Illinois in this time of fiscal crisis, while also opening up the electoral process to more choices and new ideas, producing more competitive elections and better government.”

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.

If passed, the bill would open Illinois elections, improving democracy for Illinois voters, and saving Illinois residents millions of tax dollars.

You can find the proposed language on our website, as well as charts showing signature and filing fee requirements for statewide office in all 50 states, for both primary and general elections. A majority of states use filing fees for primary elections.

Christina Tobin, founder and chair of Free and Equal Elections Foundation, is scheduled to speak about the bill to the Chicago Bar Association’s Election Law Committee on January 14.

The proposed bill, if passed, would open Illinois elections, improve democracy for Illinois voters, and save Illinoisans millions of dollars. Details of the bill, as well as charts showing other states that have implemented this policy, will be revealed at the press conference.

Christina Tobin, founder and chair of Free and Equal Elections Foundation, will speak in support of the bill to allow all Illinois candidates the option of paying a filing fee to get on the ballot, in lieu of signature collection. She is also scheduled to speak about the bill to the Chicago Bar Association’s Election Law Committee on January 14.

“The proposed bill would be a huge win for Illinois voters and taxpayers,” stated Christina Tobin, founder and chair of Free and Equal. “It eliminates costly paperwork, streamlines electoral processes, and generates revenue for the state.”

Free & Equal has identified both Democratic and Republican sponsors for such a bill in the Illinois state legislature. Christina will also be speaking to the Chicago Bar Association about the bill, at the invitation of their Election Law Committee Chair. Eleven states currently allow the use of filing fees in lieu of signatures.

Christina was quoted today in the Chicago Sun Times regarding filing fees, and reports of corruption and fraud in the petition process for Chicago’s mayoral election.

Also at the press conference will be Jim Tobin, who will speak about his experience running for Governor in 1998, when he collected over 63,000 signatures, but failed to gain access to the ballot. Jim Tobin is Christina’s father.

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.