…and better than ever!

‘Free and Equal Elections Foundation’ announced today the early 2012 launch for their revamped website at www.freeandequal.org.

Building on the last set of website upgrades, the new web design will upgrade both appearance and functionality, featuring an enhanced social networking application that is organized by state using an interactive map, and loaded with useful information about congressional candidates, and news and events for Free and Equal state caucuses.

The 2012 campaign season is moving fast. As the year progresses, Free and Equal friends and allies will be able to use the new website to keep citizens and media professionals up-to-date with pertinent political news, and let the politicians and lobbyists know that the people are watching. Our goal is to empower every American citizen to have free and equal access to the ballot, and our political process, whether as a candidate or voter.

Our project is well underway, but we need your help in the form of your most generous contribution. Confidence is government is at a new low, and our nation needs new choices and new ideas, now more than ever.

You can donate here. Thank you, and we would love to hear your feedback any time.

The ‘Free and Equal’ Foundation came out today in support of the ‘County Sheriff Project‘ and its upcoming conference.

The project, led by Sheriff Richard Mack, aims to instill in our country’s sheriffs, a deeper understanding of the U.S. Constitution. It will train them to judiciously use their authority to better protect the rights of county residents, Nationwide.

The ‘County Sheriff Project’ will host an educational conference in Las Vegas, January 29 – 31. Organizers expect at least 200 sheriffs to participate. Christina Tobin, founder and president of ‘The Free and Equal Elections Foundation,’ also will be in attendance.

“Citizens’ freedom is being eroded by a Federal government that increasingly disregards our Nation’s Constitution,” Tobin said.

Tobin concluded, “The ‘County Sheriff Project’ is apolitical. It seeks to ensure the personal liberties of everyone. We need sheriffs more than ever. They are the primary defense citizens have, regardless of their politics. From OWS to the Tea Party – everyone – we all need to unite for electoral reform. More-than-ever, the Sheriffs will be necessary to help protect the people – all the people.”

Recently, I read the story of the Christmas Truce again. I encourage you to read the story linked below, but in short, in 1914 English and German soldiers laid down their arms, crossed the no-man’s land of WWI trench warfare, and celebrated Christmas together. Their leaders were horrified, that men would question whether they were really enemies, and why they were killing each other, and took extreme measures to restore a state of war.

This led me to think about politics in America today. What our nation’s founders called “the spirit of faction” has divided our people, and paralyzed our political institutions. Divisive rhetoric is used to gain temporary partisan advantage, with little thought given to the long term consequences for our civil institutions. Likewise, moderates and idealists, factions in their own right, too often resort to slandering each other.

Meanwhile, the evidence of decline is everywhere. Polls show that trust in our political leaders is almost nonexistent. Millions of Americans have dropped out of the political process altogether. Populist movements have arisen on all sides, and protests are increasingly common. As long as standards of living continue to decline, civil unrest will remain the elephant in the room. Corruption is evident in many places, and legitimate questions about the integrity of the election process remain unanswered. History is replete with similarities that we would do well to carefully consider.

Yet each day brings us a new chance to make things right. The stale, stock propaganda – the old stories – ring hollow, because we can now tell each other our own stories. Every day on the internet we share these stories with each other. In the process, we show each other that we are not so different after all. We have the same dreams, the same needs and desires, the same happiness and sadness, joy and sorrow, hope and despair. We care about our neighbors, by and large, and want a society in which together we can prosper. We’re willing to work if we think the system is fair. We want our children to grow up in a world worth living in.

We are at a crossroads. The politics of divide and conquer are being challenged on all fronts. We can continue to pursue partisan advantage, while our country declines around us. Or we can begin to celebrate the things we have in common as human beings. As Americans, we have in common a unique inheritance – the greatest and most ambitious experiment in government the world has ever seen. We have made great progress, and I am far from convinced that our best days lie in the past.

I call upon all Americans to take a stand. We neither need to, nor should, stop advocating for people and causes we believe in. What we must do is change our tactics, and recognize that those who understand the need for unity, in other factions, rank higher as allies than those in our own factions who do not understand. If you feel stronger facing the future in brotherhood rather than enmity – if you believe America should enjoy the fruits of peace, rather than the spoils of war – if, like me, you love the people of this country so much, that sometimes it feels as if your heart is about to split your chest – you will come together to resist those who care only about themselves, or their partial society – their party – their faction. Cease fire!

your friend,

Chris Edes
Free & Equal New York Caucus Leader

P.S. Check it out: http://hnn.us/articles/memory-christmas-truce

John Hilton, CEO of Bessemer Trust, said he’s never seen clients so frustrated with the state of affairs in Washington, in his 42 years advising ultra high-net worth investors.

Alan Ungar of Critical Capital Management put it bluntly: “People are pissed. This isn’t about taxes. It’s about the partisan dynamic.” Ungar’s clients average $1.6 million or more in assets invested with the firm.

Several of Jim Heitman’s clients are usually active in their parties. An adviser with Compass Financial Planning in Alta Loma, California, whose average account size is $1.3 million, Heitman says some of his clients are using the money they earmark for political contributions to pay off mortgages on vacation homes or to invest in alternative assets like gold. According to Heitman, “the attitude is increasingly ‘a pox on both their houses.’”

“Who isn’t upset with the two major parties?” said Christina Tobin, Chair of The Free & Equal Elections Foundation. “The list of excuses for the status quo has just about run out.”

“The United States of America was founded as a great experiment in self-government,” said Chris Edes, Free and Equal New York Caucus Leader, and member of the Occupy Rochester (NY) Electoral Reform Working Group. “We believe the most exciting work remains to be done. We could not be more pleased to see people across this great nation discarding the shackles of apathy, and stepping forward to lead.”

Free & Equal Founder and Chair Christina Tobin added: “As we did two years ago when we began to engage members of the Tea Party, countless numbers of whom have demonstrated true grassroots activism, we now greet the Occupy movement with open arms. We believe in empowering people regardless of ideology or affiliation.”

As part of the outreach effort, Free & Equal will offer to educate activists about reforms such as Instant Runoff Voting, Proportional Representation, Term Limits, Initiative and Referendum, and other avenues of change.

In addition, Free & Equal will be offering advice and assistance to any Occupy group which wishes to run candidates for public office. “It is our hope that the Occupy movement will take their grievances to the ballot box, and hold their leaders accountable,” said Edes. “There are many cynical and unfair barriers which the establishment has put in place, to deny the people access to their ballot. We will help the Occupy movement overcome these barriers.”

Free & Equal does not endorse or favor any specific reform, and does not endorse candidates for public office.

On January 1, 2010, an Alabama bill to open up access to the ballot for independents and third party candidates, lost in committee by one vote. Also, on September 10, 2009, the California State Senate defeated an Instant Runoff Voting bill by one vote.

What if a third party candidate had been on the Alabama committee, or in the California State Senate? One vote could get a candidate elected, who would then be that one vote, which could reform our electoral system, and open the door to more independent and third party candidates. What if it was YOUR one vote? Next time you think your vote doesn’t count, think again. America needs good people to get involved and be active in their government. Democracy can work but it needs more people to get involved.

Rochester Tea Party leader Chris Edes issued a formal statement today, demanding Mayor Richards cease arresting Occupy Rochester protesters immediately.

“If we allow Mayor Richards to violate the First Amendment rights of the Occupy Rochester protesters, what is to prevent him from doing it to the Tea Party?” said Edes.

“The purpose of the law requiring city parks to close at 11pm is to deter crime. When dealing with First Amendment issues, the government must use the least restrictive means possible to achieve their goals. Requiring everyone to leave is clearly not the least restrictive means, even if the Mayor could point to specific instances of crime, which so far he has not. Mayor Richards’ actions are unconstitutional and if necessary, he will be held accountable in a court of law.”

Edes also noted that the Tea Party shares some common goals with the Occupy Wall Street movement. “It is the Federal Reserve, along with the banks and investment firms, and their lackeys in government, which created our economic crisis. This is becoming increasingly obvious to Americans of all political persuasions. It is shameful that Mayor Richards believes he can stifle the peaceful expression of outrage over this fact.”

Edes plans to join this afternoon’s march on City Hall, demanding that Richards cease his unlawful activity.

After the first round, if no single candidate has a majority of “first choice” votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is dropped, and the dropped candidate’s “second choice” votes are substituted (since the “first choice” i.e. that candidate has been dropped). This process is repeated until a single candidate has a majority. Thus, the “lesser of two evils” problem is eliminated and democracy thrives anew.

The following is reproduced with permission from the Californians for Electoral Reform website. See the original at:

http://cfer.org/outreach/pressreleaseSept2011.pdf

***

Second poll confirms Ron Paul strength among California Republican Delegates, lack of willingness of Ron Paul supporters to consider other candidates

An official “straw poll” released by the California Republican Party on September 17 showed U.S. Representative Ron Paul of Texas an overwhelming winner 44.9% support with in a crowded field of presidential candidates. That percentage was echoed with 45.8% of first place votes in a simultaneous survey taken by nonpartisan Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER).

The CfER poll shows a closer race for second place among California GOP activists, with 16.2% of first place votes for Rick Perry and 13.2% for Mitt Romney, compared with 29.3% and 8.8% respectively in the official straw poll. Michele Bachmann placed fourth with 7.2% (versus 7.7% in the straw poll), Newt Gingrich was fifth with 3.9%, Rick Santorum was sixth with 3%. Tied for seventh place with 2.4% each were Herman Cain and write-in candidate Sarah Palin. Seven other candidates shared the remaining six percent of first place votes.

What makes the CfER survey interesting is that participants were asked to rank as many candidates as they wanted, putting the number “1″ by their first choice, “2″ by their second favorite, and so on. Ranked Choice Ballots give each respondent the opportunity to express who they favor most and who else they are willing to accept in a fallback position.

Among the 76 GOP activists who ranked Ron Paul number one in the survey, 25 declined declined to mark a second choice, nearly one-third of those voting. The 91 ballots showing other first-choice candidates had only 3 GOP voters declining to make a second choice. This indicates a strong dedication of Ron Paul supporters for their candidate. Of 51 Paul supporters marking a second choice, 28 (54.9%) went to former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.

ROUND-BY-ROUND RESULTS OF
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL SURVEY
Conducted at California State Convention, September 16-17, 2011

In this survey, 167 ballots were collected and tallied. 84 votes (the whole number of ballots larger than fifty percent) are required for a majority of the votes cast. Only number “1″ choices are counted in the first round. If no majority is achieved, the lowest ranked candidate(s) is/are eliminated in the next round, and each ballot is transferred to the next preference of each individual voter whose earlier choices had been eliminated. Only the highest ranking still active on any ballot is counted in any given round. To learn more about Ranked Choice Ballots, see www.cfer.org or www.fairvote.org

ROUND ONE
All number “1″ votes were counted with subsequent numbers ignored on this round. All ballots bearing just “X” or check marks were counted as a single vote shared fractionally by all candidates so marked. Tally shows votes in the following amounts: Ron Paul 76.5, Rick Perry 27, Mitt Romney 22, Michele Bachman 12, Newt Gingrich 6.5, Rick Santorum 5, Herman Cain 4, Sarah Palin (write-in) 4, Jon Huntsman 2, Gary Johnson 2, Fred Karger (write-in) 2, and with one vote each, write-ins Chris Christie, Jim DeMint, Rudy Guliani, and Alan Keyes. Ballot listed candidates Thad McCotter and Buddy Roemer received no first place votes.

ROUND TWO
Candidates Christie, DeMint, Guliani, Keyes, McCotter and Roemer were eliminated and b allots transferred to the second choice of each voter for eliminated candidates. Candidates Bachmann, Huntsman and Perry each pick up one vote, with one ballot exhausted (showing no further valid choices).

ROUND THREE
Candidates Johnson and Karger (lowest remaining with 2 votes each) eliminated. Candidates Huntsman and Paul each pick up two votes. Count now stands at: Ron Paul 78.5, Rick Perry 28, Mitt Romney 22, Michele Bachman 13, Newt Gingrich 6.5, Jon Huntsman 5, Rick Santorum 5, Herman Cain 4, Sarah Palin (write-in) 4, exhausted ballots 1.

ROUND FOUR
Candidates Cain and Palin (lowest remaining with 4 votes each) eliminated. Candidate Bachmann picks up 4 votes, while Gingrich and Paul each pick up one vote, and 2 ballots are exhausted. Count now stands at: Ron Paul 79.5, Rick Perry 28, Mitt Romney 22, Michele Bachman 17, Newt Gingrich 7.5, Jon Huntsman 5, Rick Santorum 5, exhausted ballots 3.

ROUND FIVE
Candidates Huntsman and Santorum (lowest remaining with 5 votes each) eliminated. Candidate Perry picks up 3 votes, Gingrich and Romney 2 each, with one vote each for Bachmann and Paul. One ballot is exhausted. Count now stands at: Ron Paul 80.5, Rick Perry 31, Mitt Romney 24, Michele Bachman 18, Newt Gingrich 9.5, exhausted ballots 4.

ROUND SIX
Candidate Gingrich (lowest remaining with 9.5 votes) is eliminated. Candidate Romney picks up 5.5 votes, Perry 2, with one each going to Bachmann and Paul. Count now stands at: Ron Paul 81.5, Rick Perry 33, Mitt Romney 29.5, Michele Bachman 19, exhausted ballots 4.

ROUND SEVEN
Candidate Bachmann (lowest remaining with 19 votes) is eliminated. Candidate Perry picks up 7 votes, Paul 3 and Romney one vote. Eight ballots are exhausted. The final count stands at: Ron Paul 84.5, Rick Perry 40, Mitt Romney 30.5, exhausted ballots 12.

ROUND EIGHT
Having surpassed the majority threshold of 84 votes, U.S. Representative RON PAUL of Texas is declared the winner of this survey.

RANKED CHOICE BALLOTS

Used in several countries, and in many organizations (including by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to choose the Oscar winner for Best Picture), there are numerous names for Ranked Choice Ballots. They include Alternative Vote, Enumerated Ballots, the Hare System, Instant Runoff Voting, Preference or Preferential Voting, and the Single Transferable Vote.

When only one candidate is to be selected, this vote-counting system requires that the winner achieve at least 50% of the vote from the active ballots. Usually that means a majority among the most popular candidates remaining after elimination of less popular candidates have been made in earlier rounds.
To learn more about Ranked Choice Ballots, see www.cfer.org or www.fairvote.org

Californians for Electoral Reform

CfER is a nonpartisan civic group which promotes only two reforms: use of Ranked Choice Ballots and Proportional Representation.

New York City – Free & Equal will Co-Host Liberty Fest NYC this Saturday, September 10, from 5pm-11pm at the Club Amnesia, on 609 West 29th Street in New York City.

Liberty Fest NYC brings activists, authors, bloggers, artists and musicians from different political backgrounds and parts of the country together to celebrate the cause of Liberty. The event has drawn an impressive roster of speakers, including NY Times best-selling author and Senior Fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Tom Woods. Other speakers include philosopher Stefan Molyneux; singer/songwriter Jordan Page; Scott Horton of antiwar.com, Andrew Schiff, Director of Communications and Marketing for Euro Pacific Capital, Kevin Zeese, Executive Director of Voters For Peace, former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack; Free & Equal Founder and President Christina Tobin; former Congressional candidate Adam Kokesh; Gary Franchi, founder of the RTR.org social network; and 2012 Libertarian Presidential Candidate, RJ Harris, among others.

LibertyFest NYC is being sponsored by The Free & Equal Elections Foundation, Taxpayers United of America, the Manhattan Libertarian Party, the Free State Project, Voters For Peace, Antiwar.com, the Republican Liberty Caucus, Liberty-Candidates.org, Restore the Republic, DB Capitol Strategies, Freedomain Radio, Patriot Polls, and TruthSquad.TV.

“This year’s LibertyFest provides a great opportunity for people from many political backgrounds to exchange ideas and discover common ground,” Free & Equal Founder and President Christina Tobin said. “Free & Equal is proud to be a part of it.”

Tickets, info and sponsorship & vending opportunities are available at http://LFNYC.com.

“LibertyFest is a building of coalitions from the entire spectrum of the liberty movement. We must come together if we are going to bring liberty back to our country. What better way to start rebuilding than to begin at the place where liberty was lost as we come together to bring it back on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11 ,” says Gigi Bowman, co-organizer of LibertyFest and founder of Liberty-Candidates.org.

The event has drawn an impressive roster of speakers, including NY Times best-selling author and Senior Fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Tom Woods. Other speakers include voluntaryist philosopher, Stefan Molyneux – former Arizona Sheriff, Richard Mack – former Congressional candidate,  Adam Kokesh – Gary Franchi, founder of the RTR.org social network – and 2012 Libertarian Presidential Candidate, RJ Harris. In addition, many current and former candidates from Liberty-Candidates.org will be speaking and celebrating the launch of the first official book from the same organization, titled: How to Run for Office on a Liberty Platform.

This event is truly drawing people from all arenas, as stated by co-organizer, Ian Cioffi, “LibertyFest NYC is about bringing people from various political views together, under one roof, to discuss what we can agree on, and how to build from there. It’s an event for people who understand that both parties are to blame, and how we can go about fixing our broken political system.”

Co-organizer, Amanda Trbovich adds, “LibertyFest is about coming together and working with one another. We all have such different viewpoints and we all think very critically – not everyone is going to agree and that is healthy, it keeps us vigilant, as we were meant to be. This event celebrates the differences in the Liberty Movement and invites everyone to come together to share ideas on the best way to preserve our inherent human freedoms.”

Book signings, Liberty themed music & clothing, precious metals by Del Valley Silver and much more will be available in the vendor loft.

“We will be honoring 9/11 heroes and victims, discussing philosophy, debating solutions to national political and economic challenges and having a great time while doing it!” said co-organizer Danny Panzella.

LibertyFest NYC is being held at Club Amnesia: 609 West 29th Street New York, NY 10001 from 5:00 – 11:00 PM on September 10^th, 2011. Organized and hosted on a grass-roots level by Liberty Activists: Danny Panzella (TruthSquad.tv), Gigi Bowman (Liberty-Candidates.org), Ian Cioffi (PatriotPolls.com), Amanda Trbovich (Trbobitch.com) and Christina Tobin (FreeandEqual.org). Sponsored and Co-Hosted by: The Free & Equal Elections Foundation - a non-partisan, non-profit public policy advocacy group dedicated to election reform and improving ballot access laws in the United States. Tickets, info and sponsorship & vending opportunities are available at http://LFNYC.com.

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.”

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

Not much has been reported, however, from the perspective of electoral reform. To that end, Free & Equal would like to recognize a few of New York’s political “heroes and zeros.”

HERO: State Senator Joseph Robach introduced, and the State Senate passed, a constitutional amendment that would allow New Yorkers to enact and amend laws through initiative and referendum. New York is known for having the country’s most dysfunctional state government, dominated by a few political bosses. Free & Equal congratulates Senator Robach for leading the way in restoring power to the people.

HERO: State Senator Roy McDonald, during a recent announcement that he was changing his vote in favor of same-sex marriage, said in part: “You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, f— it, I don’t care what you think. I’m trying to do the right thing… I’m tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it.” Free & Equal encourages other political leaders to adopt Senator McDonald’s view of major party politics.

Of course, there were also low points. Free & Equal examines just one.

ZERO: This year’s ethics reform bill makes some positive changes. Yet New York’s political elites couldn’t resist adding one provision that enshrines the Democrats and Republicans in special positions of power. The proposed Joint Commission on Public Ethics would be composed, by law, of only Democrats and Republicans. Governor Cuomo was asked about the role of independents at a recent news conference. “They don’t exist!” was Cuomo’s response, according to the Wall Street Journal, “at which point he and legislative leaders standing beside him broke into a hearty laugh.”

Yes, progress is slow in the Empire State, but the spirit of independence remains alive. According to Free & Equal CIO and New York resident Chris Edes, who also lives in Senator Robach’s district: “New York can work its way back to responsible government, but it will take hard work. Leaders like Senator Robach are stepping up to the plate. When the legislature reconvenes in January, it will be time for New York’s citizens to demand action.”

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.”

Phil Moffett and John T. Kemper III, Republican candidates for Governor and Auditor, respectively, had signed a petition which would allow Libertarian Party candidate for State Treasurer Ken Moellman a place on the ballot.

Republicans and Democrats do not need to collect signatures to appear on the ballot, but other parties must under Kentucky state law. “I don’t think that’s the right thing to do,” Moffett said. “We’re all Kentuckians. We’re all citizens. And we should all have equal access.”

Kentucky GOP Chair Steve Robertson has threatened to have both candidates removed from the ballot if they win the primary, using a provision of Kentucky election law. Candidates for election in a primary must sign a statement saying they “intend to support its principles and policies” of their party. Robertson alleges that signing a petition allowing another candidate to run for office violates this oath.

If upheld by the courts, his challenge would enable the second-place finisher to take the nomination. Should Moffett or Kemper win, the likely runners up would be candidates favored by party leaders such as Robertson.

“When it comes to competition, Mr. Robertson’s views appear closer to Karl Marx than Adam Smith,” said Free & Equal chair Christina Tobin. “How ironic that he would cite the principles of the Republican Party, while opposing a free market in ideas.”