Appeals court rules Nader should be on Michigan ballot

[Purveyor]

Friday, September 3, 2004

BY TIM MARTIN
ASSOCIATED PRESS


LANSING - Ralph Nader should be allowed on the Michigan ballot as an independent candidate for president, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

State election officials were working Friday to ensure Nader would appear on the Nov. 2 ballot.

--SNIP--

The case involving Nader's independent candidacy wound up in the appeals court because the Board of State Canvassers couldn't decide. The board deadlocked 2-2 on whether the 50,000 votes turned in to get Nader on the ballot should be certified.

Republicans on the board voted to certify Nader, while Democrats voted against him.

[Frodo]

1. Had a feeling that would happen

Did those who voted against certification give any reason?

[Bozita]

2. Judge is a Reagan appointee

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/_practices/friedman/bio.htm

Practice Guidelines for Judge Bernard A. Friedman


Biography

The Honorable Bernard A. Friedman was appointed to the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan by President Ronald Reagan on April 20, 1988. Prior to assuming the position of Judge of the United States District Court, Judge Friedman was a Judge for the State of Michigan, 48th District Court, for six years. Judge Friedman's legal background spans all phases of the law, including acting as City Attorney for several cities, civil litigation, criminal prosecutions, arbitration, negotiations and appearances before administrative agencies. His professional affiliations include the Michigan Bar Association, and Oakland County Bar.

[AspenRose]

3. NOOooooooooooooo dammit!

*sigh*

[Liberal Veteran]

4. What's the big deal? I

The only people signing the petition are Repubs who are gonna vote for Bush and the Dems are all gonna vote for Kerry.

Let's not hit the panic button and give creedance to His Egotisticalness campain.

[belle]

5. One can hope. It's still galling though. Why reward the little shit?

[Liberal Veteran]

7. Sadly I think the Dems on the Michigan board were in the wrong.

They have a duty to certify the petitions if they are legitimate. From what I read a few days ago, it was deadlocked between the Repubs and Dems on the board to certify the signatures and allow Nader on the ballot.

I didn't read anything in the article that gave a good reason for the Dems on the board to stonewall. Like it or not, we should follow the election rules on this.

I despise Nader and I think he's an egomaniac for allowing repubs who won't vote for him to get him on the ballot and I think he should drop out, but the fact remains if the signatures were legit we shouldn't stonewall the democratic process. It only makes us look bad when we do it, even if the repubs are misusing the process to get Nader on the ballot.

We are still a nation of laws. We either need to change the law or follow the law. Not ignore the law because it's inconvenient.

[dmkinsey]

8. Dems on the Board of Canvassers

were not ignoring the law. There is ample evidence that the petitions included invalid signatures.

Oh! I just read the article and that's rather confusing.
It says that they're putting him on as the Reform Party candidate. I didn't realize that was the question. I thought the court was considering the OTHER issue re: validity of Republican ciculated petitions.

Apparently this decision will render the petition question moot.

6. In a free country

IF candidates pass the requirements to be on a ballot (and those tests should be minimal) they SHOULD be on the ballot. Period.

All this objection to Nader being on the ballot is understandable given that he could conceivably hurt Kerry's chances of getting elected, but the objection is not democratic.

The only reason I'm repeating this (because I'm sure it has been said before) is that it really is important to remember & I think that restricting ballot access is the type of action that we expect from Republicans. We become the enemy when we restrict ballot access.

(see Pogo)

[DaveSZ]

9. The Dems who blocked him were being anti-DEMocratic

IMO

I'm not voting for him, but to have two corporate corrupt parties running the show sucks.

[dmkinsey]

11. It's really not the responsibility

of the Democratic Party to deliver democracy, gift wrapped ,to the Nader campaign.
He can be on the ballot. He just has to get enough people to carry his petitions, get enough legal signatures or be the legitimate candidate of a recognized political party.
If he can do that then he's on the ballot.
But make no mistake, he's our opponent and if there's any hint that he's not following the rules to the letter our lawyers will spare no effort to keep him out.

[TahitiNut]

10. I agree. There's no "win" when principles are surrendered.

The abdication of principles is what's detestible about partisanship. If a person cannot be loyal to their principles, they cannot be loyal to anything else. That's what identifies sycophants, whether they pretend to be 'left' or 'right.'