"Commons" Preparing to Take "State" to Court, Again
As we explained in our previous essay, the secretary of state, Sam Reed, is preparing a grab bag of suppressive electoral changes that will negatively affect minor parties. The Greens, Libertarians and Progressives were already upset about the conduct of the secretary of state's office in relation to how his office deals with minor parties; now, Reed is preparing to make things worst. It seems this secretary of state wants to effectively keep minor parties off of election ballots. We have little doubt that the "Republi-crats" in the Legislature will go along with Reed's changes, which will inevitably set up a court challenge in 2010.
If the choices for our candidates in proclaiming a party when filing for office are only Democrat and Republican, or listing no party, the Party of Commons will probably be in Superior Court objecting to not being able to list our party name on the ballot. We may reconsider a court challenge if the minor party petition requirement that Reed and the Legislature settle on is a very low threshold, around 25 signatures or less. However, if the Party of Commons is required to get scores or hundreds of signatures to list our party name, we will definitely be taking the secretary of state to court, with or without the help of the American Civil Liberties Union. Legally, we know of no numeric standard that a party has to attain in order to be considered a party, and we are confident we would win a party identification case in court.
Also, "Commons" may challenge the 2% primary quota minimum that Reed wants to make in order for candidates to qualify for the general election ballot even though these candidates would have to come in first or second place, anyway. Why Reed wants to re-open a matter that was already settled in the Munro v. Socialist Workers Party case in 1986, when the Supreme Court backed the then secretary of state and the 1% quota, is beyond us. Supporters of the Party of Commons can be assured that we will not be caught flat-footed in 2010 like our committee affiliation was in the 2006 U.S. senatorial election when Reed disqualified Mark Greene from the ballot. We will have our legal challenges ready to go from Day 1 of filing for office in 2010, and we are already assuming that going to court is exactly what we will have to do. We hope the ACLU or any interested lawyer willing to work pro bono will help us, but the "Commons" chairman will bring these matters to court by himself if he has to.
Your financial assistance will help to cover legal expenses that Mark Greene incurs in this expected legal battle. Just go to our website link above (click on the title) or on the profile page if you would like to donate. Thank you.
Copyright 2008 - 2009, Party of Commons TM
If the choices for our candidates in proclaiming a party when filing for office are only Democrat and Republican, or listing no party, the Party of Commons will probably be in Superior Court objecting to not being able to list our party name on the ballot. We may reconsider a court challenge if the minor party petition requirement that Reed and the Legislature settle on is a very low threshold, around 25 signatures or less. However, if the Party of Commons is required to get scores or hundreds of signatures to list our party name, we will definitely be taking the secretary of state to court, with or without the help of the American Civil Liberties Union. Legally, we know of no numeric standard that a party has to attain in order to be considered a party, and we are confident we would win a party identification case in court.
Also, "Commons" may challenge the 2% primary quota minimum that Reed wants to make in order for candidates to qualify for the general election ballot even though these candidates would have to come in first or second place, anyway. Why Reed wants to re-open a matter that was already settled in the Munro v. Socialist Workers Party case in 1986, when the Supreme Court backed the then secretary of state and the 1% quota, is beyond us. Supporters of the Party of Commons can be assured that we will not be caught flat-footed in 2010 like our committee affiliation was in the 2006 U.S. senatorial election when Reed disqualified Mark Greene from the ballot. We will have our legal challenges ready to go from Day 1 of filing for office in 2010, and we are already assuming that going to court is exactly what we will have to do. We hope the ACLU or any interested lawyer willing to work pro bono will help us, but the "Commons" chairman will bring these matters to court by himself if he has to.
Your financial assistance will help to cover legal expenses that Mark Greene incurs in this expected legal battle. Just go to our website link above (click on the title) or on the profile page if you would like to donate. Thank you.
Copyright 2008 - 2009, Party of Commons TM
Comments