This via dKos:
"Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's name can appear on Florida ballots for the election, despite a court order to the contrary, Florida's elections chief told officials on Monday in a move that could help President Bush in the key swing state.The Florida Democratic Party reacted with outrage, calling the move "blatant partisan maneuvering" by Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's younger brother, and vowed to fight it. (...)
Florida Circuit Court Judge Kevin Davey issued a temporary injunction last week preventing the state from putting Nader on the 2004 ballot, siding with a Democratic challenge that the Reform Party did not qualify as a national party under state law.
A hearing on a permanent injunction is scheduled for Wednesday. But Roberts said Hurricane Ivan, which is headed for Florida's Gulf coast, had raised "a substantial question as to when such a hearing" will be held. (...)
Maddox noted that Tallahassee, the state capital where Davey sits, is not expected to be directly hit by the hurricane."
What makes this particularly ironic is that it comes just two days after Florida Democrats declined to challenge George W. Bush's eligibility to be on the Florida ballot when he failed to meet the legally required filing deadline.
This would only be ironic if the situation were reversed. Don't forget this comes from the 'bi-partisanship is date rape" crowd.
Posted by: wilfred | September 14, 2004 at 12:21 AM
Hilzoy, it was ironic when it happened the first 500 times. Now it's ... it's ... something else, which the language, posting rules, and the need to remain reasonably sane on at least one thread forbid me to utter.
Posted by: John Thullen | September 14, 2004 at 01:00 AM
I'm not seeing the irony part. Bush is on the ballot, and so is Nader. Seems consistent. The only thing inconsistent is the local arm of the DNC doesn't seem nearly as concerned with carrying out the will of the voting public as they were four years ago.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | September 14, 2004 at 01:17 AM
The key part of the report is: "Florida Circuit Court Judge Kevin Davey issued a temporary injunction last week preventing the state from putting Nader on the 2004 ballot, siding with a Democratic challenge that the Reform Party did not qualify as a national party under state law."
I have two questions which should shed light on the issue. (They aren't rhetorical, I really don't know the answer.)
Is the Green Party a national party under state law?
Is the Libertarian Party a national party under state law?
If the answer to either is 'yes' I strongly suspect that the Reform Party is too. If the answer to both is 'no' then probably the Reform Party isn't either.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | September 14, 2004 at 01:18 AM
Sebastian:
Florida law on this is fairly simple. It requires candidates of minor parties to be affiliated with "a national party holding a national convention." I'm assuming this stops candidates from simply making one up -- as Nader was considering at the start (say hello to The Populist Party!). It also, according to the judge in question, precludes parties from having a conference call and calling it a national convention, as the Reform Party did.
The Green Party held a national convention and opted not to endorse Nader this time around, and did so specifically to avoid acting the spoiler. I don't know about the Libertarian Party. But what's clear is the law in Florida, which, of course, folks are welcome to change if they find it undemocratic.
Circumventing the law in order to get Nader on the ballot, and by a republican state official, seems like a bad idea, though not unexpected. Hey, Jeb wants to sit at the family table come Thanksgiving. (Tho', if Kitty Kelly is to be believed, said table constitutes a circle worthy of Dante.)
Posted by: Harley | September 14, 2004 at 08:26 AM
Slarti: I'm not seeing the irony part.
You're right: when it's only how we expect the Florida Republicans to behave, it's not ironic, it's just... outrageous. After four years, it's evident that Jeb Bush believes that electoral rules apply to other people, not to himself or to his brother. It's perfectly consistent behavior.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | September 14, 2004 at 08:54 AM
Hilzoy:
You may want to check the link you cited again. It clearly states that what you claim--that Bush failed to meet the legally required filing deadline--was not the case. Clearly, this is a stupid error on the part of the Florida GOP. But if the requirement did not apply to the candidates....
Well.
Posted by: Jon Henke | September 14, 2004 at 09:19 AM
Harley:
The applicable statute is here. In summary:
A minority party candidate can get put on the ballot if:
a) The party has no national convention, but he's got petition support of 1% of the population of Florida (which would be about 200k signatures, IIRC) by July 15, or:
b)The party has a national convention and files by September 1.
Now, it's arguable that the Reform Party's national convention is a reasonable facsimile of what Florida lawmakers had in mind. But they did in fact have a national convention, and even though it didn't measure up to the scope, grandeur and media coverage of the RNC or DNC, Nader was nominated by a national convention in the proper time frame. This judge is simply embroidering the statute, IMO, because the statute doesn't in any way define minimum requirements for what constitutes a national convention.
I'd be interested in hearing von's take on this. I could well be wrong in this matter, but this is the way it looks to me, purely from reading the statute. Personally, I think Nader's a crackpot, but under the law it looks like he has as much right to be on the ballot as, say, Pat Buchanan did.
Jesurgislac:
There's nothing in the above that's correct.
1) Jeb Bush has nothing to do with this.
2) You don't know what Jeb Bush is thinking, unless your powers of telepathy have improved dramatically over the last couple of days.
3) The whole point here, if what I've said above WRT the statute is correct, is that the electoral rules apply to everyone.
And, anticipating more questions about the deadline the Republicans purportedly missed, the statute specifically refers to minority parties in reference to the September 1 deadline. If you search the statutes in general for September 1 AND ballot, you get two hits, one of which has to do with charter schools. Again, I could be wrong on this, and I'd be glad to examine evidence that controverts what I've said.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | September 14, 2004 at 09:50 AM
it's arguable that
should read:
it's arguable whether
Posted by: Slartibartfast | September 14, 2004 at 09:54 AM
judge is simply embroidering the statute, IMO.
I don't have any opinion on the legal issue here--maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But isn't it clear that the judge is the interpreter of the law, and that it's wrong for the official to disobey a direct court order.
I mean, I can think of a Florida-election-related court decision that many people on my side of the aisle thought was awful. If we'd all decided it didn't apply the country would be in deep doo-doo.
Posted by: Matt Weiner | September 14, 2004 at 12:59 PM
Slarti, you're right about the petition. But Nader couldn't get the required number of signatures. As for defining national political conventions, this would be the first time a conference call counted as one, and given that the law was enacted to limit the number of candidates, the Reform Party's stirring phone call -- maybe they had balloon drops in their respective living rooms -- seems like an obvious attempt to circumvent the law.
Again. If folks don't like it, then change it. But blaming it all on the weather is a little on the weaselly side. But then again, we're talking Florida, so no surprise there.
Posted by: Harley | September 14, 2004 at 01:07 PM
Slarti, you're right about the petition. But Nader couldn't get the required number of signatures. As for defining national political conventions, this would be the first time a conference call counted as one, and given that the law was enacted to limit the number of candidates, the Reform Party's stirring phone call -- maybe they had balloon drops in their respective living rooms -- seems like an obvious attempt to circumvent the law.
Again. If folks don't like it, then change it. But blaming it all on the weather is a little on the weaselly side. But then again, we're talking Florida, so no surprise there.
Posted by: Harley | September 14, 2004 at 01:09 PM
Q:
A:
As for the idea that a Florida Circuit Court judge can decide, arbitrarily, what constitutes a national convention, it ought to be obvious where I stand. The law is so unspecific about that that I don't think a judge can justify that even the spirit of the law is being violated.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | September 14, 2004 at 01:57 PM
Ugh.
Err on the side of letting people vote for whomever they want to vote for. Let's not let tactics get in the way of principles, shall we?
Posted by: sidereal | September 14, 2004 at 02:09 PM
Wild applause
Posted by: Slartibartfast | September 14, 2004 at 02:19 PM
Wild applause, it should be noted, by some who see tactical advantage in Nader being on the Florida ballot. Then there are the GOP groups who have worked to get Nader on the ballot, for, you know, tactical reasons.
This is an election, not a prayer meeting. No harm in understanding that.
Posted by: Harley | September 14, 2004 at 02:59 PM
Slarti, good point. I suppose that there is some question as to whether this particular official should be intervening this way, and I don't think the clock should be running out on this, but the case isn't as cut and dried as I thought.
Sidereal, no way. When one side engages in whatever sort of tactics will give it political leverage, the other side has to, or it'll get killed. Politics ain't beanbag.
Posted by: Matt Weiner | September 14, 2004 at 03:02 PM
Wild applause, it should be noted, by some who see tactical advantage in Nader being on the Florida ballot.
As opposed to booing by those who see tactical disadvantage. If you can invalidate approval with advantage, why not invalidate disapproval with disadvantage?
Disappointing, Harley. I was hoping you'd go look at the statute and give voice to some sort of opinion based on the law.
I personally don't care whether or not Nader's on the ballot, except for that some are attempting to deny him the opportunity. Kinda goes against the grain. Also, it should be noted that the only ballots that will be affected at this point (if I read the article correctly) are the absentee ones. So you'll lose the votes of some New Yorkers, probably.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | September 14, 2004 at 03:05 PM
Politics ain't beanbag.
As much as I hate that this is so, I have to agree. And to me, it looks as if the law might be on the side of Nader. Whether that goes to the advantage of the RNC or not is, to me, not all that important. If Florida is going to be so close that 10,000 votes is going to throw it one way or another, I'd call it a coin flip.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | September 14, 2004 at 03:08 PM
Slarti, I understand your point, but you're making a pretty basic mistake by suggesting that the law 'might be on the side of Nader.' Or even by suggesting that I give it a look myself. Neither opinion -- yours, mine -- is required or relevant. A judge has already ruled on the dispute, and given his ruling -- well, it looks like the law is not on the side of Nader. That's why we have judges, yes?
That's really the issue here. We can set aside our amateur opinions re the statute, and, I think, agree on one obvious fact. The judge ruled. The state GOP used the storm as an excuse to circumvent the ruling.
Posted by: Harley | September 14, 2004 at 03:19 PM
That's why we have judges, yes?
Hey, our judges are not much smarter than the lawmakers in the state Congress. That's why we have appeals. In the meantime, though, time marches on.
The state GOP didn't circumvent the ruling, they just used the appeals process as a way to make sure Nader got on the absentee ballots. The ballots used at the polling sites can still have Nader's name removed, if the appeals process can be brought to a close before they're printed. If I were the DNC, I'd be yelling for immediate review by whatever court the appeals is headed toward.
But that would appear petty, maybe. Maybe the "beanbag" comment was even more on target than I'd thought.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | September 14, 2004 at 03:26 PM
Slarti: You're sorta couching this in terms that exculpate the, er, evil-doer here. ('Wrong-doer' if you prefer.) The GOP was going to plead their case at a Wednesday hearing, all part of the usual judicial process. But that hearing was cancelled when the elections chief -- the GOP again -- called it off due to concerns re the storm. So this isn't a case of the GOP using the appeals process to get Nader on the ballot, it's a GOP official circumventing the appeals process in order to it get Nader on the ballot while avoiding judges and their pesky legalisms.
But I'm guessing the Florida Supremes will be heard from shortly. And you know what that gang is like. :)
Posted by: Harley | September 14, 2004 at 03:41 PM
"Then there are the GOP groups who have worked to get Nader on the ballot, for, you know, tactical reasons."
The problem here is that it takes much work at all to get someone on the ballot. Other than saving on ink costs, I can't imagine a rational reason to make it difficult.
The fact that the major party most closely allied with Nader's principles is going out of its way to eliminate people's ability to vote for him only adds volume to Nader's rallying cry that the two parties are jointly monopolizing American politics.
If the Democrats were smart (wild fantasizing, I know), instead of subverting democracy in an attempt to get rid of Nader, they'd embrace democracy and groom a Libertarian or far-right cultural conservative to form a new party, fund it well, and get it to break off 5% of Bush's vote.
Posted by: sidereal | September 14, 2004 at 03:56 PM
Which should certainly be their right, sidereal.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | September 14, 2004 at 04:10 PM
If the Democrats were smart (wild fantasizing, I know), instead of subverting democracy in an attempt to get rid of Nader, they'd embrace democracy and groom a Libertarian or far-right cultural conservative to form a new party, fund it well, and get it to break off 5% of Bush's vote.
The notion that by simply changing from one tactical mode to another the Dems not only become smart but are no longer subverting democracy is a bit of a stretch. All you're suggesting is a change in tactics. And supporting ('grooming') a candidate with whom you disagree only to use him/her as a vote siphon is similarly an odd way to give democracy a hug.
Posted by: Harley | September 15, 2004 at 02:47 AM
The difference in the tactical modes is that one adheres to simple principles of representational government, and the other adheres to simple principles of totalitarianism. . so no, I don't think it's an otherwise meaningless tactical decision. The fact that it'd actually be more effective is just icing on the cake.
The Democrats are subverting democracy not because they're engaging in tactics (or as we call it down on the farm, "trying to win"), but specifically because they're attempting to eliminate peoples' ability to vote for a candidate of their choice. Creating another viable candidate would have the opposite effect. . letting people vote for a candidate even more of their choice. Big democracy hugfest. This should be clear, so I don't see how it's a stretch.
The fact that they'd vehemently disagree with the positions of the candidate and support him/her only in order to siphon votes doesn't affect the end result, which is more candidates and people choosing more compatible representatives.
Posted by: sidereal | September 15, 2004 at 04:07 AM