Ralph Nader will not be on the ballot in Texas, and, in fact, he says he did not really make an effort to get on in the Lone Star State. According to the campaign, it would have cost approximately $300,000 to collect the necessary signatures, and this would have amounted to nearly half of the total Nader’s raised thus far.
Nader and other ballot-access advocates have complained about Texas’s onerous ballot rules, but in 2006, two independent candidates were able to get on the ballot for the gubernatorial race (see Richard Winger’s note). Representative Leo Berman, of Tyler, says it’s “absolutely wrong” to allege Texas’s system is unfair. From an article in the Dallas News:
“It takes a little bit of work; you have to have a grassroots organization,” he said. “But it’s very easily doable for independents like Mr. Nader if they want to come down and work at it. … If he wanted to be on the ballot, he could have been on the ballot.”
8 responses so far ↓
1 Gregg Jocoy // Jun 3, 2008 at 11:57 pm
I do think we do ourselves a disservice when we complain about the unfairness of something and then don’t do what it takes, if it is in fact possible. I am not saying that Nader should have gone for Texas, but one of the reasons some went with Cobb in 2004 was supposedly because he headed up the successful GP ballot access campaign in that same state.
The unfairness of such a patchwork of laws with varying levels of strict interpretation and underlying threats, thanks to our friends in PA, of financial ruin for daring to run for public office makes the Green Party value of Grassroots democracy so
critical.
But, to whine that the newspaper doesn’t cover you when you hold pot luck meetings at a member’s house when you didn’t send them a press release telling them it was going to happen is stupid, and makes all of us look stupid by association.
I think the desire for a professional campaign may cause some to choose one candidate over another, but that one-time or short-term professionalism can’t build real change. We all need to be more professional.
2 G.E. // Jun 4, 2008 at 12:01 am
Gregg – As a libertarian, I support privately printed ballots. BUT, if the government is to print ballots (which it shouldn’t!), I think equal standards are in order. In Michigan, for example, Ds and Rs need 1,000 signatures to run for Congress, while Greens, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists need ZERO. I think all of the candidates should need the same amount, and that would keep “paper candidates” (which I do not like) off the ballot and give credibility to the third-party candidates who collect the signatures.
But when I say this to a third-party person, they tend to look at me like I’m a statist!
3 Gregg Jocoy // Jun 4, 2008 at 12:15 am
Well, you’ll have to forgive me for not knowing why I should want private interests to operate elections, but I am sure they are legion. I do however agree that the deal should be the same across the board…but it’s not. Even if Gs, Ds, Ls, Cs and Rs, face the same hurdle in one state or another however, this is still not a level playing field. For example, with a huge set of associated law firms and professional political operatives at their disposal, the Big Money people in the race have a better shot at getting all the hoops jumped through than a newer, less well connected political party.
But my broader point is, we can’t control anyone but ourselves. If the laws are against us, we have to change them, use them, or twist them to accomplish our goals. If they make it impossible to run as the nominee of the party of our choice, run in a major party primary as a Green or Libertarian, making ballot access part of the campaign, and raise holy hell as best you can.
~Mutters under his breath…”Geeze, who woulda thought G.E. would turn out to be a damn statist!”~
4 G.E. // Jun 4, 2008 at 12:23 am
Gregg – You would want “private interests” (i.e. individuals and not the gun-backed, violent government) to be in control of ballot printing, because that way, ANY CANDIDATE you wanted to vote for would be on your ballot. You could make your own ballot! This is the way elections were conducted in earlier times, and a lot more third-party and independent candidates were elected then!
My point, if you missed it, is that in Michigan, once a party gets on the ballot, it is almost impossible to knock it off. And its candidates can thereby get on the ballot while doing nothing. Meanwhile, Ds and Rs have to get 1,000 signatures. I think if Greens, for example, had to get 1,000 signatures, it would give every Green candidate a level of credibility they currently do not have in my state.
5 Gregg Jocoy // Jun 4, 2008 at 12:37 am
Ah! Well, dog gone it, I guess I’m a statist too!
OK, I’ll pass on the ballot printing thnigy…seems a bit esoteric to my addled brain, but here in South Carolina, once you get on the ballot all you have to do is run one person for one partisan office once every four years, and even then you are not removed unless someone else specifically asks that you be removed.
I would prefer that parties were created, as I would a union, by the gathering of a certain number of signed cards saying “I’m a Green, now put my guy on the ballot!” Not 10,000 signatures on a petition, but maybe 1000 card carrying members, then you get added to the list of registered parties, and in two more years you got to get to 2000 members. Just pulling stuff out of thin air, but basically I agree, if we don’t have the self-discipline to run only good candidates, it would be helpful to have an external force to push us to meet higher goals.
But, isn’t that something we should be asking of our party leaders? In the GP, do our co-chairs go out and actively recruit good candidates? Does national staff? How about the LP? CP? I just actually don’t know. How does a Rich Whitney come forward? How does a Jesse Ventura step up?
6 Fred Church Ortiz // Jun 4, 2008 at 12:44 am
Gregg puts forward an interesting idea. How about instead of trying to work within restrictive ballot access laws, simply organize and agitate as a political party for the right to be on the ballot. I like it.
7 G.E. // Jun 4, 2008 at 12:48 am
Private printing of ballots is not “esoteric” — like I said, it was standard practice until… I don’t know when, but I know it was standard practice way back in the day.
You’re for paper ballots, right? Why not let people bring their own? There could be rules regulating the size of the ballot, etc. But this would take away the government’s power to discriminate. Political parties could print their own ballots and distribute them to voters (which was common), or businesses could even print ballots with candidates from many parties (and an ad for their business, of course). And informed individuals could simply make their own.
8 richardwinger // Jun 4, 2008 at 1:14 am
It’s logically faulty for any Texas newspaper, or anyone else, to say that since two independents got on the Texas ballot for Governor in 2006, therefore it isn’t hard for presidential independents. The law for presidential independents requires 40% more signatures than are required for independent candidates for other statewide office.
Leave a Comment