I don’t see how that could hold up under an equal protection challenge.

Posted by: eric at May 10, 2004 10:06 PM

I don’t see how the rules have to change just because he lost. After all, if he’d gotten enough votes, then the rules would have been fine, wouldn’t they?

Posted by: gus3 at May 10, 2004 11:08 PM

What does equal protection have to do with it?

MG

Posted by: MG at May 11, 2004 02:58 AM

I’m inclined to agree with eric, although I don’t think equal protection was the term he was looking for. Superficially, this looks like a double standard. Although I’m sure there is more detail.

Posted by: johnnymozart at May 11, 2004 07:59 AM

Equal protection was EXACTLY the words I was looking for.

Section one of the fourteenth amendment says, in plain english; that the law is supposed to apply/effect EQUALLY.

This thing is Texas is about a situation where a candidate would be treated differently under the law, depending on how whether he is with a third party or is an independant.

Furthermore, I can’t see how there is even a distinction of that type to be made in the first place.

You have a republican candidate, a democraticic candidate, and “other”.

All the “other” should be treated the same.

We’re not supposed to apply the law in a way that suits our desires of the moment, we’re supposed to apply it the same all the time, for by protecting the rights of others, we are protecting our own.

If Nader challenges tthis particular law under the premise that it’s a 14th amendment violation, he SHOULD win.

Posted by: eric at May 11, 2004 09:50 AM

Eric, have you read the Texas law? Are you familiar with the cases where the law was upheld?

How does Texas law compare with those of other states?

I’d like to see more direct evidence before reaching a conclusion that the Texas law is invalid.

I suppose getting Nader on the Ballot is a good thing for the Bush Campaign but right is right. If the law is valid then Naders out. If the law is found to be invalid then our system works.

Posted by: skip at May 11, 2004 10:23 AM

First, Nader’s non-inclusion in Texas is not going to affect this election, since it’s a safe state. It will hurt Nader, though, in that he’ll get fewer total votes.

Second, I would agree with the equal protection charge if the Texas law says that only the Democrats and Republicans are exempt from the petition requirement. It is more likely, though, that the law says something like that the two parties that drew the most votes for their presidential candidate in the last election are exempt, in which case it would be constitutional.

Posted by: samuelv at May 11, 2004 10:50 AM

…Gee, Nader has a point.

It would be a shame if he missed the ballot in any state - particularly in Florida.

We all need to support his effort…

must… write … check… today.

Posted by: Kh at May 11, 2004 01:48 PM

No Skip, I haven’t read the Texas law, but I would be happy to do so if someone wanted to provide it in some manner, perhaps a link…?

However, I don’t NEED to see it for the purpose of this discussion. Just like you can’t be a little bit pregnant, you can’t have a little bit of equal protection.

You either treat people the same under the law, or you do NOT.

Taking the information provided at face value, if it’s true that an independant candidate has to reach a higher bar and do so more quickly than a 3rd party candidate, that is a 14th amendment violation. Period.

The law isn’t some dark, mysterious thing…

It’s in plain english, and anyone with half-way decent literacy can read and understand it.

What the prior challenges and rulings were based on, I don’t know. without knowing the specific circumstances, I couldn’t offer any opinion, and neither could anyone else. merely knowing that this general issue has been visited by the Texas courts is next to useless if we don’t know the particulars.

Having said all this, I do reserve the right to change my opinion should the FACTS warrant it, but taking the stated facts at face value and assuming them to be correct as stated, then this is a CLEAR 14th amendment violation.

Posted by: eric at May 11, 2004 04:55 PM

In this case, Nader (and Eric) are right. Laws set up to benefit one party or candidate above another would be violations of the 14th Amendment. Rules requiring more signatures on a petition than someone else, in order to be on the same ballot, appear to me to be prima facia violations of Equal Protection.

And since this involves a Presidential election, the case would be Federal. It doesn’t matter that it’s in Texas.

The ramifications could be substantial. If Nader wins in his Texas case, it will not change Texas’ results, but it will give Nader precedent to argue that he is forced to run under uneven conditions, prejudicial against his position by the way they were established. It could conceivably prompt judicial review of any state where Nader’s petition drive came up short, by challenging the validity of the required number of signatures. Also, given the short frame of time until the election, a Nader win in court could not be countered effectively before November.

The net effect is, many people who have assumed Nader will only show up on a few state ballots and have little effect, may conceivably find him on all state ballots, and a real influence on the outcome.

This could be interesting.

.

Posted by: GDubya at May 12, 2004 10:19 AM

Also, given the short frame of time until the election, a Nader win in court could not be countered effectively before November.

Oh yes it could. A Nader win could be suspended on appeal until a higher court reviews it, in January.

Posted by: gus3 at May 12, 2004 12:37 PM

I don’t think so, Gus.

If Nader won, any appeals would move quickly. There is precedent, and delay would represent “irreperable harm”, which counts heavily in judicial planning.

On the other hand, if Nader won, there would be no time to counter with advertising, because the new campaign laws would restrict it, and Nader would also benefit from the additional press: In such a scenario, he would definitely make the talk show rounds, which would be both quite legal, and quite effective.

.

Posted by: GDubya at May 12, 2004 01:05 PM