September 23, 2004

No Nader On Ballot

Readers are allowed to be skeptical of my righteous indignation at Ralph Nader's being kept off the ballot in Oregon. I agree with NOTHING Mr. Nader stands for and I would expect partisan advantage with his stealing votes away from Sen. Kerry. Full disclosure disclosed.

But it is still anti-democratic (little-d) to use chicanery to keep a guy off the ballot who should be on. John Fund tells this story in today's WSJ Political Diary:

Oregon Official Brags About Keeping Nader Off the Ballot

In 2000, Al Gore only won Oregon by 7,000 votes at the same time Ralph Nader won over 5% of the electorate. Small wonder that Democrats have done everything but move the Cascade Mountains to keep him off the ballot this year. Yesterday, the Oregon Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision and ruled that Democratic Secretary of State Bill Bradbury had acted within his authority in decreeing that Mr. Nader had fallen a tantalizing 218 signatures short of the 15,306 required for ballot status.

Marion County Judge Paul Lipscomb had previously ruled in Mr. Nader's favor. In a scathing opinion, the judge had chastised Mr. Bradbury for using arbitrary, unwritten rules to determine if the Nader petition signatures were valid. The Willamette Weekly, the liberal alternative paper in Portland, named Mr. Bradbury its "Rogue of the Week" for giving critics reason to suspect he "is making fellow Dems happy instead of doing his job."

The liberal paper also ridiculed Mr. Bradbury's protestations that he had "evenly and fairly" applied the law, noting that in an e-mail to Democrats asking for campaign contributions he had trumpeted his denial of ballot status to Mr. Nader. "So which is it, Bill?" the paper asked. "A nonpartisan action or a chance to stoke the Democratic donation machine?"

Count every vote, huh? Well, unless they're military ballots or votes for a third party, or if it's Tuesday, or a GOP county, or...

Posted by jk at September 23, 2004 11:30 AM
| What do you think? [0]