Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Following on the heels of the Arizona Democratic Party requesting an investigation into the Arizona Republican Party's "Green Scheme Siphon Scandal" last week, the Arizona Green Party filed suit on Tuesday to remove the 11 "sham" Green Party candidates from the ballot. Lawsuit targets 'sham' Green Party candidates in Arizona:
The Arizona Green Party is asking a federal judge to block 11 candidates from being listed on the Nov. 2 ballot, alleging that they are "shams" and not standard bearers for the Greens.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, also asks the court to declare as unconstitutional the state law that allowed these candidates to qualify as write-in candidates with as little as one vote.
The suit and its request for a temporary restraining order comes four days before Maricopa County elections officials begin printing ballots, and as Secretary of State Ken Bennett is certifying candidates nominated in the Aug. 24 primary.
"We're obligated to uphold the law," Bennett said, adding that until a judge rules otherwise, election preparations will continue.
The Green Party argues that the law that allowed the 11 candidates to qualify under the Green Party label violates the party's First Amendment rights "by forcing them to associate with candidates who have not been selected by the (party) and who do not represent the (party's) values and platform."
It also complains that election laws set a different standard for qualifying candidates for major parties, such as the Democrats and Republicans, than for minor parties, such as the Greens. That is discriminatory and violates the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the suit alleges.
The suit was filed in U.S. District on behalf of the party and Claudia Ellquist, its co-chairman. It has been assigned to Judge David Campbell.
One of the 11 candidates who won in last month's primary has dropped out of the general election: Michelle Lochmann, a candidate for Secretary of State.
The Arizona Democratic Party last week filed a complaint with local, state and federal prosecutors asking them to investigate the candidates for possible voter fraud. Arizona Democratic Party alleges voter fraud:
In a complaint filed late Monday, the party seeks an investigation by federal, state and county law-enforcement officials.
The complaint names Rep. Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix; Steve May, a Republican candidate for the Legislature; and a House Republican staffer [John Mills] as complicit in an effort to register at least a half-dozen people as Green Party members so they could run as write-in candidates in last week's primary election.
There has not yet been a response from those agencies, other than the U.S. Attorney's Office which is reviewing the request.
The Arizona Republican Party effectively hijacked the Arizona Green Party by putting up sham candidates under the Green Party label. The Republicans' secondary goal was to siphon off potential votes from Democratic candidates who tend to receive Green Party support when the party does not field a candidate on the ballot. In a closely contested race, a handful of votes for a "sham" candidate could be the difference.
This is a voter fraud scandal that deserves glaring media attention. One political party has hijacked another political party. The Arizona Republican Party should be condemed for its actions, and those involved in this voter fraud scheme prosecuted.
The Green Party is on solid constitutional grounds with its First Amendment right of association and 14th Amednemnt equal protection arguments. See generally, US Supreme Court Cases from Justia.com:
The major expansion of the right of association has occurred in the area of political rights. “There can no longer be any doubt that freedom to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas is a form of ‘orderly group activity’ protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments…. The right to associate with the political party of one’s choice is an integral part of this basic constitutional freedom.” Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56-57 (1973).
* * *
Usually in combination with an equal protection analysis, the Court since Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968), has passed on numerous state restrictions that have an impact upon the ability of individuals or groups to join one or the other of the major parties or to form and join an independent political party to further political, social and economic goals. E.g., Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752 (1973) (time deadline for enrollment in party in order to vote in next primary); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973) (barring voter from party primary if he voted in another party’s primary within preceding 23 months); American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974) (ballot access restriction); Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979) (number of signatures to get party on ballot); Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1982) (limit on contributions to associations formed to support or oppose referendum measure); Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982) (resign-to-run law).
* * *
The state interest in protecting the integrity of political parties was held to justify requiring enrollment of a person in the party up to eleven months before a primary election, Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752 (1973), but not to justify requiring one to forgo one election before changing parties.
* * *
The protected right of association extends as well to coverage of party principles, enabling a political party to assert against some state regulation an overriding interest sufficient to overcome the legitimate interests of the governing body. Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel. LaFollette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981). See also Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975).
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Something similar to this just happened in Michigan. Somebody, we still don’t know who, fronted the “Michigan Tea Party” $250,000 to collect 60,000 signatures to become an official political party and be on the November ballot.
Then the roof came crashing down on the fake Tea Party when it turned out many Democrats were involved in getting the party on the ballot. Shock!
Check out the fascinating article about it in the Detroit Free Press: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100903/NEWS01/9030387/Michigan-Tea-Party-has-some-Democratic-ties&template=fullarticle
Long story short, the fake Tea Party was thrown off the ballot, but they are appealing.
I am an attorney.
First of all, you are a named defendant in a lawsuit. I do not represent you nor will I give you legal advice from which you could imply legal representation. My only advice to you is: (1) hire an attorney to represent you, and (2) stop talking! No attorney wants to represent a client so undisciplined that they can’t keep their mouth shut about their case in public.
I really hate to be “hijacking” this post with my comments, but I’ve just discovered something curious.
Look at the AZGP press release on the lawsuit (http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=341) and how it ends:
“The Arizona Party is proud to showcase our endorsed candidates:
Jerry Joslyn: U.S. Senate
Kent Solberg: State Representative (LD 27)
Linda Macias: State Representative (LD 21)
Angel Torres: State Representative (LD 16)
Luisa Valdez: State Representative (LD 15)
Justin Dahl: State Representative (LD 12)
Gregor Knauer: State Representative (LD 17)
Yet look at this press release from August 24(http://azgp.org/content/arizona-green-party-azgp-press-release-azgp-announces-endorsed-candidates-2010-elections):
“ARIZONA GREEN PARTY (AZGP) ANNOUNCES ENDORSED CANDIDATES FOR 2010 ELECTIONS
Phoenix, AZ—On Sunday, August 22nd, 2010, the Arizona Green Party (AZGP) state committee completed endorsements for the 2010 elections. All of the candidates were interviewed, answered questions on their campaigns, their support for the Green Party Ten Key Values and our national Green Party-US platform. The following Green Party candidates have been endorsed by AZGP. We encourage registered voters in Arizona to vote for, support, volunteer, and donate to their campaigns:
Jerry Joslyn: U.S. Senate; William Crum: U.S. Congress (CD 2), write-in candidate for General Election; Leonard Clark: U.S. Congress (CD 3), write-in candidate; Rebecca DeWitt: U.S. Congress (CD 4); Deborah O’Dowd: State Representative (LD 6), write-in candidate; Justin Dahl: State Representative (LD 12); Luisa Valdez: State Representative (LD 15); Angel Torres: State Representative (LD 16); Gregor Knauer: State Representative (LD 17); Linda Macias: State Representative (LD 21); and Kent Solberg: State Representative (LD 27). Leonard Clark said, “I am glad to be endorsed by the Arizona Green Party. It’s about time that the people of Arizona have a real choice when they go to vote.”
Richard Grayson, write-in candidate for U.S. Congress (CD 6), was vetted, but remains non-endorsed by AZGP. If he is successful in the Primary Election, the Arizona Green Party may reconsider endorsing him for the General Election.
Claudia Ellquist, AZGP state co-chair, stated, “There are several Green Party candidates that are actively opposed. We strongly advise all registered Arizona voters to not waste their votes on these individuals during the August 24th Primary Election or the November 2nd General Election (assuming they advance).” The offices include: Governor, Secretary of State (write-in), Treasurer (write-in), Corporation Commission (2 write-in candidates), U.S. Congress (CD 5, write-in), State Senate (LD 10, 2 write-in candidates), State Representative (LD 17, write-in), State Senate (LD 17, write-in), State Representative (LD 20, write-in), State Representative (LD 22, write-in), and State Senate (LD 23, write-in).
Angel Torres, AZGP state co-chair and candidate for LD 16, stated, “It is absolutely critical that our candidates are interviewed, vetted and endorsed by AZGP. This lets our registered Arizona Greens know that these candidates have met our standards, and are not carpetbaggers or opportunists trying to hijack our ballot line.”
The mission of the Arizona Green Party (AZGP) is to build and sustain an alternative, progressive political party that promotes and practices the Ten Key Values. We do not accept corporate donations and uniquely rely on the generosity of individual donors and volunteers. The four pillars of the Green Party are Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-violence.”
Rebecca DeWitt: U.S. Congress (CD 4)”
Notice something? The two write-in candidates the AZGP endorsed on August 24 are missing among the list of their endorsed candidates on the press release.
Unlike all the other write-in candidates, these two candidates were not named as defendants in the lawsuit.
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but this is clearly disparate treatment.
State political parties’ favored candidates lose primaries all the time: this year in Senate races in South Carolina and Pennsylvania (Democratic) and Alaska (Republican). This happened in several primaries in Arizona on August 24.
Political parties either have to treat all the people who won election the same way — in this case, by write-in — the same or differently.
Associational rights do not trump equal protection and due process. I have every right to have registered as a Green Party member in September 2008 and I had the same legal rights as the other, endorsed candidates to run in the primary. To be consisistent, they should have included ALL write-in winners among the defendants in the suit.
Just one more thing: In 2008 I briefly registered as a Republican for the sole purpose of filing as a write-in candidate against an on-the-ballot primary candidate in the Republican Primary in the 4th Congressional District.
I satirized, criticized and ridiculed the Republican party and its platform and candidates mercilessly on my blog: http://republican-grayson.blogspot.com/
Yet I never heard anything negative from the Arizona Republican Party or any individual associated with it in all that time. They did not try to get me off the ballot or harass me in any way.
Now I am a candidate in a party primary for a party I have belonged to since 2008 and whose values and platform I wholeheartedly and very publicly support and endorse, and I am sued and treated the way I have been.
At this point I would urge every progressive and liberal in Arizona to steer clear of the Arizona Green Party and support a straight Democratic ticket.
(Remember: the AZGP is not challenging its own right-wing former Republican candidate for Governor, Larry Gist, who does not support party principles or values.)
Please, AZBlueMeanie, explain to me under the legal analysis why the disparate treatment is occurring. Do you think it passes the smell test? Or does the party’s selectively accepting the results of some write-in primaries fatally weaken its entire case?
I would like to know how the AZGP distinguishes between two write-in candidates, both of whom won congressional primaries with a handful of votes.
According to the state canvass, Leonard Clark won the CD-3 primary with five write-in votes and I won the CD-6 primary with six write-in votes.
Yet I’m among the large number of defendants in the suit filed by the Arizona Green Party but Mr. Clark is not:
Arizona Green Party et al v. Bennett et al
Plaintiffs: Arizona Green Party and Claudia Ellquist
Defendants: Ken Bennett , LeNora Johnson, Jim Claw, R John Lee, Tom White, Jr., Ryan Blackman, Richard Grayson, Christopher Campbell, Anthony Goshorn, Matthew Shusta, Clint Clement, Andrew Blischak, Michelle Lochmann, Thomas Meadows, Theodore Gomez, Benjamin Pearcy, Christine Rhodes, Patrick Call, Ann English, Richard Searle, Candace Owens, Elizabeth Archuleta, Lena Fowler, Mandy Metzger, Matt Ryan, Carl Taylor, Sadie Dalton, Shirley Dawson, Tommie Martin, Michael Pastor, Wendy John, Chip Davis, Greg Ferguson, Russell McCloud, Kathryn Prochaska, Marco Reyes, Carol Springer, Robyn Stallworth-Pouquette, Lenore Stuart, Thomas Thurman, Ana Wayman-Trujillo, Shelly Baker, Fulton Brock, John Drum, David Gomez, Mark Herrington, Holly Irwin, Drew John, Andrew Kunasek, Richard Lunt, Berta Manuz, James Palmer, Sandy Pierce, Helen Purcell, Hector Ruedas, Don Stapley, Mary Rose Wilcox, Max Wilson, Jerry Brownlow, J R DeSpain, Buster Johnson, Laurette Justman, Carol Meier, Jonathan Nez, Tom Sockwell, David Tenney, Jesse Thompson, Gary Watson, Sharon Bronson, Raymond Carroll, Ann Day, Laura Dean-Lytle, Richard Elias, F Ann Rodriguez, Ramon Valadez, Bryan Martyn, Pete Rios, Suzanne Sainz, David Snider, John Maynard, Jr., Rudy Molera and Manuel Ruiz
I fail to see how Mr. Clark and I are situated differently except that after an August 22 AZGP meeting – at which I was asked to vote on the endorsement of other candidates, including Mr. Clark, whom I supported – Mr. Clark was “endorsed” by the party but I was not.
If the AZGP were trying to kick off the ballot [by maintaining the write-in statute treating it differently from other parties violates equal protection] all the write-in candidates, it would be one thing, but the party is attempting to keep on the ballot write-in candidates they “endorsed.”
This itself seems to violate equal protection. Parties cannot pick and choose which of their primary winners they will allow on the ballot, right?
It seems as if the Arizona Green Party is denying my voters and myself as a candidate the same rights as the voters for Mr. Clark and Mr. Clark himself. If anyone can distinguish between us — other than that, for whatever reason, the AZGP does not like my message (which is, I suppose, I support the AZGP Ten Key Values and principles and platform but have criticized the party for its responsibility in this debacle) — I would love to hear from it.
The Arizona Green Party’s first of its Ten Key Values is Grassroots Democracy. Yet they are denying to six voters who voted in good faith for a candidate registered with the state as a write-in candidate in the 6th Congressional District the equal protection and due process they are giving to five voters who voted similarly in the 3rd Congressional District.
Notice that they are apparently not claiming that the write-in/plurality provision in the statute is invalid as it applies to Mr. Clark, only to me and others.
This is unfair and hypocritical. The American Civil Liberties Union will be getting involved soon to protect voters’ and candidates’ rights.