Ballot Access News
On April 19, the Maine Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Ralph Nader’s lawsuit for damages against the Democratic Party and its allies, concerning that party’s attempts to keep him off the ballot in 17 states in the 2004 presidential election, is entitled to a trial. This means that the lower court must hear the evidence that Nader wishes to present. The decision is Nader v The Maine Democratic Party, 2012 ME 57. The decision is 21 pages and there is a concurrence of 9 pages.
The opening paragraph of the decision is, “In this appeal we consider whether the Maine anti-SLAPP statute may be invoked to deprive a minor-party candidate of his day in court on a suit in which he alleges that he was subject to abuses of process, damaging to his candidacy, by organizations and individuals who conspired to take actions to prevent or complicate his inclusion on the ballot in Maine and other jurisdictions during the 2004 presidential election. We conclude that the Maine anti-SLAPP statute may not be invoked to achieve dismissal of claims alleging abuses of process without giving the plaintiff the opportunity to establish a prima facie case to support the claims.”
The decision has a paragraph about ballot access, which makes it clear that ballot access for independent candidates is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Nader has had several lawsuits against the Democratic Party and its allies for their behavior in 2004, but this is the first decision that permits a trial. Similar lawsuits in Virginia state court, and in federal court, were dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. It happens that Maine has a lengthier statute of limitations than those other jurisdictions. In order to prevail in the trial, Nader will be required to show that the Democratic Party’s actions in Maine in 2004 to keep Nader off the Maine ballot were devoid of any reasonable factual support or arguable basis in law. He is free to present evidence from around the country, all of which is relevant, but that evidence must include solid evidence from Maine in order to keep the lawsuit viable. UPDATE: here is a story about the decision from Maine Public Radio.
On April 19, the Maine Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Ralph Nader’s lawsuit for damages against the Democratic Party and its allies, concerning that party’s attempts to keep him off the ballot in 17 states in the 2004 presidential election, is entitled to a trial. This means that the lower court must hear the evidence that Nader wishes to present. The decision is Nader v The Maine Democratic Party, 2012 ME 57. The decision is 21 pages and there is a concurrence of 9 pages.
The opening paragraph of the decision is, “In this appeal we consider whether the Maine anti-SLAPP statute may be invoked to deprive a minor-party candidate of his day in court on a suit in which he alleges that he was subject to abuses of process, damaging to his candidacy, by organizations and individuals who conspired to take actions to prevent or complicate his inclusion on the ballot in Maine and other jurisdictions during the 2004 presidential election. We conclude that the Maine anti-SLAPP statute may not be invoked to achieve dismissal of claims alleging abuses of process without giving the plaintiff the opportunity to establish a prima facie case to support the claims.”
The decision has a paragraph about ballot access, which makes it clear that ballot access for independent candidates is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Nader has had several lawsuits against the Democratic Party and its allies for their behavior in 2004, but this is the first decision that permits a trial. Similar lawsuits in Virginia state court, and in federal court, were dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. It happens that Maine has a lengthier statute of limitations than those other jurisdictions. In order to prevail in the trial, Nader will be required to show that the Democratic Party’s actions in Maine in 2004 to keep Nader off the Maine ballot were devoid of any reasonable factual support or arguable basis in law. He is free to present evidence from around the country, all of which is relevant, but that evidence must include solid evidence from Maine in order to keep the lawsuit viable. UPDATE: here is a story about the decision from Maine Public Radio.
