PDA

View Full Version : Bush Misses Ballot Deadline For Florida


Eric(h)
09-17-2004, 05:47 PM
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/11/Decision2004/Did_Bush_camp_err_on_.shtml

Did Bush camp err on ballot papers?

Democrats say the president may have missed Florida's filing deadline, but say they don't plan a challenge.

By STEVE BOUSQUET, Times Staff Writer
Published September 11, 2004

TALLAHASSEE - After the Florida election fiasco of 2000, the most obscure parts of state election law keep attracting attention.

The latest effort to disqualify Ralph Nader as a presidential candidate in Florida has led to renewed scrutiny of papers filed by other candidates - including President Bush.

State law sets a Sept. 1 deadline for the governor to certify a list of presidential electors for each party's candidates.

But Sept. 1 was also the day President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were being nominated at their party' convention in New York. Consequently, some of their paperwork did not arrive at state elections headquarters until Sept. 2, a day after Gov. Jeb Bush certified the candidates for president.

Paperwork problem?

No, says Secretary of State Glenda Hood's office.

Spokeswoman Jenny Nash said Friday the law is clear: The deadline applies to the governor and the list of presidential electors, not to the candidates themselves. The list of Republican electors released by Hood's office does not show a time stamp indicating when the document was received by the state.

Democrats said they aren't so sure, but they won't challenge the Bush campaign's papers.

Florida Democratic Party chairman Scott Maddox said he knew the president's certificate of nomination did not reach the state until Sept. 2, but he said he decided not to make an issue of it.

"To keep an incumbent president off the ballot in a swing state the size of Florida because of a technicality, I just don't think would be right," Maddox said.

Nader's Reform Party candidacy in Florida is much different, Maddox said.

"There is no Reform Party. It is a sham. And Ralph Nader was using a hoax party to gain access to the ballot," Maddox said.

But Julia Aires, a Green Party activist from Sarasota who has watched Democrats and others battle to keep Nader's name off the ballot, said a minor party probably could not have gotten away with the same thing.

"If the Green Party or the Reform Party had not gotten their names in by Sept. 1 and they said, "You missed the deadline,' I don't think we'd have a leg to stand on," she said. "They would have kept us off the ballot on a technicality if they could have."

Circuit Judge P. Kevin Davey in Tallahassee agreed with the Democrats and others who had filed suit seeking to keep Nader off the ballot. Davey ordered the state to keep Nader's name off the ballot, though his order applies only to about 50,000 overseas absentee ballots set to go in the mail next week.

The judge ruled that the Reform Party "fails in almost every conceivable criteria of what constitutes a national party."

Nader, running mate Peter Camejo and the Reform Party filed an appeal of that decision Friday, asking the First District Court of Appeal to suspend Davey's order pending a full review of the case.

In their complaint, they said neither Nader nor Camejo had an attorney present in court during a six-hour hearing Wednesday.

Democratic candidate John Kerry's paperwork was time-stamped at the state elections office on Aug. 2, days after his party's convention and nearly a month before the Sept. 1 deadline.

EatSleepJeep
09-17-2004, 07:43 PM
Imagine the outcry if this were the other way around.

schmenencke
09-17-2004, 08:29 PM
Imagine the outcry if this were the other way around.
I don't know. Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't think this is a good-spirited issue so much as it is a political decision. If Kerry had challenged this it would have appeared extremely petty and not done good things for his poll numbers. If the issue were flipped, I think the same political standards would apply.

Route_2
09-17-2004, 08:33 PM
I don't know, the Republicans are much better campaigners. They could have spun it into Kerry being irresponsible and call him on his irresponsibility.

tdowe99
09-17-2004, 11:28 PM
Now we just need Nader to raise a stink about it.

schmenencke
09-18-2004, 12:05 AM
I don't know, the Republicans are much better campaigners. They could have spun it into Kerry being irresponsible and call him on his irresponsibility.
Quite possibly true, but they never would have tried to take him off the ballot in Florida.

penn darvis
09-18-2004, 12:12 AM
This reminds me of the controversy the Dems tried to create in 2000 by claiming the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate came from the same state. This is extremely petty and stupid.

erbewoods
09-18-2004, 02:49 AM
The Democrats continue to disgust me. Nobody should ever try to impose their beliefs in such a way that impedes the political freedom of this country's constituency; I don't care what third-party they're trying to reject.

nubby
09-18-2004, 05:17 AM
Well it's been claimed that nader has been receiving donations from the republican party to run. It's kinda hypocritical for Nader to accept money from an opposing party.

nonewdirections
09-18-2004, 06:17 AM
The Democrats continue to disgust me. Nobody should ever try to impose their beliefs in such a way that impedes the political freedom of this country's constituency; I don't care what third-party they're trying to reject.
i dunno, i have to say that there is a limit somewhere. if there were a serious and organized fascist party somewhere in america, i'd hope that every responsible person in power would do their best to denounce it and stop it dead in its tracks, for example. obviously this is a less extreme case, but i don't understand what is wrong with the democrats trying to weaken an opponent of theirs, especially such a ridiculous one.

erbewoods
09-21-2004, 10:55 PM
i dunno, i have to say that there is a limit somewhere. if there were a serious and organized fascist party somewhere in america, i'd hope that every responsible person in power would do their best to denounce it and stop it dead in its tracks, for example. obviously this is a less extreme case, but i don't understand what is wrong with the democrats trying to weaken an opponent of theirs, especially such a ridiculous one.

I wouldn't go so far as to call anyone who garnered 2.5% of the popular vote in 2000 "ridiculous," and its pretty demeaning towards those Americans who voted for him. What you seem to be advocating is pretty in-the-box, regressive politics. You should never forcefully limit, even discourage, third-party ballot access. In a very broad sense, third parties represent the political freedom that is afforded to a country as democratized as ours, and most certainly not something that should be taken away by anyone so petty, and self-important as the DNC. Any party, that receives the requiste number of signatures for ballot access, deserves their spot on the ballot uncontested; no matter who it is. Anything but such a practice, is prejudiced; actively working against the progress of group of people, in this case, because of their beliefs. What keeps you from doing the same thing to say: a Hispanic party or a party of majority African-Americans? Wouldn't that be wrong? If so, what moral judge decides who is unfit for the ballot?

ambysshrink
09-21-2004, 10:58 PM
I don't know. Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't think this is a good-spirited issue so much as it is a political decision. If Kerry had challenged this it would have appeared extremely petty and not done good things for his poll numbers. If the issue were flipped, I think the same political standards would apply.
:thumbsup :thumbsup

cyberhound
09-22-2004, 08:57 AM
i dunno, i have to say that there is a limit somewhere. if there were a serious and organized fascist party somewhere in america, i'd hope that every responsible person in power would do their best to denounce it and stop it dead in its tracks, for example. obviously this is a less extreme case, but i don't understand what is wrong with the democrats trying to weaken an opponent of theirs, especially such a ridiculous one.
Would you say the same about a serious and organized homosexual party? Not the denoucing, but the limiting and weakening?

ambysshrink
09-24-2004, 12:41 AM
The Democrats continue to disgust me. Nobody should ever try to impose their beliefs in such a way that impedes the political freedom of this country's constituency; I don't care what third-party they're trying to reject.
Maybe you didn't read it. They're not trying to kick Bush off the ballot. And if you're talking about Nader, well he has only himself to blame.

erbewoods
09-24-2004, 01:24 AM
Maybe you didn't read it. They're not trying to kick Bush off the ballot. And if you're talking about Nader, well he has only himself to blame.

Obviously I wasn't talking about Bush, though I've no doubt the DNC would enjoy preventing people from voting for him too. And why does Nader have himself to blame?

schmenencke
09-24-2004, 02:04 AM
Obviously I wasn't talking about Bush, though I've no doubt the DNC would enjoy preventing people from voting for him too. And why does Nader have himself to blame?
That's weird. The DNC doesn't want people voting for Bush? That's weird.