home / subscribe / donate / about us / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events
|
|
|
Bolivia's Third Revolution David Price tells how top-flight US anthropologists eagerly obeyed US government5s mandate to Mthink in a-moral terms”. One scheme of OSS5s willing executioners: target Japanese physical Mweak spot”, the respiratory tract, with anthrax germs. Gabriel Kolko asks What5s so New About the Neo-Cons? If they had not existed, would the policies have been the same? Jeffrey St Clair digs up more dirt on Halliburton5s secret history. Alexander Cockburn on why we need more Mcelebrity justice”. Get the answers you're looking for in the latest subscriber-only edition of CounterPunch ... CounterPunch Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember, we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation for the online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! or write CounterPunch, PO BOX 228, Petrolia, CA 95558 |
|
Other Lands Have Dreams: From Baghdad to Pekin Prison by KATHY KELLY  Today's Stories June 28, 2005 Landau
/ Hassen June 27, 2005 Paul
Craig Roberts Mike
Marqusee Mark
Scaramella Leigh
Saavedra Kathy
Kelly
June 25 / 26, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Jennifer
Van Bergen George
Corsetti Mark
Chmiel / Andrew Wimmer Kevin
Zeese P.
Sainath John
Stauber Scott
Handleman Tom
Barry John
Walsh Justin
E.H. Smith Alan
Wallis Ben
Tripp Frederick
B. Hudson Poets'
Basement
June 24, 2005 Ray
McGovern Jorge
Mariscal Desiree
Hellegers Zeynep
Toufe Joshua
Frank David
Lindorff Michael
Neumann Website
of the Day
June 23, 2005 Christopher
Brauchli Clay
Conrad Standard
Schaefer P.
Sainath Mark
Engler Norman
Solomon Cockburn
/ St. Clair Kathy
Kelly
June 22, 2005 Kevin
Zeese William
S. Lind Arsalan
Iftikhar Dan
Nagengast David
Krieger Kathleen
& Bill Christison
June 21, 2005 Brian Cloughley Mike Whitney Dave Lindorff Mark Weisbrot Matthew R.
Simmons Dave Zirin Virginia Rodino Paul Craig
Roberts
June 20, 2005 Alan Maass Tariq Ali Mickey Z. William Blum Gary Leupp Jason Leopold Dave Lindorff Alan Maass Uri Avnery Website of
the Day
June 18 / 19, 2005 Alexander Cockburn Greg Moses Benjamin Shepard Stan Goff Lee Sustar Jude Wanniski Diana Barahona Brian Concannon, Jr. Fred Gardner Mike Whitney Ahmad Faruqui Manuel García, Jr. Roger Howard Ron Jacobs Ben Tripp Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
June 17, 2005 Ricardo Alarcón Clay Conrad Marc Estrin Colin Brown Christopher
Brauchli Joshua Frank Norman Solomon Mary Rizzo Bond / Brutus
/ Setshedi
June 16, 2005 John Walsh Dave Lindorff Adrian Lomax Tom Crumpacker Jeffrey Kolakowski Julene Bair Michael Dickinson Francois Houtart / Isabel Parra,
et al. Tom Barry
June 15, 2005 Stan Goff Daniel Wolff Tim Wise Ricardo Alarcón Joshua Frank John Hilary Norman Solomon Alexander Cockburn
/ Jeffrey St. Clair Website of the Day
June 14, 2005 Paul Craig
Roberts Forrest Hylton Richard Gott Fred Gardner Steve Breyman Dave Zirin Robert Kent Paul Craig
Roberts
June 13, 2005 Gary Leupp Dave Lindorff John Stauber Fred Gardner Evelyn J. Pringle Norman Solomon Winslow T.
Wheeler
June 10 / 12, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Sharon
Smith Brian
Cloughley Chris
Kromm Heather
Gray Kevin
Zeese Mickey
Z. Gary
Leupp Eli
Stephens Nick
Dearden Oscar
Olivera Robert
Fisk Michael
Dickinson Poets'
Basement Website
of the Weekend
Len
Colodny Christopher
Brauchli Ron
Jacobs Dave
Lindorff Katrina
Yeaw / Alex Schmaus Alan
Farago Saul
Landau
June 8, 2005 Jim
Hougan Alan
Maass Jason
Leopold Niranjan
Ramakrishnan Dave
Zirin Derrick
O'Keefe Diana
Johnstone Website
of the Day
June 7, 2005 Forrest
Hylton Greg
Moses / Susan van Haitsma Lenni
Brenner Col.
Dan Smith Joshua
Frank Dave
Lindorff Margot
Veranes / Adrian Navarro Michael
Neumann
June 6, 2005 Stew
Albert Paul
Craig Roberts Nicole
Colson Ali
Khan Jason
Leopold Charles
Walker Poff Ramzy
Baroud Rep.
John Conyers Evelyn
Pringle Gary
Corseri Website
of the Day
June 4 / 5, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn James
Petras Robert
Fisk Patrick
Cockburn Rev.
William Alberts Saul
Landau Mario
Lamo Jimenez Dave
Lindorff Lance
Selfa Tom
Crumpacker Joshua
Frank Fred
Gardner Michael
Dickinson Roger
Martin Reza
Fiyouzat Ben
Tripp Graeme
Greenback Poets'
Basement
June 3, 2005 Paul
Craig Roberts Joseph
Massad Jeff
Halper Tom
Barry Bruce
K. Gagnon Joshua
Frank Mickey
Z. Gary
Leupp Website
of the Day
June 2, 2005 Paul
Craig Roberts Forrest
Hylton Mike
Whitney Brian
Cloughley Mazin
Qumsiyeh Russell
D. Hoffman Norman
Madarasz Norman
Solomon David
Price Website
of the Day
June 1, 2005 James
Petras Justin
Delacour Edward
Jay Epstein Omar
Barghouti / Lisa Taraki Dave
Lindorff Kevin
Zeese Jason
Leopold William
S. Lind
May 31, 2005 Sen.
Mike Gravel David
Krieger Tad
Daley Joshua
Frank Richard
Gott Norman
Solomon Tom
Segev Walter
Brasch Diana
Johnstone
May 28 / 30, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Richard
Lichtman Sharon
Smith Paul
Craig Roberts Dave
Lindorff Ramzy
Baroud Brian
Cloughley Fred
Gardner Lee
Sustar Joshua
Frank Justin
E.H. Smith Jackie
Corr Michael
Kimaid Toufic
Haddad Justin
Taylor Amir
Butler Ben
Tripp Poets'
Basement
May 27, 2005 Gary
Leupp Daniel
Estulin Kevin
Zeese Robert
Fisk Dave
Zirin Website
of the Day
Hot Stories Alexander Cockburn Subcomandante
Marcos Norman Finkelstein Steve Niva Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams Steve
J.B. Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber Wendell
Berry CounterPunch
Wire Cindy
Corrie Gore Vidal Francis Boyle
Subscribe Online
|
June 28, 2005 Political Profiling in PennsylvaniaKeeping Nader Off the BallotBy
JOHN A. MURPHY There are two ways to defeat democracy, one way is by preventing citizens from voting, and the other is by preventing worthy candidates from appearing on the ballot. When the law can be used as a subterranean tool in a process which can only be labeled "political profiling" the meaning and the intent of the law is subverted as is the democracy from which those laws were supposed to have sprung. In Pennsylvania the Democratic Party sued the Nader campaign in twelve separate courts simultaneously in their efforts to prevent Pennsylvania citizens from voting for the candidate of their choice. This indicates the magnitude of the effort to thwart the democratic process in Pennsylvania. Not just one lawsuit in one court but twelve suits in twelve separate courts simultaneously! The greater the level of the challenge, the more havoc that can be created! This sets a very dangerous precedent. It means that either of the two major parties can eliminate an independent candidate or a "third" party candidate by simply having enough money to engage innumerable law firms to take advantage of the minutia embedded in the archaic and anti-democratic ballot access laws of Pennsylvania. The major party does not have to win these battles but a third party candidate or an independent candidate would have their meager financial resources exhausted in simply responding to these suits, thereby making it impossible for them to communicate their message to the voters. Consider what actually happened in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania law required that Ralph Nader obtain nearly 27,000 signatures but unlike the 2000 election Mr. Nader had no organization in place like the Green Party to help in this undertaking. The Nader campaign hired a contractor who would be able to organize the signature gathering process. This contractor then placed an ad in the newspaper announcing that people were needed to gather signatures for Mr. Nader's petition and that a fee of one dollar per signature would be paid for this effort. When the people who were engaged to perform this function began to turn in the petitions, the Nader workers noticed that the signatures were obviously forged. (It could be seen that maybe three or four people simply passed these petitions back-and-forth to one another copying names directly from the phone book.) While many of these petitions were pulled, nevertheless many still went undetected because of insufficient time for examination. When these petitions were brought to the attention of Mr. Nader's attorney in open court they were voluntarily removed. As the law suits were unfolding one of the Nader campaign workers parked his car in the street outside of Nader headquarters. His car was clearly identifiable as belonging to a Nader supporter by displaying a number of Nader bumper stickers. A person who is now unidentified pulled up next to the Nader worker and asked if indeed he was with the Nader campaign. When he responded in the affirmative this unidentified driver then said to him, "you know what happened to you here in Philadelphia don't you". The Nader worker said "no, what". He was then told that "you people were paying a dollar per valid signature but the mayor's office is paying two dollars to forge each name". "Now we got you" he continued, "now you're going to have to go into court, present these signatures and you'll have to claim that they are valid and since you didn't pay us for them, now we're going to sue you because they're invalid". These quotations are not precise but capture the essence of the conversation that took place between these two people. Of course a legal case cannot be made here because the Democratic operative would never admit to this conversation having taken place. This is the very nature of political thuggery and chicanery. The petition drive in Philadelphia was sabotaged by a coordinated effort of the Democratic Party. Political chicanery of this nature will always slip through the legal system because it is almost impossible to prosecute. In the final analysis however only 1.4% of the signatures were rejected as forgeries! The other signatures were all rejected as being from people who were either not registered to vote or not registered to vote at the time of signing the petition. To make matters worse, ballot access laws were then used in a way that can only be described as "political profiling". Here is a tabular presentation of how Nader's signatures were removed:
Not registered or registered after the date of signing Pennsylvania law requires signers to be "qualified electors. It does not absolutely state that people signing nominating petitions must be registered to vote. In fact, the Election Code defines a "qualified elector as:
In 2004, the rights of Pennsylvania residents to register to vote in the General Election were preserved through October 4th. That was the registration deadline. This definition implies a person is a "qualified elector as long as they meet the residency requirement and obtain such qualifications before the next ensuing election. But, in this case, the courts have expanded the definition of "qualified elector declaring they are not truly "qualified electors for the purpose of signing nominating papers until after they register to vote. This is a clear case of "statutory construction" whereby the courts determined what was meant by "qualified elector." As a result, Pennsylvania residents could take their time deciding whether they wanted to participate in the election, but they are denied a voice in deciding who our candidates should be until after they take steps to actually register. Total electors disqualified and silenced for not registering prior to signing: 8,976.
Not registered at address Pennsylvania election laws require qualified electors that have moved to notify the registration commission of their new address by filing a removal notice generally no later than 30 days preceding an election. But, under the doctrine adopted by the courts in yet another example of "statutory construction", these qualified electors cannot sign nomination papers until they notify the registration commission that they have moved. Once again, voters are asked to ignore what the law actually says if they want to sign a candidate's nominating papers. Total electors disqualified and silenced for not notifying the state of their change of address before signing: 6,411
Omitted information Pennsylvania election laws require signers to "add to his signature his legibly printed name and residence, giving city, borough, or township, with street and number, if any, and shall also add the date of signing, expressed in words or numbers Signers can have their signatures stricken for something as simple as neglecting to note the date even when the dates of those signing directly above and below them on the nominating paper are clearly noted. Likewise, if they neglect to print their name their signature will be stricken, even when the identity of the signer is readily apparent. Total electors disqualified and silenced for omitting information such as dates: 1,869
Information written in hand of another As stated above, Pennsylvania election laws require signers to "add to his signature his legibly printed name and residence, giving city, borough, or township, with street and number, if any, and shall also add the date of signing, expressed in words or numbers The courts have ruled that only the signer can write their information. Therefore, if a wife permits her husband to fill in the address information for her, her signature will be disqualified. A blind or otherwise handicapped individual will have their signature disqualified if a signature gatherer or anyone else assists them in completing their residency information. Likewise, anyone who neglects to note the date of their signature will be disqualified even when the dates of those signing directly above and below them on the nominating paper are clearly noted. The signature gatherer is prohibited from correcting this simple deficiency. Total electors disqualified and silenced for allowing others to complete their cursory information such as address or date: 7,851
Printed Signature Apparently, the court has imposed yet one more restriction to the definition of "qualified elector ruling in this case that only those who sign their name using a cursive signature are qualified to have a voice in what candidates get on the ballot in Pennsylvania. Anyone who prints their signature risks having their signature disqualified. Total electors disqualified and for using a printed signature: 8
Illegible signature As stated above, Pennsylvania election laws require signers to "add to his signature his legibly printed name and residence Your signature can be voided if you have poor handwriting. It doesn,t matter that a simple comparison of the poorly printed name against the voter registration database might provide clarity and validate the signature. Total electors disqualified and silenced for poor handwriting: 166
Nicknames or initials All of the electors with common nicknames get tripped up with this requirement. Anyone signing or printing "Bob instead of "Robert or "Chuck instead of "Charles is sure to have their signature voided, even when no ambiguity exists as to their identity at their place of residence. Using or failing to include an initial is another fatal flaw. William Smith" is disqualified for simply printing "W. Smith" Total electors disqualified and silenced for using an initial or nickname: 32
The nebulous "Other category This category could include the City, Borough, or Township trap. People are inclined to provide their mailing or postal address. Often, the City, Borough or Township name is different from the name of the local postal location. Anyone who fails to correctly list their City, Borough, or Township risks being disqualified. Total electors disqualified and silenced for nebulous reasons: 3,513
Affidavit problems Most often, this defect is simply that the affiant noted the wrong county on the first line of the affidavit. Line one ask for the "County of Nomination Paper Signers Residence. There is a tendency for notaries and affiants to complete the line using the county of residence for the affiant. Totals signatures possibly lost to this type of clerical error: 1,855 In a very curious decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the elimination of these signatures was upheld without a written decision! They just simply did not want to say anything! Furthermore, Pennsylvania law does not absolutely state that people who sign nominating petitions must be registered to vote, only "eligible" to vote. The Pennsylvania judges however defined "eligible" as "registered". This is a clear case of "statutory construction" whereby the courts determined what was meant by an "elector". The law does not specifically say that an elector must be registered to vote! Mr. Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee tried to cut a deal with Ralph Nader. McAuliffe told Nader that he would support Nader as long as he did not campaign in any of the so-called "swing states" or "battleground states" -- those states where the election was expected to be a close match between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. McAuliffe told Nader that if he went into those battleground states, the Democratic Party would do everything in its power to keep him off the ballot everywhere in the United States! Nader of course refused to be a party to any such deal. In Pennsylvania the Democrats engaged the law firm of Reed Smith which then employed a tremendous amount of money and resources in the process of ensuring that Mr. Nader did not appear on the ballot in Pennsylvania. The law firm of Reed Smith says they did all of this work for the Democratic Party pro bono. The estimate is that they spent in excess of $4 million to prevent Pennsylvania citizens from voting for the candidate of their choice. The law firm engaged a computer scientist to compose a proprietary piece of software just in order to examine Mr. Nader's petitions. They then went about the process of challenging 35,000 of Nader's signatures. When you challenge 35,000 signatures you overwhelm the system. It is unheard of for anyone to engage a computer scientist to develop a piece of proprietary software to specifically to keep someone off the ballot. When one of the major political parties commits those kinds of resources specifically for the purpose of removing an independent candidate it is incontestably an effort to destroy the democratic election process. This is precisely what Mr. Terry McAuliffe promised and precisely what he delivered. The Democratic Party successfully ended free elections not only in Pennsylvania but across the nation by fulfilling their promise to dry up Mr. Nader's funds through a series of legal maneuvers that would prevent the candidate from ever getting his message to the people of Pennsylvania and any other state. When eleven lawyers show up in a courtroom in order to keep a candidate off the ballot, that is proof positive that you have matched the statutory requirements to be a nonfrivolous candidate with community support which is what ballot access laws were really intended to ensure! Many Democrats actually blamed Ralph Nader for their loss to George Bush in 2000. In Florida Mr. Nader received 97,000 votes. Mr. Bush received 250,000 votes from registered Democrats. The Democratic National Committee decided that it was much easier to crush Ralph Nader than to change their party platform and offer a candidate significantly different than George Bush. Rather than participate meaningfully in the democratic process, the Democrats decided to abort it. This was something they knew they could do whereas regaining lost Democratic voters by offering a more palatable candidate was seen to be impossible. The decision was made to simply throw as much money and as many resources at the Nader campaign as was necessary to silence it. This further explains why there was no serious challenge to Mr. Nader from the Democratic leadership on the basis of his platform or ideas. No serious ideological challenge was made to the Nader campaign by the Democratic Party. In Tammany Hall in the 19th century the bosses in New York knew very well that "the person who counts the ballots determines the winner". Now in the 21st century the Democratic Party has shown us that "he who controls the ballot can control the election". As burdensome and archaic as the ballot access laws are, the Democratic Party magnified this onerous weight by abusing them in order to control the outcome of the presidential election in Pennsylvania. There is a serious question about the aftermath of the 2004 presidential election and how it unfolded in Pennsylvania. We have learned a horrible lesson: a major American political party can eliminate a challenge from an independent or third-party candidate not by simply defeating them in the polling place but by abusing a set of ballot access laws which are in themselves destructive of the democratic process. While this time these egregious laws were abused by the Democratic Party in order to eliminate a competitor they could just as easily be used by the Republican Party. For example, if Senator McCain wanted to challenge the Republican Party's candidate in 2008 and run as an independent candidate he would be subject to the same tactics to which Ralph Nader had been subject. No issues need be addressed, they simply have to launch a well-funded effort using the over burdensome and archaic ballot access laws to prevent people from voting for him. Had the law pertaining to the number of signatures not been created in such a way as to make the candidacies of Independents and "third parties" overly burdensome and now virtually impossible this kind of subversion of the democratic process could not have taken place. Prior to the twentieth century ballot access laws, where they existed at all, encouraged the creation of both Independent candidates and "third-party" candidates. We had a healthy, flourishing two-party system where several "major parties" came into and went out of existence. In 1854 for example the newly founded Republican Party won more governor's seats and sent more Representatives to the House than did any other party. It was able to do so because there were no ballot access laws until 1888. During the 19th-century voter turnout, as a result of high interest and virtually no voter apathy, averaged around 80%. Voter turnout in Pennsylvania in the 2004 election was only 51.9%! It is time to end the discriminatory ballot access laws in Pennsylvania and open our Commonwealth to a truly democratic electoral process. The very basis by which we aspire as a democratic nation to put people on the election ballot has now been turned into the very basis by which we have kept someone off the ballot! When the kind and magnitude of resources which the Democratic Party marshaled in Pennsylvania are designed to keep someone off the ballot, the very magnitude of that effort itself indicates that, under any conception of a democratic system, it is that very person who should be on the ballot. As a result of the 2004 election we now have a model. All we have to do is engage the archaic and burdensome ballot access laws and challenge the legitimacy of every signature on any conceivable basis with potentially dozens of lawsuits. It is not even necessary to win the suits. We can successfully destroy any challenge from any "third party" or Independent candidate by completely draining their resources and make it impossible for them to deliver their message to the people. The burdensome and archaic ballot access laws in Pennsylvania which encourage this kind of discrimination and political chicanery against "third party" and independent candidates must come to an end. John Murphy is a member of the Pennsylvanian
Ballot Access Coalition, working to change ballot access
laws in Pennsylvania. Mr. Murphy will be the Green Party candidate
for House of Representatives from the 16th Congressional District.
He can be reached at: johnamurphy@comcast.net
|
