Ms. Chisholm writes: "This isn't a little goofing around the edges. This is starting to smell like honest-to-goodness fraud."

And what will you call it when the signatures, which already have been verified by the Multnomah County Elections office, are deemed sufficient (valid)?

That'll happen and Nader will be on the ballot with VALID signatures. What will you say then about SEIU? What will those yokels say?

What's the word for someone who knowingly makes false accusations against another? By this I reference the folks at SEIU.

You seem to believe their crap...there are other words for that and I for one don't see any criminality in buying into foolishness.

Does the spreading of false accusations become worse when the intent is to influence an election? In the eyes of the law, yes...more than one criminal charge applies including "voter intimidation" and "filing false charges".

Well, a liar is a liar is a liar...some people prefer to vote for liars.

The verification done, already, by the Multnomah County Elections people...BTW, they are the folks legally charged with that duty...not some partisans at SEIU. If you will take a close look at the first page in the sample on blueoregon, you'll note that the signatures were ALL verified...all five of them.

The complaint of any informed citizen indeed is necessary. What is your information based upon? What SINGLE signature have you checked against the voter rolls?

In fact, why haven't you asked the obvious question: Why is an affidavit from a widow needed to contest the "signature" from her deceased husband?

And, there's an even more basic question which needes to be addressed in any discussion of any ballot access issue.

On August 19th, the NY Times published a story which details the enormous resources Nader's opponents are throwing at his ballot access efforts.

The Times used journalists to prepare that piece...they employ some, unlike the clowns of the Oregonian.

The anti-Nader effort is spending millions to block Nader's attempts at ballot access...and, coincidentally, violating campaign finance laws by working in concert with Democrat Party organizations to do so.

There's a radical (in the sense of "going to the root") question to be asked: What governmental purpose is served by signature requirements such as those faced by Nader, and other third party and independent candidates?

The United States is the ONLY country of ALL those which elect their Chief Executives, which presents such obstacles. In Oregon, the prevailing wisdom has it that you can't beat the Democrat lock on the ballot. I say you can and we must.

That's the "Party Line". Now, consider reality.

How many names can you list on one sheet of paper? That's a ballot. I figure a few hundred per sheet. Hardly a phone book.

All that's beside the point, like the cliche with which you respond. If "minimum amount of support" were what was required, Nader would be elevated to the White House, almost sans election, due to the fact that neither TweedleDum's nor TweedleDumber's names even were known to the general public a short while ago.

In Kerry's case, it's been a few short months and millions in ad buys to make some name recognition.

Nader's been a household name for 40 years now.

Your response is most revealing when you state: "...they don't want to and shouldn't have to list thousands of names as candidates for president..." Who's 'they'? The Constitution is quite clear on the subject. It ain't 'their" option.

John, just FYI: It is called the Democratic party. People belonging to or supporting that party are called democrats. There is no Democrat party.

It looks to me that the democrats have learned the lesson of Florida 2000. If you remember, a majority of voters went to the polls to vote for Gore, but thanks in large part to a republican governor, a republican secretary of state, a republican controlled state house in Florida, and a well organized army of republican lawyers, the questionable Florida electoral votes went for Bush. Gore and the democrats were pussies and did not fight as hard or as smart as they should have. At the time they said that it was for the good of the country, and look where we are 4 years later.

This year the gloves are off. Democrats are not going to play nice, they are not going to let the Republican party or its allies, Nader included, get away with using the electoral law to win this election against the will of the people. They have lawyers too, and thay are not afraid to use them to make sure that everyone, including their opponents, follows the electoral law.

I know what it's called...but it's wrong and it sure ain't democratic...btw, why aren't Democrats called Democratics?

'The gloves are off'. What wonderful imagery. Taken from the German?

One has to have absolutely no clue to assume Nader is somehow a Republican ally.

How do you explain the last 40 years of the man's activism? How do you explain the literally thousands of activists sponsored by Nader and Co. over the years?

Like no other, he can be credited with modern motor vehicle safety laws, OSHA, EPA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a PIRG organization in each state, and on and on and on.

His message hasn't changed at all; not in 40 years.

He's running because he thinks there is absolutely no difference between Bush and Kerry.

On this, I disagree with Nader. If Bush gets elected we have a moron in the White House. However, if Kerry wins, we've still got a moron in the White House AND I have to look at and listen to the Ketchup Lady for at least 4 years and possibly, horribly, eight. Life's too short for me to want to endure that.

Nader is actively working to get Bush another 4 years in the white house, with financial support from republicans and with documented support on the ground in many states from republican groups. If that does not qualify him as a republican ally, I am not sure what does.

So you would rather have Bush in the white house for another 4 years because you don't want Teresa Kerry as the first lady? With a war or two going on, a weak economy, our allies of 50 years hating our guts, don't you think that it is a rather shallow reason for voting Bush/Nader?

You mean the war Bush/Kerry started and which Nader opposed and opposes? Depending on how one defines it, Kerry indeed is a "War Hero".

Incidentally, I'm tired of this "the elections people are the ones who do the verification" stuff. Again, as someone from the Secretary of State's office wrote right here, the Elections Division needs complaints from the public to do their job.

But aren't those two different things? Doing verification and calling for verification are two very very different things. I call on my City Counsilors often about the issues that mean the most to me; I do not however, call a meeting with Homer Williams, the PDC, etc. and try to do the counsilors job.

Exactly. This is the strategy that should have been followed, but that isn't what happened. When you hold your own press conference, you have crossed that line.

And, I do know how fun it is to call and run them; but it changes the process dynamics irreversibly. They should have done the count, called it in, put some pressure on, but actively left it at that.

Process matters, because it colours the content.

Be careful with your information and whom you choose to believe""""" For how quickly that “forked tongue aggression” will start you to deceive""""" Pass no quick judgments or jest not, based on slanderous-hearsay""""" Without these silly petions I’m sure even as a “write in” it will suit me anyway.""""" There are lots of evil-doers and liars in the Kingdom""""" Strive for truth and work for peace and exercise your freedom"""""

Hmmm.

Substantial evidence?

Kari, I have yet to hear of a single case of credit identity theft through Oregon's initiative process.

Of course, it was so very responsible of the VEP to speculate about it through a big PR campaign designed to frighten people from signing anything -- quite a pubic service, that.

The VEP was a union political organization masquerading as a non-profit in the same way that Sizemore's OTU foundation operated to serve his political agenda. That one organization succeeded in taking down the other for what they were both doing is the sort of irony that is lost on the major media, constantly hunting for the next big scandal.

Glad to hear you are finally (almost) owning up to it.

The good news is that people are less likely to accept it at face value when you folks cry "Wolf!" nowadays, especially when the alleged "wolf" always turns out to be the unions' political opponents. You'll probably need to find a new bogeyman for the next initiative cycle.

Mr. Slevin,

You have posted a series of factually incorrect comments in an attempt to support your point.

You wrote: "The United States is the ONLY country of ALL those which elect their Chief Executives, which presents such obstacles."

The reality: most presidential regimes do require a demonstration of a minimal level of support before they allow ballot access. Go here: http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/lf/lfd04.htm for more information.

You wrote: That's the "Party Line". Now, consider reality. How many names can you list on one sheet of paper? That's a ballot. I figure a few hundred per sheet. Hardly a phone book.

The reality: there is no physical limit to the length of a ballot. Anyone who votes in Oregon knows that! If we were to limit the list of presidential candidates to one page, as you suggest, how would we establish the list? Unless you are willing to allow a list as long as the number of candidates who express an interest, we must limit ballot access.

Pancho -

It is humorous to read your comparison between the VEP and Sizemore's group(s), and on the surface it may seem to be so, but in fact the two are very different. The VEP followed the law, and Sizemore didn't. The VEP was in it for political reasons, and Sizemore was in it for the money. The VEP actually produced evidence of criminal activity, and Sizemore actually DID criminal activity. Finally, the VEP tried to protect the initiative process, while Sizemore abused it to get what he wanted. There is a good reason why the VEP came out on top.

The initiative process is certainly a mess now, thanks in large part to overreaction to Sizemore's abuse of it, but until the Legislature can get past its own desire to use the process as a political tool, there really is no hope of saving it. Our representatives don't want to make it functional or reformed because to do so would put too much power in the hands of the "uneducated" and "impulsive" citizens.

Personally, I don't see a solution in the forseeable future. The fraud, mistakes, and selfish motives of many people have left us with a broken process. And idiots like the guys who forge dead people's signatures on petitions are driving nails in its coffin. I hope the justice system comes down harder on them than it did on those the VEP discovered in its quest to bring down Sizemore.

The Prof. writes:

The reality: there is no physical limit to the length of a ballot. Anyone who votes in Oregon knows that! If we were to limit the list of presidential candidates to one page, as you suggest, how would we establish the list? Unless you are willing to allow a list as long as the number of candidates who express an interest, we must limit ballot access.

Now you're getting warmer...I'm for allowing as a candidate anyone who qualifies under the limits expressed in the US Constitution.

I oppose ALL ballot access restrictions. I favor free, fair, open and honest elections. Seen from that perspective, Oregon's limits on federal races are a tyranny.

Of course, there should be no limits on state races either. What's wrong with choices? Lots of them?

The next ruse is to suggest that any resulting ballot is too confusing, too long, etc. But I was not eductated in the public schools, I can and do read, and I don't fear having to do my homework, read the ballot, etc.

Costs of an inclusionary ballot are insignificant, and can be recouped through fees on candidates, representing the actual costs of inclusion---of course, mostly we can do away with the pamphlets, as virtually no one reads them, the printing and postage is exceptionally wasteful, they can be distributed at public buildings, and all the information can be had online. Any fees on included candidates could be subject to means testing, so as protect against incumbents raising the costs and so raising the bar of admission onto the ballot.

Oregon's limits have nothing to do with space or "level of support". Oregon's limits are designed by the "ins" to protect themselves against the "outs", as evidenced by the recent furor over Nader. In some states, the numerical limits you want to cringe at already exist.

Indeed, any state which limits ballot access ONLY to those getting a certain percentage of electorate to sign petitions, and limiting each signer to one candidate only, actually has a stark limit on the number of candidates.

Consider that for all practical purposes, ALL of New England and New York State are out of play for independents, and smaller parties have a very tough time of it. That's to say nothing of those who attempt an insurgency within any existing party.

Georgia is a laughingstock and not only for the oppressive nature of it's ballot access laws; it's also the state producing the hypocrite who has gained the most from his state's oppressive restrictions.

James Carter, that smirking Peanut Farmer with the white trash family, keeps globetrotting, as a self-designated representative of US interests, to "oversee" elections in nations where literally dozens of candidates enjoy ballot status, though he got himself elected Governor by stripping an opponent of ballot status and no Georgia ballot has ever seen dozens of contestants for the same seat.

Want some fun, try running in West Virginia for any partisan seat as other than a Democrat..and if you run as a Democrat, try running as one not approved by the pooh bahs there.

You also objected to my criticism of the US as the most restrictive nation among those which elect a national leader...except for the nominees of the D's and R's, who are excluded from this tyranny and who are the designated benificiaries of the tyranny, any other candidate for federal office at the national level (Pres and Vice-Pres) confronts 51 different sets of restrictions...that's each state plus D.C. Why? What governmental interest is served?

It is true that some people are confused and have a difficult time voting intelligently. How do they bank? Get a mortgage?...

Now, I'm all for morons voting. I want to enfranchise and I don't like poll taxes, literacy tests or other obstacles to the exercise of the franchise.

One of two morons now in the running probably will win. Since each will receive millions of the popular vote, morons are excercising their franchise and again they'll install one of their own in the nation's mansion.

If you believe that giving ballot status to anyone who meets the Constitutional requirements is a "logistical impossibility" where would you draw the line?

Morons always will be confused. Adding a few hundred candidates (won't be that many, at least not in most races) won't make things more difficult to these already challenged voters.

Nor is it likely to add to the time spent voting. You noted the "butterfly ballots".

The Florida experience proves that morons waste no time in punching the hole next to two or more candidates. Only those voters who choose to punch the hole next to two hundred candidates will spend a significantly greater amount of time in voting.

Once again their misused ballots will be voided. So, I see no increase in trouble, just more choices, when one follows the Constitutional mandate.

Closet,

You describe differences in outcome only. And I know that "all history is written by the victors", but this is all still too recent to just accept newpaper accounts and move on.

The real difference is that OTU was found "responsible" as an organization for various legal violations of its employees (most notably Becky Miller who admitted to several forgeries after gaining immunity from the AG and agreeing to turn on her former boss). The VEP was never investigated like OTU, but that doesn't mean that it didn't break the law.

The VEP ultimately beat Sizemore because they played even dirtier than him. They put together a political operation and operated it through a non-profit entity (501c3) giving them tax deductible donations, the requirement to report their donation sources publicly, etc.

They were chartered with "educational" and "charitable" purposes in order to take advantage of this tax status. They violated it in an effort designed to take down a specific political opponent (Sizemore). They were successful because they were better organized, they had the political machinery in place (D's in the SoS, AG and a compliant judge) to get the job done, and the major media was only too happy to help them topple Sizemore (and his incredible ego).

It wasn't "Clean vs. Dirty".

It was more like "Clever but Dirty vs. Carelessly Tainted".

Pancho -

Wow, I don't even know where to start with your comment "The real difference is that OTU was found "responsible" as an organization for various legal violations of its employees (most notably Becky Miller who admitted to several forgeries after gaining immunity from the AG and agreeing to turn on her former boss)."

First, a judge just ruled in summary judgment that because Sizemore WAS OTU he was personally liable for the racketeering costs. Maybe you missed that.

As I recall, Miller's "forgeries" were that she signed Sizemore's name to checks with his permission except for one time, which was a check she knew was illegal to write but was ordered by Sizemore to write. Besides, I hardly think the government would grant immunity to someone if they were the one who had done the crime. Gaining government immunity requires showing the government what you've got first, and then hoping they'll agree that your a little fish who can get them the big fish.

Do you really believe that Sizemore's agreement with Grover Norquist to launder money through ATR in Washington, DC was the fault of his "employees"? Or that his pilfering of large amounts of money (commonly called embezzlement) from the OTU organizations into his own pocket via his petitioning company was the fault of his "employees"? What about his falsification of information on tax returns, or his use of a 501(c)3 organization for political purposes? Perhaps you should spend some time to read the day-to-day account of the testimony of the trial. It's easy to find, located on the OEA web site, and is probably far more comprehensive reading than the narrowly focused self-justification posted on Sizemore's own web site. The list of his hands-on involvement is lengthy, and a summary judgment (do you know what that is?) to that effect is pretty conclusive, unless you really do believe the Multnomah Court system is a "kangaroo court" (as Sizemore claims), that the jury was too stupid to understand the facts, and that the Oregonian made up all the information they've published about his prior business practices. That seems a bit far-fetched to me, but if it makes you feel better ...

I find this thread hilarious. You all argue the principles as if you really care about ballot access, identity theft, forged signatures, or the cost of mailing the voter's pamphlet. This isn't some high-minded argument about ballot access. It's about electing your man.

Democrats don't really mean "Nader didn't comply with the rules, so he shouldn't get on the ballot." They mean "Nader will hurt Kerry, so he shouldn't get on the ballot." It's ludicrous to pretend otherwise.

Brett -

You are absolutely right, and that's really what is so amazing about a guy like Sizemore screwing up the way he did. He should have known people would come after him because of his message. They could never have hanged him if he hadn't handed them the rope.

What I read in all of this is what you read, plus more. People are tired of the lawbreaking because it dirties things up to the point where people become disillusioned. Your guy is lying, their guy is lying, and soon you just expect that everyone must be lying and you either quit caring that they're lying or you drop out of the system. It's one thing to play hardball within the rules; it's quite another to outright cheat, steal, forge, lie, etc. because of some misplaced belief that the end justifies the means. Because sooner or later the means become the issue and the end is forgotten. We've arrived at a point in this country where we can't even hold a meaningful debate because nobody tells the truth and nobody is expected to tell the truth.

Those of us who are idealogically motivated enough to be involved wind up focusing on the lawbreaking as a way to discredit our opponents because the public is too jaded to listen any longer to the debate of ideas.

Democrats don't really mean "Nader didn't comply with the rules, so he shouldn't get on the ballot." They mean "Nader will hurt Kerry, so he shouldn't get on the ballot." It's ludicrous to pretend otherwise.

Personally, I completely own up to that statement. It is absolutely true that the reason Nader's attempts to get on the ballot are subject to such intense scrutiny this year is because Democrats believe (to a greater degree than in 2000) that a Nader candidacy increases the likelihood of a Bush win (even if only slightly). (And, of course, we've seen Bush in action and realize how high the stakes are.) However, this doesn't delegitimize concerns about violations of election law. Is it wrong to make sure he complies with existing election law, even if the motivation is that I don't want him on the ballot? I'm not being rhetorical, I'm really asking. My view is that there's nothing wrong with it.

Odds are he received a contribution specifically for that purpose - in other words, here's some money to get you on the ballot, but you have to hire our friends to help you do it. That's how this stuff works.

But you have to be out of your mind to think Dems have to welcome his arrival or champion his candidacy.

You said it so much better than I did.

I'm with you guys -- there's nothing wrong with it at all. I'm no Nader fan, and I think he should be required to comply with every law on the books. I just think we ought to get the motivations out on the table. You certainly have no obligation to welcome his arrival or champion his candidacy.

I blame the initiative system for most of the problems we have now. Initiatives have removed power from politicians and put it in the hands of single-issue partisans, most of whom are now well-funded groups who don't even live here.

I totally disagree with this. The initiative system has had some major screwups, yes (Measure 5), but it's had some moments in the sun, too (defeat of Measure 9). But the system's best moments are yet to come. A ballot measure is the only way to achieve certain political ends that politicians are too cowardly to advocate. The prime example is the war on drugs, and the corollary issue of mandatory minimums. [yes, I know, instituted by ballot measure.] Do you imagine that our legislators will ever have the courage to legalize marijuana, or end the war on drugs? It will have to happen by initiative, whether it's here, in Washington, or in Alaska. No legislator wants to risk his seat by sponsoring such a thing, and only an initiative could get it done.

First, I think it's ironic that Nader supporters would be critical of efforts to hold the Nader signature gatherers accountable. The guy started the PIRGs and other activist organizations that were all about filing charges and lawsuits so as to influence policy, elections and corporate actions. Now that a group, in this case SEIU, holds Ralphie to the same standards as he set his supporters start whining about how unfair it is.

And since we're talking about Ralphie, let's not forget that in 2000 he said, in Portland, that a Bush presidency would be good for the environment because during Regan's tenure Sierra Club membership went up over 50%. Also, when asked about gay rights he said that he wasn't intereseted in "gonadal politics".

People are so quick to criticize Kerry and Bush as tweedle-de and tweedle-dum, but what really makes people think Ralphie is really worth being president?

Also, John P. Slevin is a Libertarian hack.