NY: New Ethics Law is Unethical, Unconstitutional, for Exclusion of Independents

From the Wall Street Journal:

The new ethics law being touted by Gov. Andrew Cuomo parcels equal roles to Democrats and Republicans in investigating lawmakers of both parties suspected of questionable conduct. What about independents?

"They don't exist," Mr. Cuomo said at a recent news conference, at which point he and legislative leaders standing beside him broke into a hearty laugh. But constitutional scholars aren't taking the matter so lightly.

They're warning that the state's new ethics body may be destined for legal challenges in federal court. By enshrining into law the perpetual dominance of Republicans and Democrats in overseeing ethics codes, Mr. Cuomo and lawmakers could be infringing on the rights of unaffiliated and minor-party citizens . . .

For more on the new law, see Poli-Tea.

Open the Debates

From the Daily Californian:

America is enormous, and with so many different opinions and political philosophies, it is absurd to think that holding an election with only two parties really results in an accurate picture of where the populace stands. All our elections do is force people to choose between two groups that don't actually stand for much at all.

Both of the major parties would have you think that they are the party of "you." But they hardly ever have you in their minds when making policy. The Republican Party would have us hand over our livelihoods to the Chamber of Commerce so that the Chamber can feed Wall Street, while the Democratic Party would have us answer to a Democratic administration that would ultimately serve those same corporations. Basically, when you go to the voting booth you have a choice between two corporate parties, both wanting to feed the cash cow on Wall Street in order to maintain the status quo. . . . .  So what can be done? Our best chance of reforming electoral politics is to open up the national debates . . .

MD: Democrats Get a Taste of the Political Fringe

From a letter to the editor of the Baltimore Sun:

The classification of the Harford County Democrats as a "fringe" party would be funny if the thought wasn't so sad ("Harford Democrats termed fringe party, shut out of redistricting," Feb. 16). Councilman Richard Slutzky's argument that letting Democrats into the redistricting committee would be as unfathomable as (gasp!) letting in the Green Party has no doubt rubbed a sore spot with the Dems. Let me send a brief letter from the fringe to a party that has no idea what the fringe really is.

As the state chairman of the Green Party, I am well aware of how the law is turned against those (Greens, Libertarians, the Constitution Party) trying to make better policy through the electoral process. I find it hard to sympathize with the Harford Democrats' plight (the irony that they themselves implemented this legal exclusion aside). All Maryland Democrats maintain the legal status of their party and candidates without a lengthy, expensive petition process — the Green Party cannot. Democrats are entitled to a state-funded primary election to promote their candidates — Greens are not. When was the last time a debate organizer — many using public resources to promote their events — had to decide whether the Democrat would be invited or not? Greens, when we can qualify for the ballot, almost never are.

Perhaps the exclusively-Republican redistricting committee will further gerrymander the Harford Democrats into oblivion. They can then feel firsthand how restrictive ballot access laws make it impossible for a minor party to keep up with their opponents' unfettered organizing, leaving them incapable of preventing further legal restrictions. The cycle of abuse then continues. Maybe, just maybe, this brief escapade will give Maryland Democrats a glance at what it's really like on the fringe, and how the law puts us there.

Brian Bittner, Baltimore

Exclusionary Debates for Mayor of Chicago Rile Voters

From the Chicago Sun Times:

Normally, it is the Independent or the candidate representing a party besides the Democrats or Republicans who are left with their noses pressed up against the TV screen during sponsored debates. But in the most important local election in 20 years, even being a Democrat doesn’t guarantee you a seat at the table for debates being sponsored by local media and civic groups.

If comments posted on websites are to be believed, some viewers were stunned when only four of the six mayoral candidates were featured Monday on the first televised mayoral debate hosted by WTTW’s Chicago Tonight . . .

TN: Independent Tea Party Candidates for House Excluded from Debate

From the Commercial Appeal:

Donn Janes of Brighton, one of two independent candidates for the 8th Congressional District seat on the November ballot, was a bit premature when he accepted an invitation last week to debate his opponents next month at Union University. That's because he isn't being invited, according to Tim Ellsworth, the Jackson-based university's director of news and media relations. Neither is independent candidate Mark J. Rawles, who said Wednesday that "it's almost like we're censoring our candidates" to deprive him of a spot on stage. Both Rawles and Janes are associated with the tea party movement. 

The official reason why the independents are being excluded is because the debate is apparently meant to serve as a tool for the indoctrination of the University's students into the ideology of the two-party state and duopoly system of government:

In response to an e-mail from The Commercial Appeal, Ellsworth said: "The Oct. 5 debate at Union between congressional candidates Stephen Fincher (a Republican) and Roy Herron (a Democrat) is a two-man debate.

"We understand that there are two independent candidates in the race as well, but from the beginning of this process we knew we wanted a two-man format because we have two political student groups represented on campus in the College Republicans and the College Democrats, and those groups will be involved with the debate."

PA: Green and Libertarian Parties Call on Democrats and Republicans to Cease Authoritarian Ballot Control Efforts

A press release from the TGB Report:

HARRISBURG, PA – In a display of non-partisan unity on behalf of all Pennsylvania voters who desire a free choice of candidates in the November 2, 2010 general election, the state’s Constitution, Green and Libertarian Parties today called on Republicans and Democrats to withdraw the nomination petition challenges that major party operatives filed against every non-major party candidate for statewide office in Pennsylvania. The minor parties also called on the major party candidates who are the intended beneficiaries of the challenges to condemn them as an attempt to suppress voter choice in the upcoming election. Under Pennsylvania’s uniquely punitive and discriminatory ballot access scheme, minor party and independent candidates may be ordered to pay $80,000 or more in litigation costs and attorneys’ fees if they defend against such challenges.

The Constitution, Green and Libertarian Parties specifically called on Republican gubernatorial nominee Tom Corbett to condemn the challenge filed against Libertarian Party gubernatorial nominee Marakay Rogers. They called on Republican congressional candidate Pat Meehan to condemn the challenge to independent candidate Jim Schneller. And the minor parties called on Democratic senatorial nominee Joe Sestak to condemns and withdraw the challenge that he personally filed to Green Party senatorial nominee Mel Packer.  Corbett, Meehan and Sestak must condemn the challenges whether or not they were involved in the filing, the minor parties say, because they are the intended beneficiaries.

ID: Charity Group Endangers Its Own Non-Profit Status with Democrat-Republican Campaign Event

From the Idaho Statesman:

Catholic Charities of Idaho has called off a roast of the major candidates for governor and the 1st District House seat because of what it called a threat from independent gubernatorial candidate Jana Kemp. Kemp said the popular annual "Loaves and Fishes" fundraiser, is a "prohibited activity" for a non-profit. The group, which provides social services to people of all religions, said it would postpone the Sept. 10 fundraiser until it can resolve the issue.

"As my team reads the code, you all seem to be placing yourselves in a position of losing your nonprofit status, which was just gained in 2000," Kemp said in an e-mail, obtained by the Idaho Statesman.  "All I did was ask a question. I made no threat," Kemp said in an interview Wednesday.

FL: Florida Whig Party Endorses Snitker, Calls on Head of State's Press Association to Resign

From the Florida Whig Party:

Alexander Snitker said: “I'd like to make a statement. I think denying a person who served eight years in the United States Marine Corps defending your right to have this today...is an atrocity.” Snitker admonished the assembled press, saying, “You keep saying that career politicians are the problem, and you're only going to allow career politicians and a billionaire on stage. You want to talk about the tea party candidate? It's not Marco Rubio – it's Alexander Snitker.”

Alexander Snitker is the first Libertarian to appear on the ballot for the United States Senate in the State of Florida and deserves equal treatment. Many Libertarian candidates, and other minor party candidates, have often been ignored by a biased media that is dependent upon the advertising revenues of millionaires and billionaires who seek office. Shame on Dean Ridings and the Florida Press Association for intentionally restricting free speech, public debate, and the public's right to know all the candidates and issues.

FL: Third Party Candidates Excluded from Press Forum

From the Libertarian Party Blog:

Alex Snitker, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senator in Florida, was excluded from a candidate event held by the Florida Press Association on June 17. Snitker attended the event and spoke against the decision to exclude him.

HI: Independent Candidates Banned from Televised Debate

From the Honolulu Advertiser:

One of 11 lesser-known candidates for Hawaii's vacant U.S. House seat has failed to convince federal courts to hear his complaint about Monday night's televised debate. Karl Moseley, an independent from the Big Island, said Monday the U.S. District Court in Honolulu and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco denied his motions for a hearing.