Current Events > Texas Dems are successfully kicking Green Party candidates off November ballot

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://tinyurl.com/y5zjf6pg

State and national Democrats are waging a legal offensive to kick Green Party candidates off the ballot in some of Texas' highest-profile races this fall and they are seeing success. On Wednesday, both a Travis County district judge and a state appeals court blocked the Green Party nominees for U.S. Senate and the 21st Congressional District from appearing on the ballot. The Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals additionally forced the Green Party nominee for railroad commissioner off the ballot. Responding to Wednesday's rulings, the Texas Green Party said the legal challenges were suspiciously timed, coming after the Monday deadline for write-in candidates to file with the state and days before a series of deadlines finalizing the November ballot. "The timing of these actions is an obvious attempt to remove voter choices from the ballot and lessen the work Democrats have to do to earn votes," the party said in a statement. "It is disappointing to have the legal system weaponized to suppress voters in this way."

Wakely said Wednesday he thought the parties should be focused on "discussing ideas, debating policy," rather than working to take options away from voters. "Im dismayed that while the Democrats are complaining about [how] the Republicans and Donald Trump are trying to suppress the vote, theyre doing exactly the same," Wakely said.


---

Good.

---

blegh
---

oh no, 3rd party spoiler candidates that have absolutely no chance to win but will only take votes away from biden are upset that their plan is being seen for what it is?

---

Giving voters more options is not a bad thing. Shame on texas dems.

---

Getting
Republicans
Elected
Every
November

---

Gross.

---

KILBOTz posted...

Giving voters more options is not a bad thing. Shame on texas dems.

Why not just write-in "None of the Above" ?

---

monkmith posted...

oh no, 3rd party spoiler candidates that have absolutely no chance to win but will only take votes away from biden are upset that their plan is being seen for what it is?

As much as I despise Trump and want Biden to win, we shouldnt have a system where you only get to choose between Coke or Pepsi. People who dont fall under the specifics of the two parties should be able to have representation.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Why not just write-in "None of the Above" ?

because Monty Brewster isnt running.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Good.

Taking steps to rig an election is, in fact, not good.

---

The Popo posted...

As much as I despise Trump and want Biden to win, we shouldnt have a system where you only get to choose between Coke or Pepsi. People who dont fall under the specifics of the two parties should be able to have representation.

yes, thats right, but its not reality. live in reality, realize that you've got two choices and a dumpster fire.

3rd party candidates have a place in lower elections, but they aren't going to ever win a presidential election with the way our voting system is set up.

---

ugly us vs. them mentality continues to stifle democracy

---

monkmith posted...

yes, thats right, but its not reality. live in reality, realize that you've got two choices and a dumpster fire.

The reality is that any party other than the Democrats and Republicans have zero chance of every gaining any support if they are never given a chance.

Im well aware that their chances are zero in this election, and I have zero interest in voting for them myself... but I dont like that the option seems to be to keep them suppressed so they dont have any chance at all.


---

The Popo posted...

As much as I despise Trump and want Biden to win, we shouldnt have a system where you only get to choose between Coke or Pepsi. People who dont fall under the specifics of the two parties should be able to have representation.

Under the system we have you can vote for Dr. Pepper or RC Cola or literally anything else but you will still be given a Coke or a Pepsi

And even if the other options are listed as available they aren't actually there

---

monkmith posted...

yes, thats right, but its not reality. live in reality, realize that you've got two choices and a dumpster fire.

3rd party candidates have a place in lower elections, but they aren't going to ever win a presidential election with the way our voting system is set up.

Well we're never going to change anything if we keep pushing it off because "things are what they are"

---

The Popo posted...

As much as I despise Trump and want Biden to win, we shouldnt have a system where you only get to choose between Coke or Pepsi. People who dont fall under the specifics of the two parties should be able to have representation.

Then the Green Party candidates should be following the rules to the letter

the reason theyre getting taken off ballots is violations of the rules, even if theyre just technicalities

anyway in a world where republicans gerrymander and suppress voters with abandon I dont have any real issue with dems getting spoiler candidates taken off ballots by legal means

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Well we're never going to change anything if we keep pushing it off because "things are what they are"

and bashing your head against a wall and voting third party in the presidential election isn't going to do a damn thing besides give you a concussion...

you want to change things? vote third party in lower elections, where they actually have a chance to win and can potentially build enough power to change laws.

---

monkmith posted...

you want to change things? vote third party in lower elections, where they actually have a chance to win and can potentially build enough power to change laws.

To be fair this article is about Green Party candidates in local positions

---

Most green party voters will just write in who they want or not vote

---

Nice. Green party only exists as a vehicle to help Rs win

Third parties are never going to win the presidency because of the first past the post system and also because of the electoral college.

So why do we hear about the Libertarian and Green Parties every presidential election now, but there are only 235 Libertarians and 130 Greens in elected office in the entire US?

---

WTF we like voter suppression now?

---

Politics posted...

Most green party voters will just write in who they want or not vote

Yep. So this really doesn't accomplish anything aside further alienate progressives/leftists from the Democratic party.

---

Toadsworth posted...

Yep. So this really doesn't accomplish anything aside further alienate progressives/leftists from the Democratic party.

if they weren't voting democrat anyway how can they be further alienated

---

Doom_Art posted...

if they weren't voting democrat anyway how can they be further alienated

well they'll get to make smug comments about how their candidate would have done better...

---

Eh... I want to care, but they could have easily received donations for those unpaid fees. And no, I don't agree with the fees

---

Doom_Art posted...

if they weren't voting democrat anyway how can they be further alienated

Probably because many of them were at one point members? And are only now looking into 3rd parties. Like many Bernie supporters have been going over to look at Howie as a choice.

---

The Popo posted...

As much as I despise Trump and want Biden to win, we shouldnt have a system where you only get to choose between Coke or Pepsi. People who dont fall under the specifics of the two parties should be able to have representation.

We shouldnt but we do. A vote for a green candidate in 2020 is the same as just throwing your vote away.

---

https://mobile.twitter.com/peterdaou/status/1304027901168361472

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Good.

---

Good the 3rd parties were just established by Democrats and Republicans to take away votes.

---

So Democrats accuse Republicans of playing dirty then turn around to do the same thing to smaller parties.

Vote!
Exercise your right to vote!
Every vote matters!
Voting should be mandatory!
Make sure to vote!

wait youre voting 3rd party?

Youre throwing away your vote!
Your vote doesnt matter!
You may as well not not even bother!
A vote for 3rd party is a vote for the other side!

VOTE!!


---

SHOCKED to see the neolib Dems applauding this decision. Absolutely SHOCKED.

---

disgusting

---

This is trash. The two party system is awful, and I wish the Greens were actually viable. They absolutely should not be kicked off the ballot, though.

---

Shablagoo posted...

https://mobile.twitter.com/peterdaou/status/1304027901168361472

this tweet is legitimately indistinguishable from parody


---

but i thought they r the good guys

---

NinjaWarrior455 posted...

SHOCKED to see the neolib Dems applauding this decision. Absolutely SHOCKED.

Gotta love the progressives ignoring context when it's convenient for them.

---

like do you not understand the irony of posting a tweet like that in a topic about fucking green party candidates?

---

worthless shitposters coming out in full force

---

Note: barriers to ballot access are uniquely high in the US, due to rules largely written by the two major parties
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/bernie-sanders-democratic-labor-party-ackerman/

When the worlds first government-printed secret ballot was adopted in Australia in the 1850s, the law required a would-be parliamentary candidate to submit a total of two endorsement signatures to get on the ballot. When Britain adopted the reform in 1872, its requirement was ten endorsement signatures. But when the first US state, Massachusetts, passed an Australian-ballot law in 1888, it required one thousand signatures for statewide office, and, in district-level races, signatures numbering at least 1 percent of the total votes cast at the preceding election.

Yet those barriers were mild compared to what came afterward. Over the three decades following US entry into World War I, as working-class and socialist parties burgeoned throughout the industrialized world, American elites chose to deal with the problem by radically restricting access to the ballot. In state after state, petition requirements and filing deadlines were tightened and various forms of routine legal harassment, unknown in the rest of the democratic world, became the norm.

The new restrictions came in waves, usually following the entry of left-wing parties into the electoral process. According to data gathered by Richard Winger of Ballot Access News, in 1931 Illinois raised the petition requirement for third-party statewide candidates from one thousand signatures to twenty-five thousand. In California, the requirement was raised from 1 percent of the last total gubernatorial vote to 10 percent. In 1939, Pennsylvania suddenly decided it was important that the thousands of required signatures be gathered solely within a three-week period. In New York, according to one account, minor-party petitions began to be challenged for hyper-technical defects.

Although these statutes have been assailed on all sides, a 1937 Columbia Law Review article reported, their severity is constantly being increased, probably because the interests oppressed seldom have representation in the legislatures. Indeed, when the Florida legislature found socialists and communists advancing at the polls, it responded in 1931 by banning any party from the ballot unless it had won 30 percent of the vote in two consecutive elections; naturally, when the Republican Party failed to meet that test, the state immediately lowered the threshold.

By comparison, in Britain getting on the ballot was never a major concern for the newly founded Labour Party; the only significant requirement was a 150 deposit (first instituted in 1918), to be refunded if the candidate won at least 12.5 percent of the vote. In its first general-election outing in 1900, the party started with a mere 1.8 percent of the national vote. Despite the allegedly fatal spoiler problem, it then gradually increased its vote share until it overtook the Liberals as the major party of the Left in 1922.

Today, in almost every established democracy, getting on the ballot is at most a secondary concern for small or new parties; in many countries it involves little more than filling out some forms. In Canada, any party with 250 signed-up members can compete in all 338 House of Commons districts nationwide, with each candidate needing to submit one hundred voter signatures. In the United Kingdom, a parliamentary candidate needs to submit ten signatures, plus a 500 deposit which is refunded if the candidate wins at least 5 percent of the vote. In Australia, a party with five hundred members can run candidates in all House of Representatives districts, with a $770 deposit for each candidate, refundable if the candidate wins at least 4 percent of the vote.

In Ireland, Finland, Denmark, and Germany, signature requirements for a parliamentary candidacy range from 30 to 250, and up to a maximum of 500 in the largest districts of Austria and Belgium. In France and the Netherlands, only some paperwork is required.

The Council of Europe, the pan-European intergovernmental body, maintains a Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, which catalogs electoral practices that contravene international standards. Such violations often read like a manual of US election procedure. In 2006, the council condemned the Republic of Belarus for violating the provision of the code proscribing signature requirements larger than 1 percent of a districts voters, a level the council regards as extremely high; in 2014, Illinois required more than triple that number for House candidacies. In 2004, the council rebuked Azerbaijan for its rule forbidding voters from signing nomination petitions for candidates from more than one party; California and many other states do essentially the same thing.

In fact, some US electoral procedures are unknown outside of dictatorships: Unlike other established democracies, the USA permits one set of standards of ballot access for established major parties and a different set for all other parties.

That Americas election system is uniquely repressive is common knowledge among experts. Nowhere is the concern [about governing-party repression] greater than in the United States, as partisan influence is possible at all stages of the electoral contest, concludes a recent survey of comparative election law.

Perhaps the clearest case of overt partisan manipulation of the rules is the United States, where Democrats and Republicans appear automatically on the ballot, but third parties and independents have to overcome a maze of cumbersome legal requirements, writes Pippa Norris, a world elections authority at Harvard and director of democratic governance at the United Nations Development Program.

One of the best-kept secrets in American politics, the eminent political scientist Theodore Lowi has written, is that the two-party system has long been brain dead kept alive by support systems like state electoral laws that protect the established parties from rivals and by federal subsidies and so-called campaign reform. The two-party system would collapse in an instant if the tubes were pulled and the IVs were cut.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Good.

https://youtu.be/_SSGsGdkJ2c

---

The Green Party are, at best, a bunch of grifters just trying to keep Republicans in power.

---

I dont agree with the barriers to being on the ballot on principle

however, we live in a world of context, where functionally the Green Party has no chance in these elections and are just spoiler candidates

in that same world republicans use all the dirty tricks at their disposal to suppress voters

so in this instance, while I think its wrong that there are legal hurdles to being on the ballot, I dont have a problem with dems playing dirty so to speak and using those legal hurdles to their advantage

---

TheGoldenEel posted...

however, we live in a world of context, where functionally the Green Party has no chance in these elections and are just spoiler candidates

That context is created by a history of decisions exactly like this.
---

The Green Party literally are used by foreign investors to spoil Democratic candidates and use the fact that America should have more options as a shield from criticism

Don't fall for this shit, Jill Stein literally met with Vladamir Putin

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Sounds like a reason to not vote for them

That's not how this works. Insisting "Don't vote for them but let's take no action and enable them as a spoiler" isn't effective. Taking action is effective.

---