It's good that Bruce Ackerman has joined this list and
it's good that he wrote his op-ed piece for the NY
Times of May 5 about the electoral college.  The
electoral college needs far more attention than it
gets.

His idea is wildly impractical for Nader, in my
opinion, for these two reasons:

1. Nader is having great trouble finding a local
attorney to represent him in a lawsuit against the
Texas ballot access law, even though that Texas law
seems obviously unconstitutional.  Texas requires an
independent presidential candidate to submit 64,077
valid signatures by May 10.  But, a new party is
required to submit 45,540 signatures by May 24! 
Independent candidates for office other than president
also need the lower 45,540 figure.

It seems obvious that the Texas law fails the rational
basis test.  The purpose of ballot access barriers is
to keep the ballot from being too crowded.  A new
party, qualifying itself by petition, is entitled to
nominate someone for every partisan office in the
state, federal, state, and county.  So a new party's
impact on ballot-crowding is far greater than the
impact of a single independent candidate.  Therefore,
what possible logic leads the state to require 41%
more signatures for an independent presidential
candidate than for a new party?  And what possible
logic leads the state to require an independent
presidential candidate to submit his or her signatures
two weeks earlier than a minor party petition is due?

There are 5 precedents from around the U.S., saying
that states cannot require more signatures, or an
earlier deadline, for independent candidates than for
minor parties.  There are no contrary precedents.

So, it ought to be an easy case.  What is shocking is
that no attorney in Texas wants to represent Nader! 
Even the ACLU has turned him down.

It is unrealistic to expect Nader to find attorneys to
defend the constitutionality of running a slate of
elector candidates that is simultaneously pledged to
the Democratic nominee, when he is even having trouble
finding an attorney to do what ought to be an easy
ballot access case.

2. The Ackerman proposal asks individuals to pledge to
do something that they cannot possibly do.  His plan
asks presidential elector candidates to tell the
public that they will vote for two different
candidates for president, if they are elected to the
electoral college.  Such a pledge is obviously a false
pledge; the pledge cannot be fulfilled.

An analogy would be a candidate for delegate to a
national major party convention, running in a
presidential primary, who pledges to vote for both
Kerry and Edwards on the first ballot in Boston.  It
is fundamentally dishonest.  Nader has enough weight
on his shoulders without being accused of advancing a
dishonest, even fraudulent, plan.

It is one thing for candidates for presidential
elector to run in the November election as unpledged.
Unpledged presidential elector candidates were elected
to the electoral college from Mississippi and Alabama
in 1960.  The 1964 Alabama Democratic electoral
candidates also ran as "unpledged", although they
didn't get elected.  

It is entirely different for presidential elector
candidates to claim to be pledged to two different
individuals.

If there is anyone on this list who is an attorney and
who is admitted to the western US District Court of
Texas, who would like to be involved in the proposed
Nader lawsuit, let me know.  Nader has a lead attorney
already (from another state) but he still needs a
cooperating attorney who is admitted in that district
in Texas.  Several attorneys initially said they would
help and then backed out.



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover