Subject: RE: The Vermont case
From: "Michael Richardson" <ballotaccessproject@hotmail.com>
Date: 9/30/2005, 8:02 AM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu

<x-flowed>
Greetings!

There has been a lot of list discussion with more to come about the Vermont case.  While I'm always happy to read about election law, the ballot access cases seem to drop to invisibility beside campaign finance cases.

No one has said anything about three ballot access cases the SC did not take this term, the Texas case (Nader v. Connor, 04-918); the Pennsylvania case (Nader v. Serody, 04-550); and the Oregon case (Kucera v. Bradley, 04-872).  At least Justice Breyer dissented when the court rejected the Oregon case.

Just because Ralph Nader didn't get a lot of votes and many people were unhappy with his candidacy doesn't negate the very bad lower court decisions left standing without review.

Michael Richardson

_________________________________________________________________
Donāt just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

</x-flowed>