Two political lawsuits were filed yesterday, both of which were fairly predictable, but will nevertheless be worth watching.
First, in Texas, a certain former consumer advocate was trying to qualify for the state’s presidential ballot as an independent. He tried to collect the necessary number of signatures, but failed. As a result, he did what any red-blooded American would do under the circumstances — he filed a lawsuit.
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued Texas’ top election official Monday to try to get onto the state’s ballot, claiming that a petition signature requirement is unconstitutional.
His lawsuit was filed in federal court in Austin only a couple of minutes before the court clerk’s office closed for the day.
Nader’s campaign submitted an application with the Texas Secretary of State’s Office for a place on the general election ballot but said it wouldn’t turn in the more than 50,000 voter signatures it had collected.
The campaign had to collect at least 64,076 signatures by 5 p.m. Monday from registered voters who did not vote in the Democratic or Republican primaries. That equals 1 percent of all votes cast for president in the last election in Texas.
The petition signature requirement and the 60-day timetable for collecting the signatures are “an unconstitutional and discriminatory burden as applied to Independent candidates in the State of Texas,” Nader’s campaign manager, Theresa Amato, wrote in a letter to Texas Secretary of State Geoffrey Connor.
The suit might have a little more credibility if it was filed before the campaign failed to meet the state’s standards. Nader’s staff knew the threshold, tried to meet it, but couldn’t generate the support. If this was really about the principle, and they recognized all along that the requirements were unfair, why not file the lawsuit before?
Likewise, a Nader spokesman said the state’s standards “make it impossible for independents to get on the ballot.” If that’s true, why were Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan able to meet the same standards in the last three presidential elections?
The other suit comes as a result of two journalists having their tape recorders confiscated by a federal marshal at an event featuring Antonin Scalia.
The Associated Press and the Hattiesburg American filed a lawsuit today against the U.S. Marshals Service over an incident in April in which a federal marshal erased reporters’ recordings of a speech Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave to high school students.
[…]
“It’s been more than a month since this happened, and we’re still angry about it,” said Dave Tomlin, AP assistant general counsel. “People who enforce the law should know what the law is, and especially the basic law that says citizens can’t be shaken down by their own government.”
I’m a little skeptical about whether the suit will be successful, but at a minimum, it may prevent similar abuses in the future.
Gary L. Watson, president of the newspaper division of McLean, Va.-based Gannett Co., owner of the Hattiesburg American, said in a statement that taking legal action was necessary.
“It is ironic this seizure took place while Justice Scalia was making a speech about preserving the Constitution,” Watson said.
“Given the federal government’s very tough stance on those who violate the law, the Marshals Service and Deputy Rube must be willing to taste their own medicine,” Watson said. “An apology or a hollow commitment to study the issue will not suffice nor serve as a meaningful deterrent to prevent any repeat performances.”