• Contact Us
• Contribute
• Get Involved
• Join the Party

LPNC ANNOUNCEMENTS - May 12, 2008

WE'RE BACK (ON THE BALLOT)

Hello Friends:

I just want to quickly update everyone on the status of our petition drive and lawsuit.

Things didn't quite go as planned for a petition turn in last week. Several of the county Boards of Elections did not returned our verified petitions in time for us to prepare for a May 8 turn in.

PETITION TURN IN!!

We are now scheduled to turn all of our petitions this Thursday, May 15 at 10:00 a. m. at the State Board of Elections office. If you want to meet Mike Munger, me and others at the SBOE, please let me know. There are 11 boxes, so we can use the extra hands. The SBOE is located at 506 N. Harrington Street, Raleigh.

The SBOE will take a few days to review the petitions. You should be able to register Libertarian some time next week.

LAWSUIT TRIAL

The second event I told you about in my most recent email did happen as planned. We did have our day in court. Actually, two and a half days.

We were excited to finally have the opportunity to put our case before a judge, in this case Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood.

The LPNC was represented by Ken Soo and Adam Mitchell from the firm of Tharrington Smith in Raleigh.

As you know, the Green Party joined in our lawsuit as intervenors and they were represented by attorneys from the ACLU, Robert Elliott and Katie Parker.

The state was represented by Alec Peters and Karen Long of the Attorney General's office.

The plaintiffs (LPNC) and the intervenor (Greens) called eight witnesses: Barbara Howe (LPNC Chair), Sean Haugh (former LPNC executive director and currently the National LP Political Director), Elena Everett (former Green Party co-chair), Hart Matthews (former GP executive director), and Gray Newman (a Green party member who wants to run for office). The three expert witness were: Richard Winger (ballot access law), our own gubenatorial candiate Dr. Mike Munger (what makes a political party), and Dr. Stephen Greene (the role of third parties).

The state called no witnesses, but offered the deposition and affidavit testimony of Gary Bartlett and Johnnie McLean, both with the State Board of Elections.

There were really no surprises during the testimony. All of our witnesses presented their testimony calmly and thoroughly and all handled the state's cross examination questions with ease.

It came as somewhat of a surprise when Mr. Peters requested in his closing argument that if the judge were to find the law unconstitutional, that he not strike down he entire statute, but that he be specific as to which parts were unconstitutional. Mr. Peters pointed out that we are in the middle of an election cycle and so overturning the entire statute would leave the state with no law regarding elections, which would cause great confusion.

After closing arguments, Judge Hobgood requested both sides present him with what they thought the ruling should be. The judge will, of course, write his own ruling, but this request was made so he would be able to ensure that he is thorough in his ruling. Those rulings are due to the judge by tomorrow (Tuesday, May 12).

I feel reasonably optimistic that the ruling will give us something. It could be something of minor importance like being able to keep party registration even if the party becomes decertified or it could be an order to allow the Libertarians and Greens on the 2008 ballot and a broad range in between.

No matter what the ruling, the decision will in all likelihood be appealed, so it's not over yet.

I am quite inexperienced when it comes to matters of the court, but one thing about which I do feel confident is that the judge was listening. He paid careful attention to the testimony and asked many questions.

It's my opinion that he has to rule in our favor. The state claims that it must have rules controlling access to the ballot to avoid ballot clutter and voter confusion. They presented no evidence that such things exist and did not refute our witnesses that said they did not exist. The state's entire case was based on precedent from other, mostly Federal cases.

The state also claims that since NC elects ten state-wide offices, that allowing additional parties on the ballot would make the election ballot too long. Their own witnesses state that this probably isn't a problem any more because of the advances made in voting machine technology.

Our claim acknowledges those prior cases but asks the judge to make his ruling under the concept of "strict scrutiny." That means, if the state has a compelling interest to control access to the ballot have they done that through the least restrictive means possible. We, of course, claim they have not. NC used to have a flat requirement of 10,000 signatures for most of its history, and only 5,000 signatures for a brief time, and the ballot was not cluttered.

Our attorneys also argued that the court was "trying the state constitution" and should consider the issue based solely on the language of the document itself, and no other.

Now we wait. I believe a ruling can come as early as Wednesday after the attorneys submit their last suggestions for the order.

As soon as we know, we'll send you notice.

In liberty,

Barbara Howe
LPNC chair