Quantcast
Home / Featured News / Judge allows Green Party candidates to stay on ballot

Judge allows Green Party candidates to stay on ballot

Green Party attorney Keith Beauchamp said after Thursday's hearing that he would not discuss whether the Democratic party paid to have him represent the Green Party. (Photo by Evan Wyloge/Arizona Capitol Times)

Green Party attorney Keith Beauchamp argued that the disputed candidates violated both the First and 14th Amendment rights of the Green Party, using a loophole in existing campaign rules. (Photo by Evan Wyloge/Arizona Capitol Times)

A federal judge ruled that a slate of alleged “sham” Green Party write-in candidates can stay on the ballot.

Maricopa County began printing ballots Sept. 10 as planned, with the nine disputed candidates listed as Green Party nominees. The Arizona Green Party argued that its constitutional rights to free association would be burdened if it was represented by candidates it alleged did not share the party’s views.

But U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell ruled that the candidates did not place a heavy enough burden on the Green Party, and said all political parties frequently deal with candidates who do not fully represent their platforms and philosophies.

“The Court is not persuaded, however, that every impingement on associational freedoms requires strict scrutiny,” Campbell wrote in his ruling late Sept. 9. “While it is true that the statute might require (Arizona Green Party) members to associate with candidates who do not share their views, that is not uncommon in political parties.”

Campbell also rejected the Green Party’s claim that state law, which allows some Green Party write-in candidates to win their primaries with a single vote, violates their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. Only newly recognized parties – the Green Party lost its ballot access after the 2008 election and regained it earlier this year – are subject to that statute, whereas the Democratic, Libertarian and Republican parties have a higher threshold for write-in candidates.

The law does not deny the Green Party or its members a fundamental right, Campbell wrote.

“They retain their right to vote, their right to speak, their right to campaign and organize. Although the statute arguably burdens their associational rights by requiring them to tolerate candidates they do not support, that burden, as discussed above, is not uncommon in political parties,” Campbell said in his ruling.

But Campbell also refused a motion by the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, county recorders and the candidates themselves to dismiss the case.

The Green Party sued, with financial support from the Arizona Democratic Party, over a slate of candidates whom both parties allege were recruited by the GOP to run as Greens to siphon votes from Democrats. Most of the write-in candidates changed their voter registration to Green in July, shortly before the deadline for running for office, and several won their primaries with just one, two or four write-in votes.

Republicans denied recruiting the candidates to take votes from Democrats, the second straight election in which the GOP faced such allegations. Former state Rep. Steve May, a candidate for the House, said he recruited four Mill Avenue street people to run as Greens, but said his intent was to help friends, not hurt Democratic candidates.

5 comments

  1. Thank you to the judge for seeing that justice in the American political system prevailed despite the specious political arguments of those who would take away the right of an individual American to run for public office.
    Leonard Clark
    Arizona Endorsed Green Party candidate for Arizona Congressional district #3
    9-10-10

  2. If the alleged Green candidates really believed in Green principles, they would have run in heavily Republican or Democratic districts where the minority party voters might vote for them since their own party did not have a chance. The fact that these candidates run exclusively in races where the Democrats have some chance of winning demonstrates what the real motivation is. We need a system like the new one in California where all candidates get a chance to show what they can do on the first round, and the top two fight it out in the second round. Of course in many districts the top two may be both Republicans or Democrats, but then voters for the other candidates then have the power to choose which candidate they prefer without the distraction of spoilers or phony candidates.

  3. This whole thing could be resolved by going to a ranked choice with instant run off system of voting. But the Democrats and Republicans don’t want to give up their duopoly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Scroll To Top