Question about taking candidates off the ballot. Clark, Edwards folks?

[madfloridian]

I know that all of them are still on Florida's primary ballot. I know Dean carried VT while running a suspended campaign. Now I hear that they have taken some candidates off the Oregon ballot. Here is a letter explaining it. It my mind, this is truly a way of disenfranchising voters. I am trying to be fair, but I see it no other way. Can someone enlighten me without being insulting?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear .........

Thank you for your question about the presidential primary ballot. Secretary
of State Bill Bradbury asked me to respond to you.

Howard Dean is no longer on the Oregon presidential primary ballot because he
is no longer a candidate. Oregon law allows the Secretary of State to place
on the ballot those who are "generally advocated" or are "recognized in the
national news media." We have taken this to mean people who are actively
campaigning as a candidate. A candidate who has suspended his campaign is no
longer actively campaigning as a candidate. When John McCain similarly
suspended his campaign in 2000, he was also removed from the primary ballot.
As elections officials it is essential that we treat all parties equally and
fairly under the same rules.

We hope that you will still vote in the upcoming primary for one of the
qualified candidates. My understanding is that Howard Dean will announce on
March 18th what he is planning to do.

An updated presidential primary listing, and the relevant laws, is available
online at http://www.oregonvotes.org/presprimary.htm.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Anne Martens
Chief of Communications
Oregon Secretary of State
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Only 3 are on the ballot. I think people are being deprived of a primary vote this way. Can someone please help me get this clear in my head. I see the law, but in my mind it is still keeping many Democrats from being able to vote in a primary for the candidate of their choice.

The criteria seem to be very subjective in this case. "Generally advocated" or "recognized in the media".....then they make their own determination. I have questions.

[LuLu550]

1. Leave them on!

Clark withdrew from the race before the NY primary but was still on the ballot. I voted for him anyway. It gives those of us who supported those candidates a chance to indicate to the DNC that we would like the things our candidate stood for to be considered at the convention.

[madfloridian]

2. They are already off. You must talk to them about it in Oregon.

They are hearing from Dean people, and I think maybe Clark and Edwards folks might be interested in at least knowing about it.

[drthais]

3. going out to vote in a while

and if Clark is still on the ballot
I will surely cast my vote for him
otherwise, its Kerry

this from Louisiana

[For PaisAn]

4. Why did they do this?

It had to take some effort and time to remove these candidates. Why did they? There was absolutely no reason to do so. Since when do public officials put in extra effort and work unless absolutely necessary? Another reason to be totally disgusted with the entire process.

As a last resort, I wonder if voters can write in a candidate for the primary vote? They did so in NH.

[madfloridian]

6. Read the part of my post in bold print. It is their own decision.

It is whether the media recognizes them as a caniddate. And this is a Democratic governor, too.

[For PaisAn]

19. They explained why

they did it and what the law allows. Mine was a rhetorical "why". The law could have different interpretations. They didn't have to do it, they chose to, and why?

[Jai4WKC08]

5. Depends on the state, I think

I know in Kansas, they are still on the ballot because they have not formally requested not to be. But if your state law allows Secretary of State to take Dean's name off, I don't know what you can do about it. Maybe write letters of protest. It does seem pretty rotten to me, and I'm no Dean fan.

Fwiw, I know that Clark and Dean have technically not ended their campaigns but "suspended" them. Maybe Edwards too, but what I read was published before Edwards dropped out. Lieberman terminated his campaign, or so I read. But I know they're all still on the ballot in Kansas (altho there was a rumor that Edwards might have never gotten on--I'll know for sure on Saturday <g>).

Being "suspended" probably has to do mostly with funding. My understanding is that Clark is still eligible for matching funds for any contributions to his campaign debt that otherwise apply (the first $250). Still, it is what it is, and you might have some ammunition there to protest your state's decision.

[sangh0]

7. Then you should have done something before the fact

not after it. Though I can understand your objections to this practice, it is a long standing one, and it has not been protested by Oregon's citizens or it's political parties, or any individual politician, AFAIK.

In politics, if you don't like the rules, you have to go out and fight to change them.

[madfloridian]

8. I was going to comment.

But it won't matter.

[dsc]

9. Quick

what are the rules for removal of candidates in your state? If you don't know this off the top of your head, you have no right to talk.

[madfloridian]

11. Good one, dsc.

Real quick.

My own election supervisors did NOT know the answer last month. I TOLD her. She said OH.

[sangh0]

12. I have no problems with those rules

I do have a problem with the rules for getting on the ballot, and I do fight to get them changed. At least once a year I go on a trip to Albany to lobby our representatives with a group.

Here's a little secret - The people who make the rules make the rules so that they benefit themselves. The price of democracy is constant vigilance.

[madfloridian]

13. What are the rules in your state for getting taken off the ballot.

I did not know mine until last month. I had to tell the elections office here.

[sangh0]

16. It's hard to take someone off the ballot in NY

Almost as hard as it is to get someone on it. As I understand it, there are two main ways

1) The candidate withdraws

2) Someone has to sue to have the candidate taken off due to something dreadfully wrong. Improper petition signatures, etc are not cause once they make it on. Those sorts of issues must be raised when the candidate is trying to get on the ballot.

[madfloridian]

10. No, I will say it.

A candidate who suspends assumes certain things. They are not in a position to make demands at that time. If they do it will look like sour grapes.

Since I live in Florida, I could not have known Oregon's law before the fact. I simply had no way.

I can not fight against rules before the fact if I do not know about them.

[sangh0]

14. That's true. You can't fight if you don't even know it's happening

Now you know. Go get 'em.

The sad truth is that what we have is very different from what most people think of when they hear the word "democracy". IMO, people need to learn about the details.

Here in NY, candidates get knocked off the ballot if their petitions are collated with green paper clips instead of gold ones. In Fla, we saw how thousands of registered voters were thrown off the rolls.

It's not a grand conspiracy against any one candidate. It's how the parties maintain their grip on the ballot, and who is listed. By making a process that requires detailed knowledge to navigate, they force prospective candidates to hire lawyers to protect thier place on the ballot, thereby raising the entry costs to compete. This results in there being less competition, which is exactly what the parties want.

[madfloridian]

18. Oh, we are learning. I learned part of it in 2000.

I learned more working on McBride's sorry campaign last year, all the while thinking...does this guy want to win or not? I learned a lot from that campaign. I remember hanging up just before the election, in anger with the campaign manager.

They had ammunition. They chose not to use it. They said some things are not politically proper, leave it alone. And the voters suffered because they refused to speak up.

That is why we supported Dean. He is not politically proper at all, and that is why we are devoted. He may never be president, but he is not going to go away.

My heart was broken by my party in 2000 when they let Gore hang out to dry. It was broken again in 2002 by their damn political correctness.

It is less broken now, even though Dean did not win.....because he said things that mattered.

And now, we are already being considered outcasts by the DNC/DLC....and you know what? It feels a heck of a lot better than 2000 and 2002 did.

[cosmokramer]

15. State by State the laws are different.

Ohio had a deadline for petitioning to be on a ballot, and a deadline to be removed from a ballot. If you quit or file to be removed 30 days or more before an election, you are removed.

Gephardt filed a formal request to be removed, and so he was. Lieberman quit the race the day of the deadline for removal. Typically, this is 30 days prior to an election. Sharpton never made the ballot.

From what I understand of the Oregon law, with the Primary being on May 18th (over two months away!), it actually makes sense. If someone says they are no longer campaigning to be President 60 days or more prior to a primary election, it is reasonable for the State not to have to incur the expense of keeping a non-contender on the ballot. (Primaries are expensive, and the more candidates on the ballot, the greater the cost to the state party).

As for the 'recognized in the media', this is being applied to Dean and Edwards and Clark. They both conceded the primary season. It was 'recognized in the media'. It was acknowledged by them personally. They are not running for President any more, and that is crystal clear.

Since when did voter rights have anything to do with it? (tongue firmly in cheek)

[Qutzupalotl]

17. Well, there's always write-in, right?

Better than nothing.