Can states do background check on people who sign Nader ballots?

Is there any way we could get the election officials in swing states to scrutinize the signatures of Nader ballots. If we expose the petition-signers for the Freepers they are, then we can seal Nader's fate.

You could get (xerox) copies and post the online, but that would probably be a *lot* of typing.

Better, you could compare the names of signature collecctors to past petition drives to place GOP candidates on the ballot, voter registration roles, donation lists, etc.

DUers in battleground states should definately do something to help this.

"Yeah we got the background right here."
"OK thanks."

People can sign petitions for whatever reasons they want. That includes Republicans who want Nader on the ballot. If Nader signature gatherers were smart they would go to the liliest white, well to do suburb in a red county. They'd get lots of signatures for a Nader candidacy.

I would only ask that Secretaries of State closely follow the law. Illegible signatures, inaccurate phone numbers or addresses should be grounds for invalidating the signatures.

Let's say 200 PA signers are actual FR or other RW forum members. Or if 2,000 OH signers donated money to * and regularly send letters to the editor bashing liberals.

Texas has a very good law which prevents a lot of partisans of either party from signing third party petitions: you can't sign if you voted in a party primary. That removes a lot of the hard core Republicans from siging Nader petitions. If only a state that mattered had such a law.

about Nader's "supporters" maybe it would discourage actual liberals from voting for him.

and found people who'd ever defaulted on a loan, or subscribed to The Nation, or been a member of the ACLU? We could *really* get them then! Yeehaw!

You want to apply some sort of political litmus test to petition signers? The law requires that signatories be registered voters and the signatures are validated -- each one of them. To suggest that election officials start looking into anything beyond that is creepy. Do you really want government officials looking into the actvities and associations of voters? Think it through; you are suggesting a tactic of intimidation that is in direct opposition to the principles of democracy. Geez people, let's not become what we despise.

Background checks?

BACKGROUND CHECKS???

Bet you're looking spiffy in that new brown shirt...

(ed. formatting)

That's fascist.

don't actually support him, but are doing it deliberately to hurt Kerry. Isn't that more or less hurting the democratic process?

Instituting background checks would...well, kill the system outright.

If a concerted effort by party partisans to pump up a candidate is shown, we should know about it. BTW, Texas, as another poster just said, has such a law preventing the Freeping of Nader petitions.

But there's no need for fucking background checks in order to eliminate the names of deceased voters, the non-eligible, etc. Texas law, as I understand it, doesn't require them either - only the knowledge of whether or not a voter voted in a primary.

Background checks offer just a little bit more information.

Would I get in trouble if I make a thousand responses to this question that say it over and over fascism fascism.?

What if they were Freepers, trying to ensure the weakest possible candidate would run against Junior in the general election?

Brownshirt tactics are becoming popular even with some Kerry supporters.

THAT'S scary as fuck.

...traitorous shitbags like Will Marshall of PNAC.

NT!

I think Mr DLC OP actually believed he'd get a better response, considering the band wagon has gone so smoothly otherwise :)

Nader is an independent. Therefore, it's completely within reason that voters from any point of the political spectrum would sign a petition supporting his candidacy. Hell, I fully support his constitutional right to run for office, though I seriously question the wisdom of doing so at the present time

And I'd give the same answer for Roy Moore, Pat Buchanan, La Rouche, Angela Davis, or whoever else happenned to be in the running. Whether or not I would ever vote for any of them is irrelevant.

and totalitarian.

I sign petitions to put people on the ballot on general principle all the time whether I have any intention of voting for them or not.

Certain types have itchy trigger fingers around here, ya know ;)

There are some here who actually understand the democratic process and our rights as well as our obligations to it....what a relief!

RFID tags are a new technology being used by stores to tell where customers are shopping and so forth. THey send out radio signals from shopping carts so the customer's location can be traced.

Once we have obtained the identity of the Nader petition signers, we can attach an RFID tag to their car, and give the local police the RFID frequency for each Nader signer. THat way the police can harrass them for speeding, runing red lights, etc.

That will teach these Nader signers we mean business. I doubt they will even go to the polls in November once we get done with them.

ANYBODY BUT BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ANYBODY BUT BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ANYBODY BUT BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ANYBODY BUT BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ANYBODY BUT BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ANYBODY BUT BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ANYBODY BUT BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ANYBODY BUT BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i'm always for ballott access for third parties

the restrictions states employ are fuckin' ridiculous

As long as his petitions are signed withing whatever constraints state law mandates, what purpose, other than intimidation, would background checks serve?

I'm a cop, and your idea violates MY sense of fairness and propriety...

I'll pretty much sign a ballot request for anyone that asks me to. It doesn't mean that I necessarily plan to support their candidacy. There's no requirment saying one must support the candidate to sign a ballot petition.

I dont support Greens either, but there are better ways to help Kerry...

that you would resort to such draconian tactics as this?

Are you seriously THAT AFRAID of a man who will have a hard time getting on the ballot in most states?

I think your in the wrong party, friend. Perhaps this one is more to your liking.

That is fucking DISGUSTING.

The signatures ARE scrutinized by the State Board of Elections. In addition, ANY voter or political party may challenge the validity of signatory; they may also challenge the legality of the manner in which the signatures were gathered, etc. . Your suggestion for a 'background check' so smacks of fascism that the very thought makes me want to :puke:.

"threat" I've read on this site. Background checks on people who sign Nader petititons!! if we are going to start there then you can be assured people who sign petitions for any candidate or cause can be equally scrutinized to make sure they are "pure" enough.

If a person wants to be on ballot I generally will sign because I believe in this country and believe in the American people and the power of the ballot box.

You are advocating the very thing you should oppose.
I bet John Ashcroft would like to do some background checks on people who sign petitions too.

My actual opinion of this idea of yours is much less polite.

Guess we can't do a background check on you.

Come, we will fit you for your brownshirt now.:eyes:

What, you don't like the idea of equal ballot access for everybody? You can't fathom the idea that there are people out there, Democrats, Republicans and independents who do believe in that American ideal? Or are you just so scared that the Dems are running a such a pitifully weak candidate that you feel you MUST resort to these jackboot tactics?

Geez louise, what is so hard to grasp about the idea of 'Pugs wanting Nader on the ballot? What is so hard to grasp about the idea of 'Pugs voting for Nader? Many many Republicans are thoroughly disgusted by Bush, yet cannot bring themselves to pull the lever for Kerry. Thus, they are opting for the third way, Nader. This was done in 2000 also, so it is logical that it should be occuring now.

I'm sorry, but your idea is the antithesis of democracy. Wishing for background checks on people with whom you disagree with politically smacks of facism of the higher order. Do would really wish to live in a society like that? Of course if we continue to allow the two party/same corporate master system of government to flourish in this country, you could very well get that wish.

In North Dakota, I have to sign and print my name at the bottom of any initiative or candidate petition I circulate. That's where I'd be looking for the GOPs.

smacks of state-sanctioned action)but if the records are open to the public, I don't see the problem with dems looking for repig activism.

Surely, the failure to make this distinction is the reason for all of the negative responses here.

Otherwise, I would have to think that some DUers don't want to see the dem nominee elected. :wow:

I was going overboard in wanting to stop loset Freeps from propping up Nader, and I'm sorry for offending people with the suggestion. I think there are other ways to expose the Freeps, and I regret considering a background check.

While I understand your concern, we must all of us be careful not to become that which we despise. :)

:)

We've all done something similar, at one time or another. :)