Photo provided courtesy of Pexels.com.
By Daniel Pagana, Staff Writer
In battleground states across the country, the courts have been bombarded with election cases. All political parties have been fighting for their respective interests in the courts. Courts across the country have strictly enforced election requirements.
The Green Party has been a consistent target of the Democratic Party. The Green Party changed their presidential platform late in the election on July 11, 2020, [1] which resulted in more paperwork that needed to be filed before November 3. The Democrats have been opportunistic in pointing out flaws in their paperwork and thus successful in getting courts to strictly enforce election law.
In many states, including Illinois, New Jersey, Vermont, and Georgia, the Green Party has had minor some successes. Many state courts relaxed the standards required to gather petition signatures to change their platform. This was due to the inconvenience that COVID-19 has presented to obtaining signatures. [2] Despite the minor successes in arguably two of the most crucial states, the Democrats have largely succeeded in thwarting the Green Party presidential platform. [3]
In Pennsylvania, the Green Party was removed entirely from the presidential ballot. [4] In order to change a major party ballot, the former candidates and the current candidates of a party must submit an affidavit stating their intention to change the ballot. The election code expressly requires that a “nomination paper… shall be filed with the secretary of Commonwealth”. [5] The election code also requires that the affidavit be the original copy to prevent forgeries. [6]
On August 3, which was the deadline to file nomination papers, Green Party lawyer Timothy Runkle submitted all affidavits except for those from the former presidential nominees Elizabeth Scroggin and Neal Gale. [7] Instead of being faxed to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, these affidavits were faxed to the Department of Election and Notaries, thirty minutes before the official cutoff. [8] Additionally, no one at the office was notified that a fax would be coming nor was there a cover letter that gave context to the fax, and so these nomination papers were not discovered until much later. [9] Ultimately, it accepted the affidavit even though the affidavit was not the original copy and was not filed on the cutoff date. [10]
Two electors Paul Stefano and Tony Thomas challenged the validity of the affidavits. The objectors claimed that as a result of the “fatal flaw” Green Party nominees should not be put on the presidential ballot. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in favor of the objectors. The Court showed that there is little room for exception in a case like this citing (Brown v. Finegan, 389 Pa. 609) (lacking an affidavit is grounds for removal from the general election ballot); (In re Cianfrani, 467 Pa. 491) (curing an issue with an affidavit is impossible). [11]
Similar to Pennsylvania, the Wisconsin Supreme Court removed the Green Party from the presidential ballot. In Wisconsin, the Democratic Party successfully challenged the filing of a change of address to the Election Commission. [12] As a result of the Green Party’s improper filing they were removed from the presidential ballot. [13] The change of address error was due to the Green Party’s Vice-Presidential Nominee, Angela Walker, providing two addresses on her campaign paper work. [14] The Wisconsin Supreme Court stated that Walker took too long to make file suit based on her error. [15] Hawkins, the Green Party’s Presidential nominee, stated: “We were screwed… Partisan hacks should not be running elections for their own parties.” [16]
By uncovering errors in the Green Party’s paperwork, the Democrats scored a key win in both battleground states. In 2016, Clinton lost by 44,292 votes, and Jill Stein that year had earned 49,941 votes. [17] Wisconsin was also won by a very slim margin in the 2016 presidential election. In 2016, Hillary Clinton lost by fewer than 23,000 votes and the Green Party received around 31,000 votes. [18]
[1] In re Nomination of Scroggin
[2] https://www.gp.org/green_party_lawsuits_allege_states_are_exploiting_covid_19_to_limit_voter_options
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/voter-turnout-270-trump-biden/
[4] https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-pennsylvania-elections-joe-biden-courts-cbd7947a020a1c5983a69e804ce3a5f8
[5] 25 P.S. § 2913.
[6] In re Nomination Paper of Scroggin, No. 55 MAP 2020, 2020 Pa. LEXIS 4867 (Sep. 17, 2020).
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] In re Nomination Paper of Scroggin, No. 55 MAP 2020, 2020 Pa. LEXIS 4867 (Sep. 17, 2020).
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] https://www.gp.org/greens_demand_ballot_decision_today
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/14/wisconsin-supreme-court-keeps-green-party-off-ballot-absentee-ballots-mailed-on-time/5796737002/
[16] https://twitter.com/howiehawkins/status/1305681117245304833.
[17] https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-pennsylvania-elections-joe-biden-courts-cbd7947a020a1c5983a69e804ce3a5f8
[18] https://www.wpr.org/wisconsin-supreme-court-rejects-green-party-effort-get-presidential-ballot
