Democrats behind Nader campaign 'fraud'

By Mark R. Brown
from the Sept. 4, 2006, Republican-American

An Aug. 26 Republican-American editorial, "Nader's nadir," accuses Ralph Nader of being "a fraud and a hypocrite" because he submitted thousands of deceased voters' signatures and other "flat-out forgeries" in his quest to get on Pennsylvania's 2004 presidential ballot. Forcing him to pay Democrats more than $80,000 is just desserts, if you believe the editors of this paper.

The editorial is short on reason and wrong on the facts. First and foremost, applying the English "loser pays" principle to American elections is bad law and poor policy. On this side of the Atlantic, the Constitution prevents states from charging candidates for ballot access. Win or lose, candidates cannot be assessed poll taxes. They cannot be forced to pay the victor's costs. How many would run for office knowing an electoral loss could cause financial bankruptcy?

Of course, fraud should not be tolerated in American politics, or anywhere else. It should be punished. But before sentences are handed down, the judge should be sure about the facts. Guilt must be established.

The Republican-American's "fraud and forgery" figures suggest Nader was guilty of election fraud. One who submits the names of thousands of dead voters must be. One who "flat-out" forges the names of thousands more surely is.

The trouble is, these statistics are false. Nader did not submit thousands of signatures from dead voters. Nader's campaign did not forge thousands of signatures.

The only member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to address the merits of Nader's case noted the alleged fraud associated with the Nader campaign was of a "limited scale." He found that only 687 (1.3 percent) of the 51,273 signatures reviewed were forged. The lower-court judge who accused Nader of "the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this court" uncovered 588 of these forged signatures. This same judge initially removed Nader because of his Reform Party endorsement in Florida, only to be reversed quickly by the Pennsylvania high court. Ten additional judges in Pennsylvania who reviewed four times as many signatures failed to uncover even 100 forgeries.

Even adding in the 1,087 "duplicate" signatures uncovered by the 11 Pennsylvania judges, fewer than 2,000 signatures (3.5 percent) arguably could be called fraudulent. Claiming almost 40 percent of Nader's signatures were "flat-out forgeries" finds absolutely no support in the record.

Technicalities were responsible for striking the vast majority of Nader's signatures in Pennsylvania. Including dates and addresses "written in (the) hand of another" was a common reason for striking signatures. Approximately 8,000 signatures were thrown out for this reason alone. Almost 9,000 were thrown out because qualified voters were not registered on the day they signed Nader's petition. More than 6,000 were struck because addresses did not precisely match those on voting roles. Nearly 2,000 were ruled invalid because information was missing. This sort of thing (unfortunately) is quite common with signature collection. It is hardly the stuff of "massive fraud."

The real source of fraud is Democrats who sabotaged Nader's campaign across the United States by signing false names to his petitions. They packed conventions in Oregon to prevent him from demonstrating sufficient support. They hired expensive lawyers to peruse his nomination papers for trivial technicalities. They threw in the kitchen sink and screamed "massive fraud" at the top of their lungs.

In Maine, for example, Democrats charged fraud when an elector on Nader's slate used his name ("John") rather than his initial ("J."). In Oregon, Democrats claimed fraud when any Nader supporter used initials rather than a full name. Pennsylvania and Arkansas Democrats claimed Nader's independent campaign was fraudulent because Nader accepted Florida's Reform Party endorsement. Democrats in Florida, meanwhile, argued the Reform Party did not exist and therefore was a fraud.

Democrats mounted an aggressive, well-financed campaign to oust Nader from the ballot. They did not challenge any other minor-party or independent presidential candidate. The Democratic Party openly admitted it wanted Nader's votes. It had no single complaint. According to the Democratic Party, everything Nader did was fraudulent.

An old Chinese proverb states that "when the finger points at the moon, the idiot looks at the finger." Did you ever wonder why Democrats want Americans to keep looking at that pesky finger?

Mark R. Brown teaches constitutional law at Capital University in Ohio and hold the Newton D. Baker/Baker & Hostetler Chair. He has written law-review articles on ballot access and provided pro-bono representation to the Nader campaign in Ohio in 2004.