Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Ralph Nader v. Democratic National Committee

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Laws governing ballot measures
BallotLaw final.png
State
• Laws governing state initiative processes
• Laws governing state recall processes
• Changes to ballot measure law in 2025
• Difficulty analysis of changes to laws governing ballot measures
• Analysis of 2025 changes to laws governing ballot measures
Local
• Laws governing local ballot measures
Learn about Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker.
2026 »
« 2024

Ralph Nader v. Democratic National Committee was a lawsuit filed in Superior Court of the District of Columbia on October 30, 2007.

In the lawsuit, 2004 presidential candidate Ralph Nader alleged the Democratic National Committee had engaged in groundless and abusive litigation to bankrupt Nader's campaign and force him off the ballot in 18 states. The lawsuit also alleged the defendant and the co-defendants had engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to prevent Nader and his vice presidential candidate Peter Miguel Camejo from running for office.

Nader filed a second, related lawsuit to the same issues in Nader v. McAuliffe in order to have a similar lawsuit in two different venues.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Ralph Nader alleged the Democratic National Committee of pursuing groundless litigation to bankrupt his campaign.
  • The issue: Did the Democratic National Committee engage in a concerted effort to bankrupt the Nader presidential campaign and unrightfully prevent his candidacy from appearing on the ballots in several states.
  • The outcome: The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that The Democratic National Committee's activity was protected under the First Amendment. Nader appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which ruled that Nader's allegations exceeded the statute of limitations.

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions Presented

    The plaintiff presented the question to the District Court:

    Questions presented:
    • Did the Democratic National Committee “preside over a nationwide conspiracy to suppress voter choice during the 2004 General Election”?[1]

    Background

    In 2004, Ralph Nader ran for president, appearing on the ballot in some states as a Reform Party candidate and in other states as an independent candidate. The Democratic Party filed 24 suits in 18 state courts and five complaints with the Federal Election Commission within a 12 week period between June and September 2004.

    Carl Mayer was part of the legal team that filed the lawsuit in Washington, DC on October 30, 2007.[2]

    According to Mayer, the efforts undertaken in 2004 to deny Nader ballot access were "...the most massive anti-democratic campaign to eliminate a third-party candidate from the ballot in — probably in recent American history. It is — not content with having all these laws and statutes on the book that make it difficult for third-party and independent candidates to run, the Democratic Party and their allies in over fifty-three law firms, with over ninety lawyers, were engaged in filing litigation in eighteen states. They were to remove Ralph Nader from the ballot. It was an organized, abusive litigation process."

    In the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

    In 2007 Nader, his vice presidential running mate Peter Miguel Camejo, and voters in several states, filed suit against the Democratic National Committee, the Kerry-Edwards campaign, the Service Employees International Union, Toby Moffett and Elizabeth Holtzman, several private law firms, the Ballot Project and America Coming Together. The lawsuit sought compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief. The case was first heard in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on November 27, 2007,

    Nader said, "This lawsuit was filed to help advance a free and open electoral process for all candidates and voters. Candidate rights and voter rights nourish each other for more voices, choices and a more open and competitive democracy." [3]

    In the District Court

    The case was then heard in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On December 3, 2007 the federal district court dismissed the case on the ground that ruling for Nader would punish the DNC for activity protected by the First Amendment.

    The DNC and the other co-defendants all filed briefs with Superior Court of the District of Columbia asking that the case be dismissed. On March 31, 2008, Nader filed a 39-page reply brief arguing that the case should proceed to a trial.[4] Facts brought into evidence in the reply brief include the actions of the defendants (or, as the lawsuit calls them, co-conspirators) to file 24 complaints in eighteen state courts as well as five complaints with the FEC in a twelve-week period between June and September 2004. According to the brief, the purpose of this litigation was not to "vindicate valid legal claims, but to use the sheer burden of repetitive and abusive litigation as a means to drain and distract" the Nader-Camejo ticket from being able to turn their efforts to communicating their views and qualifications to the public as they sought office. The case was then heard by the District Court of Appeals.

    In the District Court of Appeals

    On June 9, 2009 the District Court of Appeals ruled that Nader's appeal exceeded the statute of limitations. The court wrote "Because Nader’s complaint is thus untimely on its face, we affirm on this limitations ground without addressing the district court’s decision or the ultimate merits of Nader’s theory of the case." [5]

    At the time of Nader's appeal, former DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe was running for governor of Virginia. When asked about Nader's allegations, McAuliffe campaign senior strategist Mo Elleithee said "I think most Democrats would agree that our country would be better off had Nader not run in 2000 or 2004. Nader has a history of frivolous attacks and accusations." [6]

    Related Issues

    The organized efforts to keep Nader's name off the ballot included, according to the lawsuit, a petition blocking component. According to Nader attorney Carl Mayer:

    "There was an organized effort of harassment of petitioners who went around trying to collect signatures for the Nader campaign in Ohio, in Oregon and in Pennsylvania. In Ohio, for example, lawyers were hired to call up petitioners and tell them that if they didn’t verify the signatures on the petition, they would be guilty of a felony. They were called at home by — and they were, in many cases, visited by private investigators and told — this is voter intimidation of the worst order.



    In the state of Oregon, for example, there was a nominating convention, and you need a thousand signatures at the convention. We have emails from Democratic Party operatives stating, we want our people to go to this convention and then refuse to sign the petition at the convention so Nader will not get enough signatures at the convention to get on the ballot. And they accomplished their goal in Oregon. After the convention, there’s an alternative way of getting on the ballot, which is to collect signatures, and the Nader campaign went about doing that, and during the course of that there was further harassment and intimidation of petitioners by law firms, private investigators, calling up and threatening petitioners that they would be called before a court if they did not certify all the petitions.[7]

    In a statement, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe defended the Democratic Party's action against Nader's signatures. McAuliffe said:

    Nader and his campaign are fully aware that 43,000 signatures were gathered by Michigan Republicans and that those signatures were gathered to achieve a political end -- to help elect George Bush... The choice before Nader is clear: He will either reject this Republican ploy or he will embrace it. ... We urge Nader to make the right choice -- and reject this right-wing political ploy.[8]

    Related Cases

    External links

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ , "FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND," accessed October 12, 2020
    2. ↑ http://dzarkhan.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/ralph-nader-files-lawsuit-accusing-democratic-party-of-conspiring-to-block-presidential-run/ Nader files lawsuit accusing democratic party October 14, 2020]
    3. ↑ Mcclatchydc, Nader lawsuit, October 14, 2020
    4. ↑ Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, March 31, 2008
    5. ↑ Nader v. Democratic National Committee, Court of Appeals, October 14, 2020
    6. ↑ Register Citizen, Nader alleges October 16, 2020
    7. ↑ democracy now, Carl Mayer interview October 16,2020
    8. ↑ UPI, DNC calls on Nader October 16,2020
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ralph_Nader_v._Democratic_National_Committee&oldid=8446211"