Charles Earl is trying to run for
governor of Ohio. A native of Bowling Green, the one-time
Republican state representative now represents the Libertarian
Party of Ohio (LPO). As the LPO’s gubernatorial candidate, Earl
would challenge current Republican Gov. John Kasich and Democrat Ed
Fitzgerald come November 2014, possibly siphoning off dissatisfied
Ohio voters from Kasich. But Earl’s candidacy is currently in
limbo.
Last week, Earl received a
letter from Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted disqualifying
him from the May primary ballot. Earl was disqualified on the
grounds that those circulating petitions for his inclusion weren’t
Libertarian Party members and/or failed to disclose themselves as
paid LPO employees.
A substantial number of Earl’s signatures were collected by
Oscar C. Hatchett Jr., a “professional petitioner” paid by the
signature. There’s nothing illegal about that: Paying people to
collect signatures is just fine. But under Ohio law, candidate
petitions must be circulated by members of the same political party
as the candidate (with party affiliation determined by how one voted in recent
primaries—if a dues-paying member of the LPO voted for
Republican Ron Paul in the 2012 presidential primary, for instance,
they’re not allowed to circulate or sign petitions for libertarian
candidates). Hatchett was not a Libertarian Party member. Neither
were the
Democrats who allegedly helped circulate Earl’s petitions as
well.
Ohio law also requires petitioners to list, among other things,
their “employer.” The secretary of state alleges that Hatchett
failed to list the LPO as his employer on this form. But was the
LPO his employer? Hatchett and the party say no. The LPO is now
challenging Husted’s ruling in federal court, partially on the
grounds that petitioners were independent contractors who couldn’t
reasonably be expected to consider the LPO their employer.
The LPO alleges that the petition circulator employer rules
are selectively enforced by the secretary of state’s office.
Hatchett told
a federal court last week that he’s been collecting signatures
professionally for 12 years, never listed his employer, and never
had his signatures challenged before. A spokesman for Husted’s
office said the rule was only enforced when a petition was
challenged.
So about that challenge: The LPO claims it’s the Ohio Republican
Party deliberately trying to keep Earl off the ballot. Libertarian
paranoia? Not entirely.
Last week, Ohio Republican Party Chairman
Matt Borges said that the state GOP was involved in
initiating a challenge to Earl’s petition. This week, however,
Borges backtracked. He told the U.S. District Court in Columbus
on Monday that he had been under stress and misspoken
previously.
The man who actually challenged
Earl’s petition is Gregory Felsoci, a resident of Rocky River,
Ohio, and a member of the Libertarian Party. Why would Felsoci
fight to keep his own party’s candidates off the ballot? No one is
quite sure…including, possibly, Felsoci.
Aaron K. Harris, communications director of the LPO, says that
Felsoci’s Thursday testimony to the District Court was “sketchy”
and vague. “I’ve never seen a witness as clueless as this guy. He
didn’t even know that he’d filed a protest,” says Harris.
According to Harris’ account of Felsoci’s testimony (which
isn’t available online), a friend of Felsoci’s had shown him a
printout he’d picked up at a coffee shop about how the Democrats
were collecting signatures for Libertarian candidates. The friend,
John Musca, allegedly said Felsoci should do something about it
since he was a registered Libertarian and could; Felsoci agreed. A
lawyer from Zeigger, Tigges and Little contacted Felsoci the
next day.
“Falsoci didn’t actively seek this,” says Harris, adding that
Felsoci seemed to believe he was signing a petition, not filing a
protest to one. “We’re assuming some Republican candidate or the
party itself asked [the law firm] to do this.” He thinks Borges
lied under oath.
The actual level of involvement here from the Ohio Republican
and Democratic parties is still unclear. But it seems probable
there was some involvement. And ultimately the LPO is getting
played. The state’s major parties are willing to use Libertarians
when politically convenient, and dismiss (or dismantle) their
candidacies when they could cost votes. Perverting democracy for
partisan gain seems to have become standard practice in the state.
In November 2013, congressional
Republicans passed a bill that would have made it even
harder for third parties to get on Ohio ballots. The LPO sued. In
January 2014, Federal District Judge Michael H. Watson
issued an injunction blocking the new rules for ballot
access.
Judge Watson also heard the LPO’s case this time around. He
expects to have a ruling by the end of this week. Harris says he’s
“optimistic” about the decision.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1gGpj2W
via IFTTT