Ballot access

Mainstream Democrats don’t like Ralph Nader.

It’s not because of his work as a “public interest” gadfly, mind you, exposing faulty auto designs and the like. No, Democrats dislike Ralph Nader because he keeps running for office, and — while it’s obvious by now he has no chance of winning — his popularity and name recognition are high enough to siphon off some votes.

Democrats figure those votes should have been theirs, and that Mr. Nader actually siphoned off enough to cost their nominee, Al Gore, the presidential election in the year 2000.

He probably did. Just as Ross Perot probably siphoned enough votes from the opposite end of the political spectrum to allow Democrat Bill Clinton to win in 1992 and 1996.

So what? Abraham Lincoln got nowhere near a popular majority as he won the presidency in a four-way race in 1860. Most Americans figure that one worked out OK.

And then there was the great Republican split that threw a three-way presidential election to minority candidate Woodrow Wilson in 1912. You won’t hear many Democrats whining that this result was “unfair” — though it’s hard to imagine how any Republican could have done worse than an administration that brought us the income tax, the Federal Reserve Board, the war on drugs … and, in the end, couldn’t “keep us out of war,” either.

But now Mr. Nader says the Democrats did more than just wring their hands and snarl cuss words when he announced he was going to run again in 2004. This week, he filed suit in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief from the Democratic Party, the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign and an affiliated group called The Ballot Project.

Mr. Nader accuses these outfits of jointly planning a nationwide effort to block him and his running mate, Peter Camejo, from state ballots “as a means to drive into deep debt or bankrupt the Nader-Camejo” campaign.

“The Democratic Party is going after anyone who represents a credible challenge to their monopoly over their perceived voters,” the Green Party-turned-independent candidate said Tuesday. “This lawsuit was filed to help advance a free and open election 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.”

In the end, though, it doesn’t really matter whether these particular defendants broke any laws.

What’s beyond question is that the major parties have a vested interest in erecting high hurdles to ballot access — hurdles that cost “outside” challengers millions of dollars for petitioning and lawsuits to win what candidates with a “D” or an “R” after their names get for free — a place on the ballot.

And the present convoluted and expensive ballot access regime for minor-party candidates accomplishes just that.

This is wrong, and Mr. Nader is right. Voters deserve more voices and more choices on Election Day, not fewer.

Some modest petition or filing fee requirements, designed to keep the ballot from looking like a chunk of the phone book, make sense. But four or five or even eight or 10 candidates vying for a major office might finally break through the current beaver dam of the “handlers” and campaign consultants, placing a premium once again on fresh ideas and straight talk.

To say that such diversity risks “confusing the voters” is condescending garbage.