I have just recieved word that Jon Powers will remain on the ballot on the Working Families Party line.
More details to come.
UPDATE: The decision.
UPDATE: In the end I don’t think this decision will have any impact on the election. it seems to me that electoral fusion has just become another device that shifts the electoral process into the courts. In 2006, I, along with a majority of Massachusetts voters, defeated a proposal to bring electoral fusion to the state. Since I moved to Western New York, I have seen why it was the right choice… Electoral fusion, from what I understand is meant to give more attention to the issues championed by these small minor parties, but instead is more about the candidate getting more lines on the ballot, as if that somehow matters.
UPDATE: Via Buffalo Pundit, here the Kryzan campaign’s whiney statement:
Today, the New York State Supreme Court ruled in favor of Christopher Lee’s effort to keep Alice Kryzan from appearing on the Working Family Party line.
Anne Wadsworth, Sr Campaign Advisor said: “This is nothing more than the Republican machine’s attempt to make a mockery of the Democratic process. Jon Powers is not a candidate for Congress, he does not live in the state of New York and therefore by state law is ineligible to appear on the ballot. Clearly Republicans are struggling to come up with a winning message and are therefore playing Karl Rove-like antics in an attempt to steal the election. Alice got into this campaign because she believes that with new leadership we can bring jobs and prosperity back to Western New York. Republicans can play all the political games and use all the smear tactics they want, but we are confident that come November 4th Western New York will see through the mud and elect Alice Kryzan because she represents the positive change we need with integrity and independence.”
Cry me a river, Anne. Seriously. Aside from the ridiculous left-wing talking points, the weight given to these minor party lines is, in my opinion, overestimated.
But I do want to address the charge that the ruling was “nothing more than the Republican machine’s attempt to make a mockery of the Democratic process,” and Republicans are “playing Karl Rove-like antics in an attempt to steal the election.”
One of the cases cited in the ruling as precedent was Texas Democratic Party v. Benkiser. For those of who don’t recall, that was the case involving former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in 2006. DeLay had not only officially retired, but had moved out of state. Despite these facts, and the fact that a replacement candidate had already been chosen, the state Democratic Party fought (successfully) to keep him on the ballot. So, no one, not even Anne Wadsworth, can pin this on “Karl Rove-like antics” when Democrats set that precedent.
Howard Dean-like antics would be more appropriate and accurate.
Read Full Post »
