The Green Party leader has hired a GOP consulting firm and worked with Trump-affiliated lawyers

The Green Party leader has hired a GOP consulting firm and worked with Trump-affiliated lawyers.

  • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2911·
    3 months ago

    In Nevada, the Democratic Party initiated a lawsuit to exclude the Green Party from the ballot, claiming the party used the wrong form to collect signatures from voters. The Green Party appealed the case and was represented by Jay Sekulow, an attorney who defended Trump throughout his impeachment trials (last week, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected Stein’s bid to be put back on the ballot).

    In Wisconsin, Democratic National Committee employee David Strange sought to remove Stein from the ballot by arguing the Green Party can’t nominate presidential electors without legislative candidates eligible to do so. The Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Stein was again legally represented by a Trump-affiliated lawyer, Michael D. Dean, who was involved in lawsuits that attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 election, the Journal reported.

    From another article:

    The affidavit originally submitted with the Green Party’s petition in July 2023 was the correct one. However, because the petition that the Green Party submitted contained a separate mistake, an employee in the secretary of state’s office sent the party a sample petition that included the wrong affidavit – for use with petitions to put initiatives and referenda on the ballot. As a result, the affidavits that the Green Party later submitted with its petitions did not contain the attestation required for access to the ballot.

    The secretary of state eventually announced that the Green Party had submitted enough signatures to qualify for the 2024 general election ballot.

    The Nevada Democratic Party went to state court in June of this year, arguing that the signatures were invalid because the Green Party had used the wrong affidavit.

    On Aug. 12, the state trial court ruled in favor of the Green Party, but on Sept. 6 a divided Nevada Supreme Court reversed. It concluded that the attestation that the Green Party had failed to include “serves an essential purpose.” Therefore, the majority reasoned, allowing the Green Party to have its candidates on the ballot when it had not fulfilled all of the prerequisites to do so would nullify “the requirements that were put in place for the public’s benefit.”

    SCOTUS ruled with the Nevada Supreme Court and chose to keep the Green Party off the ballot. Their only real mistake here was really just some legal red tape filled out incorrectly. It doesn’t really matter if Jill Stein is a terrible candidate or not, the two party system will clearly go to the ends of the earth to kill 3rd parties from every becoming a thing lol. I guess it matters more for democrats since green party would be taking out more of their votes than republicans.

    • Maeve@midwest.social
      134·
      3 months ago

      The affidavit originally submitted with the Green Party’s petition in July 2023 was the correct one. However, because the petition that the Green Party submitted contained a separate mistake, an employee in the secretary of state’s office sent the party a sample petition that included the wrong affidavit – for use with petitions to put initiatives and referenda on the ballot. As a result, the affidavits that the Green Party later submitted with its petitions did not contain the attestation required for access to the ballot.

      Wow.

    • zbyte64@awful.systems
      72·
      3 months ago

      Wow, Dems actually exercised power in a legal manner to improve their chances. That is wild. Hope they don’t break their backs slapping themselves.

      • Seasm0ke@lemmy.world
        73·
        3 months ago

        They will always do it so long as it weakens the left. The DNC exists to badger any left of center movement toward their center right position, and even put DNC funds to extremist right winger campaigns boosting Christian nationalist platforms… learning nothing from clintons pied piper failures only pushing us all closer to a fascist hellscape just to say guess we vote blue since we have nowhere else to go. Fuck Jill Stein and all but this is the exact shit that leaves me voting for literally any socialist instead.

        • Soup@lemmy.cafeEnglish
          94·
          3 months ago

          And the left exists to siphon votes towards the right. See? Unsubstantiated claims work both ways.

            • Soup@lemmy.cafeEnglish
              61·
              3 months ago

              Because everyone uses their opposition’s lawyers when there’s thousands of other choices. Additionally, everyone refuses to call a war criminal a war criminal when asked- several times.

              It’s only unsubstantiated to people who refuse to accept it.

              • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                14·
                3 months ago

                She put out an official statement saying Putin is a war criminal. Thats like a reverse uno substantiated claim!

                • Soup@lemmy.cafeEnglish
                  7·
                  3 months ago

                  She was grilled over and over again, and side-stepped the question every time. Putting out a statement afterwards is simply her doing damage control. Anyone with any common sense that’s paying attention would have had no problem answering the question when asked.

                  There is no defense for her shilling.

                  NONE.

                  • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                    13·
                    3 months ago

                    “Either you’re a war criminal or you’re not. Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?” he asked again.

                    “In so many words, yes he is,” Stein said. “If you want to pull him back, if you are a world leader, you don’t begin your conversation by calling someone a war criminal.”

                    Which was then followed by a written statement calling him a war criminal.

                    I think she made a fair point about the difference between russia and israel. One is sponsored by the US and one is not. We have responsibility towards who we sponsor. There isnt much to gain by calling Putin a war criminal if you intend to take an office where you’d then need to negotiate with him diplomatically.

                    Do you really expect the anti-war party to throw out escalating rhetoric?

        • zbyte64@awful.systems
          4·
          3 months ago

          I mean I agree with everything you said about democrats, but I don’t view voting as some endorsement of a system or party. I vote for the conditions I want to organize under.

          • Seasm0ke@lemmy.world
            3·
            3 months ago

            Fair enough. Thats why I usually downballot blue too. At best it prevents local rightwingers from gaining momentum and at worst it gives the DNC enough rope to hang themselves with.

            I only see the system changing in two scenarios short of civil war or coup. Either the dnc will lose and all the less privileged libs who wont collaborate with the fash join the fight, creating an actual resistance OR the dems will sweep a super majority and continue to enact right wing policies for the entire term with no excuses, disenfranchising young voters and creating a vacuum for a third party.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      1916·
      3 months ago

      See also: the Dems suing to kick Claudia De La Crúz off the ballot in Georgia and PA. “Democrats” in name-only.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      12·
      3 months ago

      Sort of upsetting all your up votes are from people that are happy Nevada “beat” Jill Stein, which is not really the point I think you are making.

      I agree that its shameful behavior from the democrats. I wish they would consider why they’ve lost 2 million people to the Green party rather than try to ban them.

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      1217·
      3 months ago

      The DNC seems overly happy to use bureaucracy as a cludgel to reduce options “legally” to themselves.

      While I get the fear beating down your competition in an underhanded manner doesn’t inspire a whole lot of good will and also seems extremely unlikely to get the people you have just disenfranchised to vote on your side.

      They resist any movement or adoption of new policy in favor of it staying as stagnant as possible. It’s a deeply confusing and long term failing idea. Just look at how Kamala is now polling worse with each passing week. She felt like change and initial momentum of “joy” was able to carry her a little but it’s not a permanent state and the initial dopamine is running out.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        32·
        3 months ago

        I honestly feel it. They took the high road for like a month. Back to slinging shit though they go. What a joke. How is anyone supposed to trust them?

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          32·
          3 months ago

          They had the momentum of a new candidate and it was full of excitement for new policy then she was seemingly told to not change things still.

          I mean literally pro gun and loose company first economic policies are early 2000 Republican policy. So now it’s instead just focus on how shitty the orange bastard is, which is a low bar to easily walk over.

          It really does feel disingenuous to blame people uninspired by that and to claim it’s a fixing party. I get the other option but people need to not act like angels when stagnant bullies that refuse to budge or listen anymore.