Issue of Supreme interest

There is a case in the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals concerning voting rights in Maine that is as important as the monumental voting rights acts of the 1960s.

In the ’60s the issue was how some states rigged voting laws to keep black people from the polls. Today the issue is how the state of Maine rigs voting laws in favor of Republicans and Democrats and against third or fourth parties. These laws, and the way they are enforced, are one of the reasons why politics are like they are in America. Maine is one of the worst states in the nation in this regard.

The case, Maine Green Party vs. Maine Secretary of State, will be heard the week of Dec. 7 at the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston — the last stop before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case affects everybody who thinks there might be something wrong with politics as usual.

The current Maine law says that for a party to be listed on ballots, it must win five per cent of the vote in presidential or gubernatorial elections. Maine politicians interpret this to mean presidential and gubernatorial elections.

This means that to be official in Maine and to get the benefits that come from being recognized, a party must run a national presidential campaign every four years, and win five per cent of the vote. Under these rules a state party cannot exist if it is running only for state offices, on local issues. Under these rules a voter is forced to vote for a third-party presidential candidate, if she or he wants to be able to vote for a third-party state candidate.

Everybody knows how expensive it is to run for even a state office, much less national office. Here’s what the pols are saying with the Maine law: If you can’t pay to play in the Presidential money game, you can’t be a political party. And why would they want to do that? Because the two political parties don’t want to share the money train with anyone else, and because money interests like the simple two-stop shopping deal they have now, when either candidate you buy gets you pretty much the same thing.

Someday we will look back and shake our heads at the crudeness of it, but at the moment we hardly pay it any nevermind.

But what about independents? Isn’t that an alternative to a third party? Isn’t voting for an independent just as good?

The first answer is no. The issue is, do people have a constitutional right to form political parties without unreasonable barriers?

The second answer is no. Besides the fact that an independents often seem to be some shade of Republican or Democrat or of corporate interests, independent races turn almost exclusively on personalities. They offer little or nothing for the long run. A political party, on the other hand, should represent an idea, and that idea should tell you what you might expect if that candidate is elected. This is the theory. But it is such an important theory that it should not be trashed by politicians who are simply protecting their turf — who want to make the game too expensive to play if you are not plugged into their money machine.

There was a bill in the Maine Legislature to require five per cent only in gubernatorial elections, but it was defeated by the two major parties in a rather sneaky and little publicized three a.m. vote on the last day of the legislative session. Now a federal court has a chance to speak on the way we do things here.

If that fails there are three other opportunities for people who want, at least now and then, to have an alternative to Democrats or Republicans: 1 an appeal to the Supreme Court, which may be too expensive for the Maine Greens, or 2) a state referendum to change the law, or 3) we get The Body to mud wrestle the boys and girls up to the State House, because Angus is too comfortable to do it. A positive Supreme Court ruling would be the best for the whole country. Otherwise, this is the kind of issue that referendums were made for.

Mark Baldwin lives in Surry.