Freedom Socialist • Volume 21, No.4 • January-March, 2001

Freedom Socialist Party lawsuit over
ballot exclusion strikes strong public chord

BY LINDA AVERILL

Jesse Clay, a young African American mother who lives in Portland, Oregon, believes that the right to vote is irrelevant without the ability to vote for the party of one's choice. And for her, that is the Freedom Socialist Party.

But thanks to an archaic and exclusionary state law, Clay is barred from casting her ballot for the FSP. ORS 248.010 denies electoral status to any political party that shares even one word in common with another party that already has been approved for the ballot. In 1998, this legislation prevented Adrienne Weller, an aspirant for state representative, from running as an FSP candidate, since the Socialist Party already had ballot status. So now Clay, who has worked with the Portland branch of FSP in protests against police brutality, is among a growing number of supporters who are backing the party's legal challenge to ORS 248.010. "It is up to the people and not the government to pick our candidates and our parties," Clay asserts.

Pivotal case for electoral democracy. Currently, 21 states have laws like the one in Oregon, although ORS 248.010 is the most restrictively enforced. If FSP wins its lawsuit, this will boost the movement to break legal barriers for third parties elsewhere.

On November 22, the FSP went to court to ask Judge Robert Redding for summary judgment - that is, the overturning of ORS 248.010 without a trial - on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional. In a packed Multnomah County courtroom, attorney Steve Goldberg, representing the party, argued that the legislation violates the rights of both Oregon voters and the FSP to freedom of speech and association.

Goldberg, who is with the National Lawyers Guild, cited numerous instances where courts have struck down similar restrictions in other states. He also pointed out that while Oregon punishes political parties whose titles contain an identical word, it does not apply the same prohibitions to its approval of corporate names.

Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Morley Large defended the ballot law for the state, which had responded to the FSP's motion by making its own motion for summary judgment, asking the judge to dismiss the suit out of hand. The state's contention is that voters will get mixed up if parties with similar names are allowed to appear on the ballot. In a legal brief, the assistant attorney general suggested that the FSP change its name to "Freedom Party" or run its candidates as independents.

Goldberg countered that if the state is concerned about possible voter perplexity, there are many alternative measures it could adopt to guard against this. But, he said, "If parties like the FSP are excluded from running under their own names, their supporters' right to vote is directly and tangibly infringed. Under the guise of preventing voter confusion, the state is throwing the baby out with the bath water."

The state's proposal that the party change its name, Goldberg argued, flippantly ignores its 34-year history. As well as running candidates for office, FSP intervenes in political events on a national level and publishes a newspaper and books. In Oregon, its 23-year activist record on issues such as police abuse has earned it respect from voters like Clay. A party's title is a vital cue at the ballot box, and to give that up undermines its ability to gain votes.

And in elections in 24 other states, Goldberg noted, two or more parties with socialist tags have simultaneously run candidates on the same ballot without baffling the voters.

As would-be FSP candidate Jordana Sardo put it, "When I go to the store, I can tell the difference between chicken noodle soup and cream of chicken soup. The state's claim of voter confusion masks their fear of real alternative candidates running for office."

Third parties: agents for change. When he makes his decision, Judge Redding can issue either a comprehensive or partial ruling in favor of FSP or the state. If he does not dispose of the case entirely one way or another, and if his decision is not appealed, trial is tentatively set to begin on January 19, 2001. Two things, at least, are certain: public backing is crucial if the FSP is to prevail upon the courts to do the right thing, and the stakes are high.

Helen Sherman, a member of the NAACP, explained why she supports the case this way: "We have people without jobs, homes, and education - problems that neither Democrats nor Republicans will address. If we don't get another party to start challenging the things that are going on now, then we can't make a difference." The good news is that other minor parties, especially on the Left, are taking up the cause. Noteworthy among them is the Socialist Party, which disagrees with state officials that it should be able to "own" the word socialist. "We don't really care that we got there first, because we believe in democracy," said Seamus Mulryan, an SP State Committee member.

Recent endorsers of the FSP's fight include Socialist Action, the National Lawyers Guild, A. Philip Randolph Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555, Portland Community College-Fulltime Classified Employees Local 3922, and Industrial Workers of the World Local 670.

The fracas over the presidential election has made voter democracy a national issue; at the same time, disgust with the Democrats and Republicans is rising and third parties are growing in numbers and influence. The FSP's case presents an exciting opportunity to get involved in an effort that can have a real impact on the choices voters have at the ballot box.

To make an endorsement, give a donation, or volunteer to help, call 503-240-4462 or e-mail fsp@igc.org.

Return to Index page for this issue
Return to Freedom Socialist newspaper main page
Return to FSP homepage.