A reality based independent journal of observation & analysis, serving the Flathead Valley & Montana since 2006. © James Conner.

18 July 2018 — 1714 mdt

Green Party ballot access case heads to Montana Supreme Court

A few days after district court judge James Reynolds ordered the Green Party stricken from the 2018 Montana general election ballot, MT SecST Corey Stapleton announced he’s appealing Reynolds’ decision to the Montana Supreme Court. That’s his right — and his obligation if he believes the district court’s decision was wrong. Whether he has a strong case on appeal is another question.

My interpretation of the decision is that the evidence supports Reynolds’ order to remove the Green Party’s candidates from the ballot. The people gathering signatures made foolish errors, thereby invalidating enough signatures that the Green Party fell short of the minimums in several legislative districts.

Here’s a sample of what Reynolds found:

13. Multiple petition entries were ostensibly collected by petition circulator, Skye Robert Berns. Two petition signers, Thai Nguyen and Dana Toole, testified that a woman, acting alone, collected their petition signatures. The witnesses testified that the woman was the only person collecting signatures, and no one else was present to witness their signature. Nguyen testified that the woman identified herself as Hannah Rose Kuntz. While the evidence shows that a woman named Hannah Rose Kuntz collected Nguyen’s and Toole’s signatures, Berns signed the signature gatherer affidavit attached to the packet of petitions containing Nguyen’s and Toole’s signatures. Berns, through his affidavit, claimed to have personally gathered Nguyen’s and Toole’s signatures. Hannah Rose Kuntz was not listed as the signature gatherer on any signature gatherer affidavit submitted with the Petition.

14. Neither Berns nor Kuntz appeared before the Court to testify. Neither the Secretary nor the Green Party presented evidence or testimony rebutting the testimony of Toole or Nguyen. Neither the Secretary nor the Green Party presented evidence regarding which petition sheets attached to Berns’ affidavits were personally collected by Berns and which petition sheets were collected by Kuntz or any other unknown third party. In view of the lack of any testimony or evidence contradicting that of Nguyen and Toole, the Court finds that Berns falsely swore that he personally gathered signatures for the Petition. The signatures gathered by Berns should therefore be invalidated. [Page 6.]

Thai Nguyen’s name stands out for a couple of reasons. There’s only one Thai Nguyen in Montana, according to whitepages.com, so the Thai Nguyen who testified for the Democrats in the ballot access case probably is the Thai Nguyen (image) who spoke in favor of immigration at an anti-immigration rally in Helena in February, 2016:

Thai Nguyen, 20, of Helena, took an invitation for the public to speak from the podium to address the crowd. He spoke in favor of helping the refugees.

“We can’t exclude people and say that we are great,” he said, adding the only way to make the Constitution stronger was an exchange of ideas.

He said afterward he thought his comments went well and he was heard. But he didn’t know if what he said had provoked thought.

Whether his speech provoked thought, it marked him as a man who has the courage of his convictions.

Of perhaps greater interest, the Thai Nguyen who testified may be the Thai Nguyen now working for the Montana Democratic Party as a regional manager for the MDP’s Blue Bench project, with the Flathead among his responsibilities. Yesterday, I sent the Blue Bench Nguyen an email asking whether he was the witness in the ballot access trial, and if he is, why, being a Democrat, he signed the petition. I’m still waiting for his reply and will update this post once I hear from him.

If Blue Bench Nguyen and witness Nguyen are the same man, that raises some interesting questions regarding the conduct of the MDP.

Will Steve Kelly’s partisans now vote for Jon Tester?
Will Doug Campbell’s partisans now vote for Kathleen Williams?

I doubt it — why would they reward the Democrats for kicking the Green Party off the ballot? But the MDP, the Montana Republican Party, and most if not all political reporters and analysts apparently believe, with unshakable conviction, that voters, if denied the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice, will sigh “Oh, well,” and vote for Tester and Williams. Why they believe that escapes me, but believe it they do, and so deeply do they believe it they feel no obligation to muster facts and arguments supporting their belief.

The MDP’s victory in court may be a pyrrhic victory politically. If the turnout is 100 percent, an election is a zero sum game: a vote for Smith is a vote denied to Jones. But when turnout is not 100 percent, especially when it’s in the 60–70 percent range for registered voters, an election is not a zero sum game. Voters denied the choice of voting for the Green Party’s candidates are not obligated to vote for the closest ideological matchs — Tester or Kathleen Williams — remaining on the ballot. They have several options:

  1. Not voting for anyone for the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House.

  2. Voting for the Libertarian candidate.

  3. Voting for the Republican candidates to spite the MDP.

  4. Writing in someone, even if the write-in doesn't count.

  5. Voting for the Democratic candidates despite their role in booting the greens from the ballot.
Gaming the Vote
by William Poundstone
An informative and entertaining analysis of the strengths and weakness of voting systems. He even mentions Stan Jones’ candidacy in the 2006 Montana senatorial election, although I disagree with his conclusion that Jones was a spoiler.

Ranked choice voting is better than major party
bullyboy lawsuits against third parties

In a ranked choice election (Instant Runoff), greens could vote for both Kelly and Campbell, and Tester and Williams. They would rank Kelly and Campbell as their first choices, Tester and Williams as their second, and perhaps not assign a rank to any other candidate. If Tester won by a plurality, the second place votes cast by Kelly voters would default to Tester (it’s slightly more complicated than that, so be sure to consult the information provided by Fair Vote.) Ranked choice is the best way to keep a third party from becoming a spoiler.