Decision expected in Nader case today

Wednesday, Sept. 1, 2004 | 9:45 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- Ralph Nader's chances of appearing as an independent candidate for president on the Nevada ballot may hinge on whether those who circulated his nominating petition put their correct addresses on the documents.

District Judge Bill Maddox scheduled a third day of testimony starting this morning on the issue and he may make a decision later today.

But Maddox said his ruling, no matter what it is, will probably go to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Democrats want Nader off the Nevada election ballot for fear that he could take 2 percent to 4 percent of the vote, which could tip the state's electoral votes to President Bush in a close election against Democrat John Kerry.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court took under submission Tuesday oral arguments on another Maddox ruling, issued in July, that there were enough signatures to qualify initiative petitions on raising the minimum wage and on frivolous lawsuits.

In the Nader case, Ian Glinka, vote file director of the state Democratic Party, testified that there were only 3,505 valid signatures when 5,000 were needed to qualify for the presidential ballot. Initially the Democrats suggested there were only 314 "unblemished signatures."

Nader supporters turned in 11,888 names.

Of those the Democrats say 2,716 were not registered voters. And the circulators of the petitions bearing 5,842 names put their residence at a hotel in Las Vegas, rather than their real home, which in most cases was out of state. The Democrats also contend some of the signatures were forged.

Jennifer K. Breslin, owner of the JSM Corp., which hired the circulators, said she was told by election officials in Clark County that the circulators should put the address of the hotel where they were staying.

Maddox said he wanted to learn what Breslin was told that by officials in Southern Nevada.

Breslin, under cross-examination, also denied she was paid by the Republican Party to gather the signatures.

There has been a report that Breslin got $30,000 from Steve Wark, a Las Vegas Republican official for the Nader petition. Breslin said she never met Wark and never got any money from him.

Breslin testified she was hired by Nader backers to gather 8,000 signatures in Nevada with a 70 percent validity rate. She said Clark County registrar of voters verified 73 percent of the more than 11,000 signatures were valid voters.

In the cases before the Supreme Court, Secretary of State Dean Heller appealed the Maddox decision on the two initiatives.

One petition would raise the minimum wage by $1 an hour and by the cost of living up to 3 percent in years after it is effective. The other would penalize lawyers that file frivolous suits and would prohibit limiting the award of damages to a person who wins a tort suit.

Solicitor General Jeff Parker of the state attorney general's office and Sam McMullen, representing the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce told the high court that the petitions should not appear on the November election ballot.

Parker said Maddox "misunderstood" the affidavit signer law. McMullen said the two petitions were flawed.

Bob Crowell, attorney for People for a Better Nevada, and Eric Myers, representing "Give Nevada a Raise," told the court there is no evidence that the signatures gathered by paid circulators "led to horrible acts."

Nevada's Constitution requires each initiative document must bear an affidavit signed by a registered voter stating the signatures are valid. If the circulator is not a registered voter, then another registered voter who signed the petition must sign the affidavit.

Parts of the two petitions were circulated by an unregistered voter and they did not bear the signature of a registered voter on the affidavit.

More than 13,000 signatures on the minimum wage petition were not counted because of the alleged legal defect. The frivolous lawsuit petition lost more than 10,000 signatures because of the problem.

But the Maddox ruling allowed those to be counted and put both of them over the required 51,337 signatures of registered voters.

The Supreme Court did not indicate when it would rule. If the petitions make it to the ballot, they must be approved this November and in 2006 before they become effective.