Ralph Nader v. Terri Lynn Land, Michigan Secretary of State; Matthew Crehan

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 04a0051n.06
Filed: October 28, 2004
No. 04-2172
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Ralph Nader; Peter Miguel Camejo; Ralph
Nader for President 2004; Reform Party of
the United States of America; Shawn
O’Hara,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Terri Lynn Land, Michigan Secretary of
State; Matthew Crehan,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Before: RYAN, COLE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
Rogers, Circuit Judge. This motion to expedite appeal involves an attempt by Ralph Nader
and the Reform Party of the United States of America (“Reform Party”) to direct the Secretary of
State of Michigan to certify Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo as the Reform Party candidates for
President and Vice President and to place them on the Michigan ballot as the candidates of that
party. Because the plaintiffs have not proceeded expeditiously, we deny the motion.
On May 11, 2004, the Reform Party nominated Ralph Nader as its presidential candidate for
the 2004 election. Peter Camejo was subsequently named as Nader’s running mate. On June 25,
2004, John Muntz and Eleanor Renfrew, claiming that they were respectively the chair and secretary
of the Michigan Reform Party, certified to the Michigan Secretary of State, Terri Land, their party’s

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 04-2172
Nader, et al. v. Land
1The dispute over control of the Reform Party of Michigan dates to a split in the party
during the 2000 presidential election over the Reform Party’s nomination of Pat Buchanan for
president.
- 2 -
nomination of Nader and Camejo. On July 6, 2004, Matthew Crehan sent a letter to Secretary of
State Land, claiming that he was the real chair of the Michigan Reform Party, and that the
certifications of Nader and Camejo were fraudulent because the Michigan Reform Party had not
nominated anyone for President. On July 8, the National Chair of the Reform Party, Shawn O’Hara,
sent a letter to Secretary of State Land certifying that Muntz was the elected chair of the Michigan
Reform Party. Secretary of State Land sent a letter to Muntz and Crehan, stating that because there
was a dispute as to who the real chair was of the Michigan Reform Party, she could not accept the
certification of Nader’s candidacy.1 Nader, Camejo, the Reform Party, and its Chair, Shawn
O’Hara, filed suit in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that, inter alia,
would require Secretary Land to accept the certifications of Nader and Camejo and to list them on
the ballot as the candidates of the Reform Party. Plaintiffs moved for an order to show cause why
relief should not be granted. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for an order to show cause
because Nader has already sought and accepted a position on the ballot as an independent candidate
for president. The district court determined that Nader cannot now seek to be on the ballot as a
Reform Party candidate, as Michigan law prohibits a candidate from seeking nominations on both
independent and party columns.
We deny the motion to expedite this appeal, principally because the plaintiffs have not
proceeded expeditiously. Plaintiffs allowed six weeks to pass between the appealed-from order and

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 04-2172
Nader, et al. v. Land
- 3 -
the motion to expedite. The order was entered on September 2, 2004, and the plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal on September 10, 2004. Plaintiffs did not seek to expedite the appeal until the instant
motion was filed on October 15, 2004. The election is set for November 2, 2004. It is within our
discretion not to expedite an appeal where the appellants have delayed such a long time for no stated
or apparent reason.
We do not resolve at this stage a serious question as to our appellate jurisdiction. Nader and
the Reform Party do not appeal from a final order of the district court. They appeal from the denial
of a show cause order rather than from the denial of a motion for an injunction. The order appealed
from is interlocutory and as such can only be appealed if it grants, continues, modifies, refuses or
dissolves an injunction. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3). Neither the district court order nor the transcript
of the ruling from the bench even mentions injunctive relief, and appellate jurisdiction therefore
appears to be lacking under § 1292(a)(3). We reserve final judgment on whether the court lacks
jurisdiction, however, pending briefing or a properly filed motion to dismiss.
Motion DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --