Nall’s Not Dropping Out

According to the AP, Loretta Nall didn’t obtain enough signatures to get on the ballot in Alabama. The deadline is 5PM tonight.

The colorful Libertarian Party nominee for governor, Loretta Nall, said Monday she will run as a write-in candidate after failing to get enough signatures to get her name on the general election ballot.

“I’m not dropping out,” Nall said.

Tuesday is the deadline for third-party candidates to turn in voters’ signatures to the secretary of state to get ballot access for Nov. 7. Nall needed 41,300 signatures to get on the general election ballot. She said she and her supporters collected between 10,000 and 15,000 signatures, which she plans to turn in Tuesday to make a point about Alabama having one of the nation’s toughest ballot access laws for third parties.

“In almost any other state, that would have been enough to get ballot access,” she said.

Nall, who founded the U.S. Marijuana Party after her misdemeanor arrest for marijuana in 2002, has already proven to be a colorful addition to the gubernatorial contest even without ballot access. Her Web site discussions about why she doesn’t wear panties and her animated fundraising gimmick, “Stripping for Cash,” have attracted about as much attention on the Internet as the mainstream candidates.

Nall said she plans to keep attracting attention by developing campaign ads that are a parody of the MTV show “Celebrity Death Match.” Candidates will try to knock off each other with over-the-top campaign promises, like trying to prove who hates homosexuals the most, she said.

“I have the best time with these idiots,” she said.

However, she intends to turn in around 70,000 signatures by deadline. How does that make sense? You’ll have to read the tomorrow’s report to find out.

posted by Stephen Gordon
  • disinter

    I am impressed at all the press coverage she is getting with this…

  • Paul Pace

    She’s got my vote. Maybe I’ll write her in a few of the primary races as well. Besides Ed Packard none of those bozos are getting my vote. Except I think I’ll vote for Siegelman in the primary to be ironic.

  • Devious David

    A rejection of all the signatures is preplanned. That’s why.

  • http://voteoverstreet.org/ Kris Overstreet

    Failure to get ballot access is defeat. No matter how you dress it up, no matter what excuses you offer, it’s still defeat and failure.

  • Stuart Richards

    I can’t help agreeing with Kris although I’m willing to see what Nall and Gordon have cooked up. They’ve really fought the good fight on this one, but… it looks like it’s over this year.

  • TerryP

    This may be a defeat in the sense of not getting on the ballot but the more we can keep attention on the ballot access issue and other libertarian ideas, issues, and candidates it is a win for the libertarian party. Hopefully with the attention she received this year she can make a run at it again in a few years or possibly with enough attention this year she will make it interesting even this year. My guess is that even as a write in candidate she will get a higher % of votes than many of our candidates that make the ballot in other states. We need the media attention that she brings to the party.

  • Michael H. Wilson

    Thanks for the effort. Those of us sittin’ on our butts need to stand up and give everyone in ‘Bama land a great big round of applauses.
    M.H.W.

  • Wes P

    She ain’t no William Weld.

  • Stuart Richards

    Yeah, bravo to Nall for the valiant effort; I’m sure she can do even better next time.

  • ianbernard

    Next time… in the Free State!

    http://freestateproject.org

  • Devious David

    Amen, Wes P!

  • http://www.colliething.com/ Susan Hogarth

    “However, she intends to turn in around 70,000 signatures by deadline. How does that make sense? You’ll have to read the tomorrow’s report to find out.”

    “Tomorrow’s report” (today) from Loretta Nall’s ‘blog doesn’t mention 70K sigs:

    http://nallforgovernor.blogspot.com/2006/06/next-steps-for-nall-camp.html

    “But, I did what I could with what volunteers and money I had and I am not disappointed in the number of signatures we collected.”

    Do you know something Loretta doesn’t? Care to let the other shoe drop? Does it have something to do with this line?:

    “If Judge Myron Thompson had ruled fairly in our case we would have had until the run-off to turn in sigs. But he didn’t.”

  • Stephen Gordon

    Susan,

    I’m on the road right now and don’t have all the information, yet. I’ll be posting on this as time. information, and WiFi meet.

  • paul

    They also plan to turn in 63,000 or so old signatures we collected in 1998-2000 which certified the LP for 2000 (I got about 20,000 of those). For these to count for 2006 would be beyond a stretch, since they clearly say they are for 2000.

    Nonetheless, Loretta believes it will have some publicity value to turn these in again. I hope she’s right.

  • IanC

    Paul — heh; since she’s essentially already supported by the LP’ers as a primary function… why not? You never know… it *could* work.

    Won’t — but *could*.