Doubt anything will come from this, but it would be interesting: Bob Barr Files Suit in Texas to Remove McCain, Obama from Ballot
Obama should join Barr in this simple administration of Texas law that is so very, very clear. Not to worry, we have a GOP Supreme Court here in Texas with strict constitutionalist credentials who follow the rule of law whenever it is unabiguious... (if it doesn't hurt their GOP breathern) Remember laundering checks is not laundering money logic of the GOP Court. No worries both McCain and Obama will be on the ballot because following the law would mean doom for the GOP. Or perhaps we could ahve a write in ballot for the two major parties!
If only this law meant anything... It's not like we would bar the Libertarian Party from the ballot for doing something like this.... WOULD WE?
I'm not sure if you are interested in facts or just talking smack about the GOP but here is an interesting link on the subject: McCain as Pres., Biden as VP? Looks like it would actually benefit McCain not Obama.
Wow. Hornfans is awesome sometimes. So Drew, am I correct in assuming that the point of this was to get the 3rd parties on the ballot, as opposed to getting everyone off the ballot? I'm not a lawyer (I do date one though), but is there any legal precedent for making an exceptions to the deadline?
The Pub-dominated court will not grant the removal. It would give Obama a huge advantage: He's never going to win Texas, so not being on the ballot is no big loss for him, and any down-ticket disadvantage for Dems won't affect the presidential race, as there's little chance the Dems gain a majority in the Texas delegation. McCain will also not likely be able to get 270 w/o Texas the way things are going now. That means there are 2 ways Obama wins, versus one for McCain. In addition, whatever goes on in the Presidential horse race, this is clearly a Dem year. They're likely going to pick up 3 or 4 Senate seats, and most prognostications have them picking up many House seats as well. This would likely doom the McCain campaign completely, leaving no realistic chance of winning the WH. Thus, there's no way this happens. Judges are politicians too, and realism will win out.
I wonder if something was filed on behalf of McCain and Obama prior to their conventions. While the state laws concerning nominations for state offices taken at state conventions contain language requiring the presiding officer of the convention to certify the nominees chosen by the convention, the process for certifying the presidential nominee is a little different. Under the law, the state party chair has to send written certification of the nominee for president and vice-president by the 70th day before the election. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. sec. 192.031 (2). The Secretary of State is to then certify and forward to the local voting authority by the 62nd day before the election. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. sec. 192.033. There is nothing in the statute that says the candidate has to be annointed at the national convention before being certified as the party candidate. Question: why shouldn't the state party chair be able to send the name of the certain nominee before the convention? That is, Clinton conceded in June, both Obama and McCain had the necessary delegates to win the nomination. It was all over except the big speech. So, why couldn't the state party chair just file the paperwork? If the state party chair went against party rules in filing such paper work, does a person outside the party have standing to complain? Would it be a criminal offense? Furthermore, there is a provision for replacing the name of a person declared ineligible or who died or withdrew. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. sec. 192.062. If the person withdrew, became ineligible or died before the 74th day before the election and a replacement name is sent by the 70th day before the election, the replacement is put on the ballot. Otherwise, the withdrawn, deceased or ineligible candidate remains on the ballot and votes for that cahndidate are counted as votes for that party's electors. So, guess what? So what if Obama and McCain are declared ineligible for the ballot? Wouldn't they stay on the ballot anyway? Votes go to the respective party's slate of electors. They vote for their candidate in the electoral college anyway. OK, Drew, you want to argue your case in public, go right ahead. What's the answer?
The petition The Link Given the facts shown in the petition, it would appear the Democratic party chair didn't get a timely certification in (bogus certification or not) but did get its slate of electors in timely. Edit: OK, where does this appear? "We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives." A: Libertarian platform 3.6 The Link So, your opposition to laws excluding alternate candidates and parties doesn't extend to the mainstream parties? Your party believes millions of Republicans and Democrats should not have their party's nominee on the ballot? Nice. I'm all for ending the two party monopoly, but that won't be accomplished by this kind of ballot shenanigans. The only way to do it is by getting rid of the purely geographical representation in Congress.
The person filing suit to get the candidate off the ballot and the judge who orders it. Yeah, rules are rules. People f**k up sometimes. Isn't one of the principles of the Libertarian party that such rules shouldn't be used to disenfranchise voters? Apparently not anymore.
It is my understanding that papers were sent in to the State of Texas before the deadline and they were amended after the conventions. Is Barr arguing that this was against the law?
So let me get this straight. The Libertarians, who despise government rule and regulations are using a technicality of a rule to try to throw any other party off of the ballot ? Here is what I don't understand about this. If the Libertarians are trying to develop mainstream appeal of their party such that it can eventually be on equal footing with the Democratic and Republican parties in order to further their philiosophy, isn't pulling a stunt like this actually going to hurt thier cause ? Won't most people take a simplistic veiw of this and simply say, "the nutjobs over at the Libertarian Party are trying to limit our choices for President. In fact, they would rather have the US House elect the President as opposed to the people." Hook em
"technicality," Bubba Don? That's Orwellian. Yeah, reading the law and applying it as it was written (by Republicans and Democrats, mind you) to those who wrote it is a technicality. "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."
I don't disagree with that. I am just suggesting is this really the right approach for a party trying to gain more support of the average person ? In other words, how does trying to throw a wrench into the process really help to get more people to look more closely at what the Libertarians stand for and begin to have people think they represent a good alternative to the current parties. To me, this effort is probably fine on the merits and on the law, but is it a smart strategic approach for the end game of the party ? I don't think it is. To me its like a protester that chains himself to a tree, Yeah, you call attention to your cause and you get some publicity. But does the average person react in the positive manner that you want them to ? Or do they go, "Ok, I understand what they are doing, but that's stupid to chain yourself to the tree." I just think its poor marketing. Instead they should be seizing on the rancour between the Ds and the Rs to paint themselves as being more practical, more serious, more concerned and above politics and showmanship. The ultimate goal should be to sell your ideas to more people. This just looks like a desparate ploy. Maybe I am the only one that looks at it that way. I actually like a lot of the things the Libertarians stand for and would love to see a viable third party. And I just don't see how this helps further the cause. Hook em
The deadline for the parties to certify their nominees was 5 p.m., August 26th. The Democrats did not file anything before the deadline. On the 27th, they sent a letter saying that Obama and Biden had been nominated, but in fact they were not officially nominated until that night at the convention. The Republicans sent a letter on the 26th, saying that McCain and someone else were scheduled to be nominated. Then they sent another letter on the 29th, saying that McCain and Palin were scheduled to be nominated. Neither was officially nominated until September 4th at the convention. Neither party sent in an official certification of nomination by the 26th, as the law clearly requires. Now, is it possible that what the parties did was "close enough for government work" ? Maybe -- but the point of the lawsuit is that it is not proper for the Secretary of State to interpret the law that way and make that decision. She should have rejected the certifications as untimely. There are a number of Texas cases where candidates have been struck from the ballots or not allowed on the ballots because they did not adhere strictly to the election laws. There are some cases where the candidates were allowed on the ballots despite technical glitches, etc. But the point is that the law is clear. The deadline is certain. The Texas Supreme Court has stated that the Secretary of State does not have the authority to accept late filings without a court order. The Secretary of State cannot make the decision that it's "close enough" and certify the ballots anyway. That is for the court to decide. Also, I can assure you this is not a publicity stunt. Mr. Barr was denied access to the West Virginia ballot for a technical, non-substantive reason. Ralph Nader was left off the ballot in 2004 for technical reasons. If third parties are going to be held to strict compliance with election laws, then it is only fair that the Republicans and Democrats -- who drafted and passed these laws, by the way -- are held to the same standard.
Be that as it may, again, I don't doubt the merits of the lawsuit. Just doesn't sound like a smart strategic move to me in order to try to position your party for a stronger role in the out years. Hook em
I think this is a wise strategic move by a Third Party. It highlights the fact that our political system is steeped with only TWO parties. The same two parties that pass these election laws, make Third Party candidates adhere to, but don't apply it to themselves. So while our "two party"-steeped courts are denying Third Party candidates to be put on ballots for minor technicalities, the rules don't apply to the Dems or Repubs. We need more compromise in this country and less radical leaning "rulers", so I would love to see a much stronger presence in a Third Party to help make that happen.
