Libertarian Party & Bob Barr file suit in Texas alleging Obama/McCain illegally on ballots

[arnisador]

Hey, that's The Golden Rule--The one who has the gold, makes the rules.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I still say it's wrong, especially considering the hurdles they put in front of 3rd parties. After all, if they really cared about the good of the nation, they would follow the laws of said nation and allow the competition.

 

[arnisador]

I still say it's wrong, especially considering the hurdles they put in front of 3rd parties.

I don't disagree that it's wrong of the two big parties to expect and demand special treatment. There are two issues: Fairness t o the parties, and fairness to the people. Ya gotta put the people first!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I agree. Which is why Barr and the rest should be allowed equal ballot access, and the same 'special treatments'.

You shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

 

[arnisador]

Well, he will remain on the ballot, won't he? Or do you mean in every state? Heh, they'd never allow that--but I agree it'd be fair.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Well, at least there's one victory to celebrate.

Free Market to McCain and Obama: Keep Out!

Sep 15 from Russ Verney

LATE BREAKING: Word just arrived that we won our case in Pennsylvania! John McCain’s agents failed to remove us from the ballot in the Keystone State! We’re now confirmed on the ballot in 44 states!

Bob Barr Wins Lawsuit in Pennsylvania

September 15, 2008 6:34 pm EST

Atlanta, GA – "It's a great day for Pennsylvania voters," says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee, after defeating a Republican challenge to his right to be on the ballot in Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit, filed by a Republican Party official in Cumberland County, PA, sought to remove Barr's name from the ballot—contrary to promises made by John McCain during his first bid for the presidency after then Texas Governor George Bush tried to have McCain blocked from the New York primary ballot. "I would never consider, ever consider," McCain said during his 2000 campaign, "allowing a supporter of mine to challenge [an opponent's] right to be on the ballot in all 50 states."

McCain went on to call such tactics, "Stalinist politics."

"We're happy that the Pennsylvania courts recognized the absurd nature of the Republican's lawsuit," says Russell Verney, Barr's campaign manager. "It was very hypocritical of McCain to allow one of his agents to try to block a legitimate candidate like Congressman Bob Barr from the ballot. Fortunately, these hypocritical tactics of McCain's agents failed."

The court ruled that the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania "simply took reasonable action to abide by the Election Code while furthering its legitimate interest."

"After today's ruling, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama will have to compete for the votes of Pennsylvania citizens instead of taking them for granted," says Verney. "Competition is key to a healthy Republic."

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Wire coverage of the above.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvCD9_7Y5TjfJj2S_bylUlXoKP3AD937FQ500

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Press Release: Bob Barr Files Suit in Texas to Remove McCain, Obama from Ballot

September 16, 2008 6:46 pm EST

Atlanta, GA – Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's nominee for president, has filed a lawsuit in Texas demanding Senators John McCain and Barack Obama be removed from the ballot after they missed the official filing deadline.

"The seriousness of this issue is self-evident," the lawsuit states. "The hubris of the major parties has risen to such a level that they do not believe that the election laws of the State of Texas apply to them."

Texas election code §192.031 requires that the “written certification” of the “party’s nominees” be delivered “before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before election day.” Because neither candidate had been nominated by the official filing deadline, the Barr campaign argues it was impossible for the candidates to file under state law.

"Supreme Court justices should recognize that their responsibility is to apply the law as passed by the Legislature, and the law is clear that the candidates cannot be certified on the ballot if their filings are late," says Drew Shirley, a local attorney for the Barr campaign, who is also a Libertarian candidate for the Texas Supreme Court.

A 2006 Texas Supreme Court decision ruled that state laws "does not allow political parties or candidates to ignore statutory deadlines."

Orrin Grover, attorney for Bob Barr and Wayne Root, said that he believes that the Texas Secretary of State is bound by Texas law to remove the Republican and Democratic nominees from the November ballot. "Either we have rules and deadlines, or we do not," Grover said.

The Chairman of the Texas Libertarian Party, Pat Dixon stated, "Libertarian principles require personal responsibility for your acts and failures. Obama and McCain failed to meet the deadlines. They must follow the law like everyone else."

The petition also alleges that the Democratic Party's late presidential filing falsely claimed under oath that Senator Obama had been nominated hours before the nomination actually occurred.

"The facts of the case are not in dispute," says Russell Verney, manager of the Barr campaign. "Republicans and Democrats missed the deadline, but were still allowed on the ballot. Third parties are not allowed on the ballot for missing deadlines, as was the case for our campaign in West Virginia, yet the Texas secretary of state's office believes Republicans and Democrats to be above the law."

Barr will be holding a press conference this Thursday at the Texas Supreme Court at 11:00 a.m.

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.

Lawsuit Contacts:

Pat Dixon
Texas Libertarian Party
[email protected]

Drew Shirley, Esq.
Drew Shirley, P.C.
Austin, TX
512-417-6171

Orrin Grover, Esquire
Orrin L. Grover, P.C.
Woodburn, OR
510-872-603

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Way I see it, if the Texas SC rules to allow the DP and RP candidates on the ballot, then several other parties will use it as case study to get listed on the ballot as well despite missing the same filing dates. If they rule against, there's going to be alot of press for the LP and Barr, mostly painting them as the ad guys for insisting that the law be followed. In the later cas, I'd expect some emergency sessions to pass revisions which will onl benifit the DP and RP.

 

[arnisador]

Yes, the law will be changed if necessary to protect the big parties. Well, I'm glad he's pushing the issue so hopefully it'll be settled one way or another!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

And so it begins.

The New York Times on the Texas lawsuit:

Strictly speaking, Barr seems to have a case, as neither party had held its roll-call vote by Aug. 26, the 70-day marker (the Democrats were a day late).
“I wouldn’t bet ten cents on Barr winning this case, but it’s amusing to think what would happen if he did,” writes Reason’s David Weigel.
“Without Texas, McCain could get to 270 (273, actually) electoral votes if he carried all the Bush states plus New Hampshire and Michigan and Obama didn’t win Iowa. But he probably wouldn’t be without Texas. The state allows write-in votes, and in 2006 the GOP nearly won a House seat (Tom DeLay’s seat) with a write-in candidate whose name was literally too long to fit in the voting machine. It wouldn’t be tough for McCain to win the state as a write-in candidate.”
​

Looks like Mr. Crawford doesn't think the big guys should be held to the law.

Craig Crawford at CQ Politics is attacking Bob Barr over the lawsuit in Texas, calling it “bogus” without offering any explanation of his position:

In recent days Barr has further burnished his nutty reputation and made his newfound party look like a joke. He appeared in federal court as part of a ridiculous lawsuit against Michael Bloomberg, charging the New York mayor with defamation against a gun club. He is in court in Texas promoting a bogus claim that John McCain and Barack Obama should not be on the state ballot in November.
​

He presents no evidence to refute the evidence we’ve presented to prove that Republicans and Democrats clear missed the deadline to file paperwork to have their presidential candidates included on the ballot in November.
If you’ve got something to prove otherwise then please present it. But it is disingenuous to write the law off as “bogus.”

Might leave the election up the Congress to decide.

Texas lawsuit could throw election to Congress
September 18th, 2008 by Jason Pye The lawsuit in Texas may throw the presidential election to the House of Representatives, something the United States hasn’t experienced since 1824 when the House gave the election to John Quincy Adams. Bob Barr says he has no problem with the idea:

“It’s not as if the sky will fall, the country will disappear,” Barr said in Austin today .
The surprising turn could play out if two things happen.
First, the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court (or, perhaps, a federal court handling an appeal) would have to side with Barr and order the state of Texas to strike the Democratic and Republican Party presidential nominees from the Texas ballot.
Barr is asking the state’s highest civil court to make the move because he says the other candidates couldn’t legally meet a state-set Aug. 26 deadline for candidates to ask to be on the ballot.
Why? The state deadline for requesting a ballot spot landed before either Sen. Barack Obama or John McCain had been nominated by their respective national parties. The parties’ national conventions occurred the last week of August and first week of September. (Credit the Olympics for the delay.)
Second, with the major-party nominees deprived of Texas’s 34 electoral votes, it’s possible that no candidate would reach the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency in the Nov. 4 election.
Under the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the lack of an outright winner of a majority in the Electoral College would throw the race to the U.S. House, where each state would have one vote for president. The constitution also specifies that the House consider up to three candidates.
As of now, the system for resolving such a tangle could signal an advantage for McCain because more states are considered Republican-leaning. But it’s close, according to this site.
Under this scenario, the Senate would choose the vice president — perhaps ushering in a president from one party and a veep from another. That’s dependent on Democrats keeping their Senate majority, though. Each senator would have a vote.
Barr said: “I have great faith in the Constitution, absolutely. I wish the other two parties did.”
​

Damn shame that the DP and RP couldn't follow the laws they wrote and brought things to this point.

 

[arnisador]

Barr said: “I have great faith in the Constitution, absolutely. I wish the other two parties did.”

LOL! I love it. Good for him! But the write-in thing would be a huge headache for the Texans. They might just decide to secede.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

As long as they allow easy immigration, I'll be there!

 

[celtic_crippler]

Since they feel they're "Above the Law" maybe we should ask Steve Segal for help. :uhyeah:

I just wish this was getting more press. It infuriates me that they call the law bogus when it doesn't bend to their will.

 

[arnisador]

I too am surpirsed by the lack of media coverage. They must figure it's a done deal and not worth their time.

 

[celtic_crippler]

I too am surpirsed by the lack of media coverage. They must figure it's a done deal and not worth their time.

Not "worth" their time is probably right.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It's on Slashdot. Buried on CNN.com.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Couple updates.
http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.co...and-barack-obama-above-the-law-they-think-so/

The stay on ballot printing is rejected, but the original case is ongoing.

Texas Supreme Court Asks for Democratic, Republican Response in Presidential Deadline Lawsuit
September 19th, 2008

On September 18, the Texas Supreme Court asked the Texas Secretary of State, and the Texas Democratic and Republican Parties, to respond to Bob Barr’s lawsuit over the fact that the two major parties did not certify their national tickets on time. The response is due September 22 at 3 p.m.

The reply from the Texas AG is an interesting read. http://www.bobbarr2008.com/files/txstayopp.pdf
It cites following the law and the Constitution, and the rights of service personel.
It also states that there is a "safe harbor" in the law, allowing for submission of names 70 days prior to the election, and that this was the case.
Notarized documents from the Texas DP and RP however indicate that this deadline was missed.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the law does not apply to either the DP or RP.

The Texas Supreme Court, without comment, just denied Libertarian presidential candidate's Bob Barr attempt to keep the names John McCain and Barack Obama off the state's November ballot.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/09/tx-supremes-deny-bob-barr-ball.html

See also: McBama will remain on Texas ballot

More to follow.

 

[arnisador]

Shocking, eh? It's a pity it was without comment. That's dismissive. I'd like to hear them justify it.