Libertarians To Sue State (north carolina)

thepilot.com ^ | 9 1 05 | thepilot.com

[freepatriot32]

The Libertarian Party announced Wednesday that it plans to file a lawsuit challenging the State Board of Elections’ decision to drop the party’s official status in North Carolina.

“We’re tired of being treated like second-class citizens,” said Thomas Hill, state party chairman.

Hill said North Carolina has one of the most restrictive ballot access laws in the country and said even Iraq has more parties on the ballot.

“That’s just vulgar,” he added.

The state board decertified the Libertarian Party on Monday because the party failed to secure at least 75,000 signatures on a petition needed to remain on the ballot. The state reported that the Libertarians had secured only about 25,000 signatures.

IN MOORE — Moore County Elections Director Glenda Clendenin is waiting for instructions from the state board before proceeding with local action.

At latest count, there were 103 Libertarians registered in Moore County. The county has 24,246 Republicans, 17,306 Democrats and 11,204 unaffiliated registrants.

Clendenin expects that the state will require county boards to notify local Libertarians by mail that the party has been decertified and that they have the choice of registering as Republicans, Democrats or unaffiliated.

Statewide, there are about 13,000 registered Libertarians.

However, relief was on the horizon Wednesday, when the state House of Representatives passed legislation that would make it somewhat easier to secure ballot access.

Known as the Electoral Fairness Act, the bill would reduce the number of signatures needed to retain a place on the ballot from 2 percent to 0.5 percent of the total votes in the gubernatorial and presidential races. Rep. Paul Miller, a Durham Democrat, introduced the bill, which must be approved by the Senate.

[Protagoras]

[frgoff]

If there were enough libertarians in the state to elect libertarian legislators, this wouldn't be an issue.

Instead of whining about how the government (sense the irony here) isn't helping Libertarians stay on the ballot, why don't the libertarians run some grass (pun intended) roots campaigning to boost their numbers in the state.

But then again, when all you do is smoke pot, it is hard to get motivated to do much more than reach for the bag of doritos.

[frgoff]

Get off it, dude. I'll, like, finish that web site after this toke, man. Lighten up. You are soooo stressed.

[frgoff]

Yeah. It's always easier to jump ship and wag your useless finger of moral superiority than to actually get your hands dirty trying to clean up the mess.

[frgoff]

Why should they have to?

Because the duly elected representatives of the people of the state said so. Next question? Or do you believe a court should overturn the will of the people in a matter of government?

[frgoff]

Thats exactly what it is about. Unconstitutional ballot laws that take away the rights of citizens to vote for who they want to vote for.

Wow. That's pretty horrible. If you write a name other than the authorized candidates on your ballot, the poll worker calls the police, tears up your ballot and hauls you off to jail?

[Protagoras]

Jump ship? What ship?

Dirty hands? You mean like trying to fix things? The mess that was caused by Democrats and Republicans? That mess? The one I have spent more time, money and effort than you possess to clean up in my lifetime?

[Protagoras]

You act like child. How old are you?

[TKDietz]

"Fer cryin' out loud, Libertarians. You're asking the court to do just what we've been blasting them for: legislate from the bench! Work to get the law changed by the legislature to be more reasonable if you don't like it. Don't go in asking a judge to ignore a properly enacted statute."

What a bunch of crap. If your party was in the same position you would want them to sue to stay on the ballot and you would also fight to change the law at the same time. You go to the court to have the state enjoined from keeping your party off the next ballot. At the same time you try to get the legislature to change the law so that you won't have that problem in the future. Either the Republican or Democrat party would do exactly the same thing. I don't blame the Libertarian party at all for seeking a remedy through the courts. The two major parties use the courts all the time.

It really isn't that big of a deal to make it a little easier for Libertarians to stay on the ballot. Hardly any of them are ever elected. But they are a real political party and there are enough that identify themselves as Libertarians that they should at least have the chance to be elected. This is a free country. I can remember what a big deal we thought it was as kids that in places like Russia you could vote for who ever you wanted to as long as it was the Communist Party candidate. We don't want to be like them. We should have an open system where everyone has a shot at being elected. I don't suppose there is anything wrong with trying to keep the ballots clear of "political parties" with that only have a few members, but we shouldn't be too restrictive and it seems too restrictive to me when you have thousands of party members in a small state and that party can't even have a candidate listed on the ballot. Aren't libertarians on the ballots in all forty-nine other states?

I'm not thrilled by the Libertarian party, but I wish we did have more than two viable political parties. Rhetoric aside, there really doesn't seem to be much difference in the way the two parties conduct business. A third party in the mix might stir things up and help keep the other two honest.

[TChris]

Either the Republican or Democrat party would do exactly the same thing. I don't blame the Libertarian party at all for seeking a remedy through the courts. The two major parties use the courts all the time.

That's a poor reason for using judges to effectively legislate new laws. Most Free Republic members rightfully decry the Supreme Court for doing just that. I don't know if you personally have taken a stand one way or another, but the practice is forbidden by the Constitution. Regardless of the perceived necessity of immediate relief, the judiciary is simply the wrong branch of government to be changing the law. They exist to interpret and apply law, not change and/or create it.

The Republican and Democrat parties have certainly done the same thing, and would do so again. Is that all the higher standards the Libertarian party has set for itself, to follow in the footsteps of the two parties it seeks to supplant?

[TKDietz]

"Because the duly elected representatives of the people of the state said so. Next question? Or do you believe a court should overturn the will of the people in a matter of government?"

Come on now. What you have here are legislators from two political parties that have a vested interest in keeping the competition out. You can say that laws passed by politicians in state capitals are the will of the people, but that's really an oversimplification of the reality of the matter and it's certainly not always true. And the real true fact of the matter is that the Democrat and Republican parties both will file suit at the drop of a hat if they feel the need to do so. Sometimes that's the only thing you can do. What normally is happening in that situation is that the party is seeking temporary relief in an emergency hearing. In this case there are probably elections coming up and the N.C. Libertarians don't want to be excluded from the ballot. I don't know the particulars but it might very well be that they don't have time to get the legislature to change the laws or to gather enough signatures to comply with the present law. I don't blame them for seeking a remedy from the courts.

[TKDietz]

"I don't know if you personally have taken a stand one way or another, but the practice is forbidden by the Constitution."

Hogwash. Show me where the Constitution says that laws can't be challenged in court.

[monday]

"Then work to get the statute changed legitimately! Don't pull a DemocRAT, demand-judicial-activism-for-my-cause stunt. It will only damage your credibility."

lol... You aren't really that dumb are you? How will voting for a Democrat or Republican ever change the statute. They are the ones who passed the unconstitutional statute in the first place. Oh, and speaking of credibility, since you are defending an unconstitutional statute, you have none.

[monday]

"Is it also un-Christian to disagree with you? "

No. It is unchristian for you to call libertarians 3rd or 4th class citizens like you did. You wouldn't like it if someone called you a 3rd class citizen.

[monday]

"If you write a name other than the authorized candidates on your ballot, the poll worker calls the police, tears up your ballot and hauls you off to jail?"

No, they just don't count your ballot. Don't be an idiot.

[LibertarianInExile]

ROFLMAO!

Do you do the comedy tour, or are you only here on FR? You're HILARIOUS!

At least I assume you're joking. 'Cause I've never heard that stuff from any libertarian, big or small L.

You folks slay me with your own little versions of the big lie. You must really be afraid of a little third party when you have to come up with this kind of crap.

[BibChr]

Um... see above, read more slowly. Perhaps the second time through you'll find that your interpretive error was explicitly explained.

Dan

[xzins]

If an election were required to put the name of every nutcase group that rose out of the muck on the ballot, the ballots would be books.

I don't, however, see anything wrong with requiring all candidates to come up with 75,000 signatures to get on the ballot. Require it of one, then require it of all.

Beyond that, the ballot should always have a write in section. If you can't get the signatures to get your name on the ballot, then there's still hope.

[Renderofveils]

"Get the signatures and there's no problem. 75,000 in a state of 8 million. Come on people."

The problem with this reasoning is that it is near impossible to get Libertarians any kind of press in the Old North State. Even so, Barbara Howe got twice as many votes as Badnarik got in the state during the last election. One wonders whether it was from her efforts to be included in the "open" gubernatorial debates (from which she was arrogantly excluded, simply because "There isn't enough interest in a third party at the debate.") It's a self-perpetuating problem.

Ask yourself, how many times on the national news did you hear about Badnarik getting arrested for serving the Commission of Presidential Debates an Order to Show Cause?

[MarkL]

Dear Libertarians,

It's become apparant that North Carolina doesn't want you there, so you should all move, and take your purchasing power and taxes with you.

After all, "no taxation without representation!"

Mark