Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Barr, Libertarians lose Texas ballot fight
Legal Newsline ^ | 9/23/08

Posted on 09/23/2008 1:39:55 PM PDT by jasonmyos

AUSTIN, Texas (Legal Newsline)-The Texas Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a petition to remove the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees from the statewide ballot.

Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party of Texas argued that Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama and Republican nominee John McCain should not be on the ballot because their respective parties failed to file with the state by Aug. 26.

The high court denied the petition without offering explanation.

(Excerpt) Read more at legalnewsline.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: barr; electionpresident; judiciary; libertarian; mccainpalin; texas; thirdparty

1 posted on 09/23/2008 1:39:55 PM PDT by jasonmyos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jasonmyos
"without offering explanation" Politics as usual, mot on the merits or the statute.
2 posted on 09/23/2008 1:44:10 PM PDT by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jasonmyos

When is the Libertarian party going to learn that the law doesn’t apply to the Republicrats? They will always get away with any violation of the election laws in any state because they run the states.


3 posted on 09/23/2008 1:45:43 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

When are third party nut jobs going to learn you can’t use archaic laws to disenfranchise Texans. All of them.

Take the 9/11 is an inside job nonsense to a forum that gives a damn.


4 posted on 09/23/2008 1:51:03 PM PDT by Reaganez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jasonmyos

Barr can’t win on his own so he resorts to legal tricks to take the cheap way out. aint gonna fly


5 posted on 09/23/2008 1:53:27 PM PDT by ari-freedom (We never hide from history. We make history!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
When is the Libertarian party going to learn that the law doesn’t apply to the Republicrats? They will always get away with any violation of the election laws in any state because they run the states.

Did you read the article? Let me help you by underling it. Are you ready?

"argued that Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama and Republican nominee John McCain should not be on the ballot"

Were you able to read it?

6 posted on 09/23/2008 1:57:09 PM PDT by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
Were you able to read it?

Did you actually read my post?

7 posted on 09/23/2008 2:12:11 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Barr is an idiot. The DNC + GOP DID file the proper paperwork. If you reply with any snarky, I will dispatch a black helicopter to pick you up and transport you to a re-education kamp.


8 posted on 09/23/2008 2:13:42 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
Barr can’t win on his own so he resorts to legal tricks to take the cheap way out.

So trying to enforce the law is a legal trick? Whenever the Republicrats miss some legal deadline it's always "Don't worry, you'll be on the ballot." But the states are very good at enforcing the election laws to keep the minor parties off the ballots. Was it Kerry or Gore who had his people all over the states trying to find anything in the laws to keep Nader off the ballots? IIRC, they succeeded in a couple places. Yet the same doesn't apply to the Republicrats, they're guaranteed a place on the ballot no matter what.

9 posted on 09/23/2008 2:16:11 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
Barr is an idiot.

You'll get no disagreement from me there. I can't stand him. But individuals are irrelevant when talking about principle.

The DNC + GOP DID file the proper paperwork

They filed something, but they had yet to nominate their candidates at the time and the law requires they file the candidates names. Meanwhile, over in LA and MA, the Libertarians had to go to court just to be on the ballot. There's one election system for the Republicrats, another for the rest of the parties.

10 posted on 09/23/2008 2:28:46 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jasonmyos
Obama became the nominee on 28 August, McCain on 4 September. They weren't their parties candidates on 25 August yet. But -

Ashley Burton, a spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State’s office, responded at that time, saying, “Both parties made filings with our office before the deadline, supplemented their filings and will be on the November ballot.” SOURCE.

That, I would guess, is why the suit was thrown out.

11 posted on 09/23/2008 2:36:53 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jasonmyos

You only have to obey the filing rules if you are of a 3rd party. The Repubs and Rats get a free pass to do as they wish.

Here in Arkansas - to get on the ballot as a 3rd party, you have to get petitions signed by a large number of registered voters and pay a relatively large fee to get on the ballot. No petition required for Dems and Repubs...


12 posted on 09/23/2008 2:47:10 PM PDT by TheBattman (A vote for the "lesser evil" is still a vote for evil!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Both the Dems and GOP filed before the 08/26 deadline.

Think of it as layaway - you put money down to hold an item, then you pay for it and pick it up later. That's similar to what the two parties did in TX.

13 posted on 09/23/2008 3:26:17 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas
I love how so many people think that this action by the LP was a cheap shot using technicalities and archaic laws. So why is this not so when they are used to keep the LP off of the ballots in the states every election? I guarantee that the LP could not have filed without candidates names, as the Republicrats did, and get away with it. They would simply not have been on the ballot, and any appeal against that would have been just as quickly thrown out as this was.

The law clearly states that the parties have to file their candidates names by that date, and The Party(tm) did not do it. Fact. They should not be on the ballot, and their inclusion is clearly illegal. Of course, it is also clear that these laws only apply to those not registered with The Party(tm).

14 posted on 09/23/2008 3:33:13 PM PDT by cothrige (Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, ni si me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Both the Dems and GOP filed before the 08/26 deadline.

No, actually, they did not. This is clear from the words in the law itself:

“A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president placed on the ballot if before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party’s state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of the name’s of the party’s nominees for president and vice-president.”

Notice, it says "the names of its nominees" and the Republicrats did not do this. It did not say file your party, and then give names later. It said names. And we know that the names were not given since they had no nominees yet.

15 posted on 09/23/2008 3:36:53 PM PDT by cothrige (Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, ni si me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Both the Dems and GOP filed before the 08/26 deadline.

Do you think for a moment that if the Libertarian Party had filed and said "We'll fill in the blanks for the candidates later" that they would have a place on the ballot? Not a chance. The appropriate part of the election code:

§ 192.031. ... A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:
...(2) before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party's state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of:
(A) the names of the party's nominees for president and vice-president

The must provide the names by the deadline, not just file some paperwork. So either the conventions were a sham and the parties had already certified their candidates in Texas, or the Republicrats did not meet the qualifications to have their candidates on the Texas ballot.

I can see why the Texas Supreme Court denied the suit without comment, because otherwise they'd have to explain allowing such a violation of the election laws.

16 posted on 09/23/2008 4:01:37 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
That, I would guess, is why the suit was thrown out.

I would like to see where the law allows for amended filings. Oops, it doesn't. It requires the names to be certified up front, no wiggle room.

17 posted on 09/23/2008 4:05:26 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

The Texas Attorney General seems to disagree with you. And so did the judge.


18 posted on 09/23/2008 4:19:26 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jasonmyos

Both McCain and Obama got on the ballot legally.
No. I will not elaborate.


19 posted on 09/23/2008 5:17:07 PM PDT by Verbosus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
The Texas Attorney General seems to disagree with you. And so did the judge.

The Texas attorney general and all the court justices are, oh what a coincidence, Republicans. Like I said, the Republicrats run the states, so of course the laws won't have to apply to the Republicrat party. But they're sure strictly enforced against all other parties.

20 posted on 09/23/2008 7:22:42 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

They weren’t enforced against the Democrats, were they?


21 posted on 09/23/2008 7:25:58 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
They weren’t enforced against the Democrats, were they?

Of course not. While the parties like to fight over the stuff that doesn't matter, like national security and other inconsequentials, they always present a united front when it comes to what really matters, them remaining in power.

But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party ...

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

George Washington, 1796. I swear that man could see into the future.
22 posted on 09/23/2008 7:40:46 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

I don’t even think Barr is a US citizen......:)


23 posted on 09/24/2008 3:26:56 AM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cherry

Barr was born on November 5, 1948, in Iowa City, Iowa to Bob and Beatrice Barr. His father, a West Point soldier, moved the family to various locations around the world while pursing his career in civil engineering. The second of six children, Bob Jr. spent his boyhood in Malaysia, Pakistan, Panama, and finally Tehran, Iran where he graduated from Community High School in 1966

the right wing Obama?


24 posted on 09/24/2008 3:30:52 AM PDT by ari-freedom (We never hide from history. We make history!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
>> Do you think for a moment that if the Libertarian Party had filed and said "We'll fill in the blanks for the candidates later" that they would have a place on the ballot? <<

Worked for the Consitution Party in Illinois.

25 posted on 09/27/2008 2:47:47 AM PDT by BillyBoy (Operation Chaos - Phase 1: Hillary Phase 2: Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson