Bob Barr wants McCain, Obama off Texas ballot

[Lord MJ]

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/st ... ab_newstab

Bob Barr wants McCain, Obama off Texas ballot
Libertarian Party nominee sues, saying they missed the filing deadline

By SCOTT SHEPARD

Cox News Service

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

WASHINGTON — Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr’s campaign filed suit Tuesday seeking to remove Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama from the ballot in Texas, alleging that the two major candidates missed the deadline for officially filing to be on the ballot.

The lawsuit by the former Republican congressman from Georgia claims that neither McCain nor Obama met the requirement of Texas law that all candidates provide “written certification” of their nomination “before 5 p.m. on the 70th day before election day,” because neither had been formally nominated by their respective parties in time. The suit was filed in the Texas Supreme Court in Austin.

That would have been Aug. 25. Obama did not accept his party’s nomination until Aug. 28, McCain his on Sept. 4.

“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.”

Pat Dixon, chairman of the Texas Libertarian Party, issued a statement saying, “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.”

Barr first raised the issue in a press release earlier this month. 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.”

Barr plans to hold a news conference at the Texas Supreme Court on Thursday.

So I guess if you have no chance at winning the election, grandstanding in the courts is the way to go!

[The Guid]

This is fine by me. Texas was always going to be a red state.

[General Zod]

So I guess if you have no chance at winning the election, grandstanding in the courts is the way to go!

The Democrats and Republicans have been doing things like this to keep Libertarians off the ballot for awhile now iirc. While I don't agree with Lolbertarian practices, I do find this rather hilarious. Especially when it's the Republicans that would really get fucked up the ass by this move.

[Ender]

Both sides have been manipulating district and county laws for decades to keep third parties too small to mount another option. Such file by restrictions have been part of their arsenal. If they missed the filing date, follow the law and punish them for it. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

I expect a judge will shoot it down by virtue of being in the parties back pockets. But hypothetically, how would this change the balance? TX not only won't go to either side, its EVs are effectively off the table, are they not?

I think we can agree that a ruling that put one party on the ballot, but not the other, is effectively out of the question.

[Dominus Atheos]

But hypothetically, how would this change the balance? TX not only won't go to either side, its EVs are effectively off the table, are they not?

I don't think it would be possible for McCain to get the 270 he would need to win. So either Obama wins or it goes to the House of Representatives.

[Rogue 9]

This is fine by me. Texas was always going to be a red state.

If it's true, I'm fine with it no matter what color the state was going to be; if they missed the deadline in California, for instance, they shouldn't be on that either. The law is the law, and the candidates shouldn't get to flaunt it just because they're from the major parties.

[Pablo Sanchez]

But hypothetically, how would this change the balance? TX not only won't go to either side, its EVs are effectively off the table, are they not?

I don't think it would be possible for McCain to get the 270 he would need to win. So either Obama wins or it goes to the House of Representatives.

That's right. Check out the Electoral-Vote map. McCain would have to keep every state currently in his column, pick up both Pennsylvania and Ohio, and then find some way to steal 13 electoral votes off of Obama, to get a win in the electoral college. Losing Texas to Barr would kill him. Of course, I believe the Texas GOP would still be entitled to organize a write-in campaign, which might still deliver the state given just how red it is, but it would distract attention and resources.

[Rogue 9]

That depends on state election law. I have no idea what Texas' relevant laws are, but in Kentucky write-in candidates have to be registered with the state by the same deadline as everyone else, I believe. In any case, if you write in someone who isn't on the list of approved write-ins, your vote is discounted.

[Stormbringer]

I'd dearly love to see this succeed. The election laws in America are a joke and badly need to be organized and standardized. The patchwork system we have in place is nothing less than fifty accidents waiting to happen. Having something like this happen to both major parties would be a great kick in the pants towards getting real, national election reform to happen.

I expect a judge will shoot it down by virtue of being in the parties back pockets. But hypothetically, how would this change the balance? TX not only won't go to either side, its EVs are effectively off the table, are they not?

It's electoral votes would still count as they're still in play. While third parties are mostly a joke, legally speaking Texas would still have it's electoral votes. The choices just would be strange.

[bilateralrope]

How hard would be this to prove either way ?

Just get hold of a copy of the forms both parties submitted and look at the dates on them.

I expect a judge will shoot it down by virtue of being in the parties back pockets. But hypothetically, how would this change the balance? TX not only won't go to either side, its EVs are effectively off the table, are they not?

It's electoral votes would still count as they're still in play. While third parties are mostly a joke, legally speaking Texas would still have it's electoral votes. The choices just would be strange.

Since the TX votes will not be going to Obama or McCain, that forces everyone there to chose between options that have no chance of getting in. Meaning the EVs from TX won't count.

So how can they be on the table when they won't determine the winner ?

[Patrick Degan]

How hard would be this to prove either way ?

Just get hold of a copy of the forms both parties submitted and look at the dates on them.

I expect a judge will shoot it down by virtue of being in the parties back pockets. But hypothetically, how would this change the balance? TX not only won't go to either side, its EVs are effectively off the table, are they not?

It's electoral votes would still count as they're still in play. While third parties are mostly a joke, legally speaking Texas would still have it's electoral votes. The choices just would be strange.

Since the TX votes will not be going to Obama or McCain, that forces everyone there to chose between options that have no chance of getting in. Meaning the EVs from TX won't count.

So how can they be on the table when they won't determine the winner ?

They are still on the table, constitutionally. Not having either major party candidate on the ballot in a state does not nullify its electoral votes.

[Dominus Atheos]

How hard would be this to prove either way ?

Just get hold of a copy of the forms both parties submitted and look at the dates on them.

Pretty much the only way this couldn't work is through (for lack of a better term) activist judges legislating from the bench.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Both sides have been manipulating district and county laws for decades to keep third parties too small to mount another option. Such file by restrictions have been part of their arsenal. If they missed the filing date, follow the law and punish them for it. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

I expect a judge will shoot it down by virtue of being in the parties back pockets. But hypothetically, how would this change the balance? TX not only won't go to either side, its EVs are effectively off the table, are they not?

I think we can agree that a ruling that put one party on the ballot, but not the other, is effectively out of the question.

It would be constitutionally permissable for the Texas State Legislature to simply reward its electoral votes to whomever it pleases, IE, McCain.

[Mayabird]

Dude, don't set up Lonestar's story! It's supposed to be fiction!

[Kanastrous]

Most likely the law will just be ignored, with some sort of cover along the lines of well you can't really expect us to enforce the law if it leads to something silly like the major candidates not being on the ballot.

Much as I wish it were going to be otherwise.

It doesn't seem as though there are many rules now, that can't be discarded because people with the power to do it, don't care for the implications of actually enforcing them.

[CmdrWilkens]

Actually reading the law so long as the electors have been duly nomnated the only thing that will happen is that McCain and Obama woudl not appear on the ballot. You coudl write them in and then the person with the largest write-in total (or any other candidate on the ballot with a full slate of electors) shall have their electors represent the state. I am rather assuming that the Democrat and Republican state chairs have already offered up full electroal slates. Now if they haven't and the only valid electoral slate is that of Barr (and maybe some other independent candidate) then even a write-in campaign would not be valid as there would be no electors available for that candidate and Barr would win Texas almost by default. When the electors would meet to cast their ballots in DC then the 34 votes would go to Barr and Obama or McCain would have to amass 270 elsewhere. If it goes to the House then each state votes as a single block rather than 1 vote per member so McCain's strength in the south and mid-west might give him enough states (I currently count 22 Obama states and 28 McCain states) however this takes palce AFTER the new House is sworn in so there are no garuntees that with a lot of democrats in some republican leaning states that they might not vote for Obama [The elector's ballots are counted on the 6th of January while the new House takes office on the 3rd].

[Sidewinder]

Today, I read an article on a California court throwing out the Libertarian Party's attempt to disqualify McCain as a candidate, on the account he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. As much as I hate McCain for voting against increasing military veterans' GI Bill benefits, actions as underhanded as this have earned more hatred.

Yes, I know it's unfair for the Democrats and Republicans to use legalese to prevent third parties from getting their candidates on the ballot, but that's no excuse for the third party to participate in the gang rape of voters' freedom of choice.

[General Zod]

Today, I read an article on a California court throwing out the Libertarian Party's attempt to disqualify McCain as a candidate, on the account he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. As much as I hate McCain for voting against increasing military veterans' GI Bill benefits, actions as underhanded as this have earned more hatred.

Yes, I know it's unfair for the Democrats and Republicans to use legalese to prevent third parties from getting their candidates on the ballot, but that's no excuse for the third party to participate in the gang rape of voters' freedom of choice.

The Republicans tried disqualifying Obama using these kinds of tactics as well, given the rather complicated nature of his childhood.

[Ted C]

But hypothetically, how would this change the balance? TX not only won't go to either side, its EVs are effectively off the table, are they not?

I don't think it would be possible for McCain to get the 270 he would need to win. So either Obama wins or it goes to the House of Representatives.

Don't be ridiculous. Even if this lawsuit succeeds, the Dems and Reps will just get their voters to write in the names of their candidates, which will easily be enough to beat Barr.

[General Zod]

Don't be ridiculous. Even if this lawsuit succeeds, the Dems and Reps will just get their voters to write in the names of their candidates, which will easily be enough to beat Barr.

Even if they do get people to write in instead, how many of them do you think really would? The voting populace can be pretty ignorant, and I can't help but imagine a sizable number scratching their heads, not knowing why their candidate's not on the ballot and then either simply not voting or voting third party.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Don't be ridiculous. Even if this lawsuit succeeds, the Dems and Reps will just get their voters to write in the names of their candidates, which will easily be enough to beat Barr.

Even if they do get people to write in instead, how many of them do you think really would? The voting populace can be pretty ignorant, and I can't help but imagine a sizable number scratching their heads, not knowing why their candidate's not on the ballot and then either simply not voting or voting third party.

Still, the Lolbertarian Party is small enough that even if you got, say, a mere 3% of voters to write in Republican or Democrat, McCain or Obama would still beat Barr, and would probably do so by an uncontestable, if not comfortable, margin. (Seriously, the Lolbertarians got no more than 0.5% of the vote in the last three presidential elections. Even if 2% of voters wrote in a Republican or Democrat, they'd still beat Barr.)

[Duckie]

Also that there would be a good chance of the electors just voting McCain and ignoring the popular vote, no?

[General Zod]

Still, the Lolbertarian Party is small enough that even if you got, say, a mere 3% of voters to write in Republican or Democrat, McCain or Obama would still beat Barr, and would probably do so by an uncontestable, if not comfortable, margin. (Seriously, the Lolbertarians got no more than 0.5% of the vote in the last three presidential elections. Even if 2% of voters wrote in a Republican or Democrat, they'd still beat Barr.)

Sure, but I'm more interested in how doing such a tactic would affect Obama vs McCain rather than either one vs the Lolbertarians. It would be amusing if it skewed percentages enough to turn Texas blue.

[RedImperator]

Also that there would be a good chance of the electors just voting McCain and ignoring the popular vote, no?

If by some miracle Barr won Texas, I think Hell would freeze over before they voted McCain. The Libertarian slate of electors would be composed of lolbertarian diehards who would rather see Obama win than sabotage the best Libertarian electoral college performance in history (they don't see a difference between McCain and Obama anyway).

[CmdrWilkens]

Moreover since the candidate is on the ballot as a representative of a pledged slate of electors then knocking that candidate off eliminates their slate of electors. With no pledged electors viable for Mccain or Obama it odesn't matter if they win a write-in contest because the only qualified candidates for elector will be Barr's slate. The state can direct them to vote for whomever wins the write-in campaign but even if Texas has laws to punish "unfaithful electors" (and I don't know if it does) as Red pointed out theese are guys who are gonna vote for barr regardless and Texas' 34 EVs will go to him because he is the only guy who can field a slate of electors.