Barr Files Suit To Remove Obama And McCain From Texas Ballot

Austin American Statesman ^ | 9/16/08 | scott shepard

[pissant]

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.

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

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.”

[editor-surveyor]

Barr is one of the “enforce the existing unconstitutional laws” jerks.

The NRA is self promoting, and if you have been paying attention, has had nothing to do with recent gun rights victories. They tried to stop the DC case. They also take the elitist position. GOA works.

[MrEdd]

It is sad to see so many here at FR taking the totally assanine tack of whining about the Barr suit as if it were Barr, and not the Texas legislature who created this state of affairs.

The Republican and Democrat parties also had every chance to file suit against the Texas law earlier but didn't bother. That would make it appear they were okay with it - or planned to try to use it to their advantage. The law was not passed in some secret session, do not pretend that the major parties didn't know.

Is Barr taking unfair advantage? Maybe. But is he a Catamite or any of the other disparaging DU - type invectives being hurled at him on this thread for doing so?
- Less than those making the statements. I expect few of you will own up for your behavior.

You both have and deserve my contempt.

[paudio]

Do they really believe that libertarian-minded independents, Democrats, or Republicans, will be more likely to vote for Barr by doing this?

[paudio]

but barr does have a point with this, if its true. There’s deadline laws, one shouldn’t think it doesn’t apply to you

See post # 36.

[paudio]

but barr does have a point with this, if its true. There’s deadline laws, one shouldn’t think it doesn’t apply to you

See post # 36.

[higgmeister]

I would like to refer you to posts 3 and 16

For many years the Libertarian Party has exhausted its meager resources and time to change unfair ballot access laws across the country in order to obtain fair treatment in the voting booth.

It is the ultimate hypocrisy to now use those same laws to deny voters a choice in Texas.

[higgmeister]

NOTA takes on new meaning!

[higgmeister]

From the 2008 Libertarian Party Platform!

3.6    Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels.  As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. 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. (my emphasis)

http://www.lp.org/platform

The supposed "Party of Principle!"

[montag813]

Bob Barr is a piece of excrement. Republicans should pelt him with tomatoes wherever he shows his stupid face.

[Vigilanteman]

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.

Actually, if this is what the law says, Bob Barr is right. Third parties have been blocked for being on state ballots for more trivial reasons.

However, I think there are three possible answers to this suit:

1. Write-in campaign. More Texas Conservatives can spell McCain than Jackass Lieberals can spell Obama.
   
2. The candidates for office really aren't McCain, Obama and Barr anyway. They are a slate of electors.
   
3. Texas could propose a settlement whereby Barr drops the suit and the state agrees to make ballot requirements for third parties uniform with those of major parties. This would be a fair solution.

[bamahead]

This election is getting utterly surreal...



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!

[skr]

Texas doesn’t allow write-ins?

[elkfersupper]

Fabulous.

We can't afford either one of these candidates to succeed.

[ken21]

that’s a nice pic!

[skr]

Meant to add, electoral delegates wouldn’t be allowed to vote? Wouldn’t the Texas delegates have a clue as to whom the people wanted?

[editor-surveyor]

.
I will gladly wear your contempt as a badge of honor.
.

[ken21]

yes!

[kabar]

LOL. Barr just seeking some publicity for his non-existent campaign. Sure, Bob, Texas is going to remove the two major candidates for the Presidency from the ballot on a technicality thereby depriving the voters of the second most populous state in the country of a choice of either McCain or Obama.

[bamahead]

thanks!

[eaglewing20]

Bob Barr would be right IF the candidates were not part of the big 2 parties. The section of the law that the Barr campaign is referencing is specific:

§ 192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE'S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT. 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:

(1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;

(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; and

(B) the names and residence addresses of presidential elector candidates nominated by the party, in a number equal to the number of presidential electors that federal law allocates to this state; and

(3) the party is:

(A) required or authorized by Subchapter A of Chapter 172 to make its nominations by primary election; or

(B) entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot under Chapter 181.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 864, § 203, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1109, § 21, eff. September 1, 2005.



And here's Section 181.005:

§ 181.005. QUALIFYING FOR PLACEMENT ON BALLOT BY PARTY REQUIRED TO NOMINATE BY CONVENTION. (a) To be entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot, a political party required to make nominations by convention must file with the secretary of state, not later than the 75th day after the date of the precinct conventions held under this chapter, lists of precinct convention participants indicating that the number of participants equals at least one percent of the total number of votes received by all candidates for governor in the most recent gubernatorial general election. The lists must include each participant's residence address and voter registration number.

(b) A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the ballot, without qualifying under Subsection (a), in each subsequent general election following a general election in which the party had a nominee for a statewide office who received a number of votes equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes received by all candidates for that office.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 472, § 48, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

Further, Section 181.068 states:

§ 181.068. PARTY'S CERTIFICATION OF NOMINEES. (a) The presiding officer of each convention held under this chapter shall certify in writing for placement on the general election ballot the name and address of each candidate nominated by the convention.

(b) Not later than the 20th day after the date of the convention making the nomination, the presiding officer shall deliver the certification to:

(1) the authority responsible for having the official general election ballot prepared in the county, for certification of a county or precinct office; or

(2) the secretary of state, for certification of a statewide or district office.

(c) A presiding officer may not certify a candidate's name if, before delivering the certification, the presiding officer learns that the name is to be omitted from the ballot under Section 145.035.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.