Steve G.

Bob Barr loses Texas lawsuit to knock McCain, Obama off the ballot

In Barack Obama, Courts and Justice System, Democrats, John McCain, Law, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Republican on September 23, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Posted at Bob Barr blog

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled against us:

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.

Mr. Barr, a former GOP congressman from Georgia, had argued in legal briefs that both major parties had busted the state’s Aug. 26 deadline for certifying their presidential candidates as they would appear on the Texas ballot. Neither McCain nor Obama had been officially nominated by their party conventions by the deadline. And Sarah Palin hadn’t even been added to the GOP ticket.
But the Democratic and Republican state parties had filed official documents with the Secretary of State stating their presumed presidential candidates. The Democrats threw in Joe Biden’s name and the Republicans said they would report back with the name of their vice presidential contender, which they did.

Apparently, the Supreme Court felt that was sufficient, especially in light of the catastrophic alientation of voters if neither of the major party candidates could appear on the November ballot.

No one cares about alienation of voters when it is a Libertarian Party candidate who is kept off the ballot due to restrictive ballot access laws authored by Republicans and Democrats.

I will have a copy of the decision shortly.

  1. Did anyone think that the emperor would allow this anyway?

  2. It is possible the opinion itself won’t be released for weeks, or even months. State Supreme Courts do that sometimes. They issue a one-sentence order but they don’t explain why for quite a long time afterwards. It is even conceivable they may never issue an opinion.

  3. So, was that money well spent by the LP on behalf of Barr?

  4. “Catastrophic alienation of voters”…hmm, it’s evidently only a catastrophe if it happens to millions. If it’s something like, oh, Ken Blackwell invalidating a LP petition on a technicality, the alienation of THOSE voters doesn’t really matter.

  5. The Barr campaign was 100% right, but it was 100% obvious that the courts would rule in favor of the big parties. A nice publicity gambit on Barr’s part, but I hope they didn’t really think they would win.

  6. 5 Peter Orvetti

    but I hope they didn’t really think they would win.

    But they’ll whine about it, just as they’ll whine about rulings AGAINST the Barr campaign for being late themselves. They want to have their cake and eat it.

    BTW, I don’t support, in any way shape or form, ballot access barriers.

  7. Nice “Night of the Living Dead” photo of Barr. LOL

  8. It was from an Atlanta paper that profiled Barr recently.

  9. Weren’t we originally told that neither the GOP or Dems filed any names at all by the deadline? Now we are told they filed for Obama and McCain and substituted the veep names.
    The former should be actionable, the latter is just pissing in the wind.

  10. Not surprising of a ruling. Pathetic, yes, but not surprising.

    But as much as a putz as Barr is, fair credit for trying.

  11. I hope he issues a PR blasting the TX Supremes for their lack of explanation and inability to follow the law they are suppsoed to uphold…

    But I’m not counting on it.

  12. Mr Seebeck . . . for Texas, just like in Massachusetts, the “public interest” trumps law. It matters not at all what law is, just what the public wants. Still think we don’t live in a “democracy”?

    BTW, the ballot access laws are quite unjust, but then, I think they all are.

  13. Funny, I thought law and order *were* the public interest…

    I guess it’s Animal Rarm Rules on this one.

    And quit calling me Mister: I work for a living, and my old man is still alive! LOL! 🙂

  14. But I agree conpletely about the ballot access laws.

    If I had my way, primaries and caucuses wouldn’t exist and all candidates are nominated at privately-funded conventions and guaranteed a ballot slot in the general election, and write-ins would only have to pay a small filing fee (<$100).

    But that would make sense, so it’ll never happen.

  15. This suit should have never been filed under the Libertarian Party’s name. The LP has now become a political party that has supported restricting open ballot access. They have attempted to leverage laws they are officially opposed to for anti-libertarian principles.

    The good fight would have been seeking to invalidate the ballot access laws of Texas, because they are inequitably applied, instead of trying to coerce tyrannical laws upon the majority.

  16. pdsa, you could make that argument.

    But the better argument is “What’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander.”

  17. Michael Seebeck – then you support a pâté de foie gras citizenry?

  18. pdsa, what does citizenry have to do with it?

    I don’t eat liver or goose. I find the former disgusting and the latter too greasy. I prefer BBQ chicken, salmon teryaki, and chile colorado If I can get away with it, but Lid makes an awesome chicken risotto.

    Organs as food to me is revolting, which why I’ll never have haggis, either. 😦

    But Asimov’s goose would make a helluva pet, I will admit.

  19. PDSA:

    The lawsuit would have either upheld the unjust law (by granting the writ), which we could all hope would be changed in the next regular session of the legislature- or the SCoTX would issue a ruling condemning the silly law in the first place. That was the hope, I believe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: