Steve G.

LPNH lawsuit finally served

In George Phillies, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Politics, Presidential Candidates on October 6, 2008 at 1:14 pm

You can download the lawsuit for your own records here in PDF format: lpnh-lawsuit

Note that it was dated September 4th, over a month ago.  It is unknown why service of process was delayed for so long.

  1. Read it over. They have no case.

    There are four ways this could have worked:

    1. Barr petitions and gets on. This, as we know, is what happened.
    2. Barr petitions and is certified and is denied because Phillies got on first.
    3. Barr petitions and fails certification.
    4. Barr does not petition and relies on Phillies certification for substitution.

    Working backwards:

    4. Had this happened, a judge simply asks Barr why he did not do his own petition, and could dismiss the case based on the fact that he didn’t do the work to get on when he could have. But this is not what happened, so it’s a moot point.
    3. Second-strongest case for substitution, but it didn’t happen either.
    2. The strongest case and one that should have been argued, but this was sidestepped by the SoS following the law and putting him on.
    1. This did happen, and he made the ballot, so he cannot call to be substituted for Phillies on the ballot since he is on there already!

    Furthermore, the two LPNH plaintiffs Kelly and Macia cannot claim any due process violation or free association infringement because the completely possess the ability to campaign and vote for their chosen candidate in Barr.

    Substitution is replacing one candidate on the ballot with another who is not. Substitution is NOT removing a candidate from the ballot when the other is on as well.

    Had the suit been filed to remove Phillies because he was not the nominated candidate, then there’s a case. That is not the case here.

    The case should be dismissed.

  2. It’s partly a case about name protection. The Colorado Libertarian Party won a lawsuit in 1984 in US District Court, and in the 10th circuit, against Colorado, because Colorado didn’t give the Libertarian Party any ability to protect its name. And that was in the context that there was no instance at which the party had a concrete problem. The case is Baer v Meyer.

  3. Except that’s not what they are suing over, Richard. They are suing over substituting a name where there is no substitution to be had, since the name that is requested to be substituted (Barr) is ALREADY on the ballot!

    Furthermore, there is no issue of name protection here. If anything, because there are TWO candidates on the ballot, it is name enhancement that is going on here.

  4. If you read the Colorado case I tried to describe, you will understand it. I’m not trying to be “know-it-all”. Try googling Baer v Meyer, 728 F. 2d 471. If that doesn’t work, it’s in any law library.

  5. Furthermore, there is no issue of name protection here. If anything, because there are TWO candidates on the ballot, it is name enhancement that is going on here.

    Right. That’s why companies just love it when people sell stuff using their name. It’s great for advertising!

  6. Worth pointing out that there is no “Name Protection” issue involved… LPNH is the entity that controls the “Libertarian” name in NH, and George is the official nominee of the LPNH, as chosen in their state convention.

    If anyone is trespassing on the name, it is those interlopers from LNC and that Republican looser Barr….

    ART

  7. Susan, this case is simply one of two salesmen working for the same company, and one is unhappy that the other was working the sales territory first when both can be there.

    Finally found the case Richard refers to. Found it at http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/728/471/57392/ since Findlaw and the 10th websites didn’t have it.

    The holdings of the court were specifically that the Libertarian name be placed on Colorado voter registration forms (a practice NOT in play as of 11-03, the last time I saw one, BTW), that there is no requirement to allow minor party poll watchers, and that a “political organization” is entitled to the same “name protection” as a “political party” under Colorado’s definitions of both.

    NONE of that has anything to do with having two duly nominated candidates for the same office by the same political party on a state ballot at the same time.

  8. The NH case complaint could still be amended, since the state apparently hasn’t answered it yet. That means other issues could be added: name protection, and the right for voters to register as members of the Libertarian Party even if it isn’t a qualified party. Name protection is already implicitly in the case.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: