Barr Sues Over McCain's, Obama's Presence on Texas Ballot

corbettw writes "Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's nominee for president, has filed a lawsuit in Texas demanding Senators John McCain and Barack Obama be removed from the ballot after they missed the official filing deadline."

Comments

I hope they're removed,

[Antony-Kyre]

but I hope they are allowed to run as write-in. Assuming the summary is true.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[bsDaemon]

If his case is valid, you'll see some true bi-partisan cooperation in Austin as they speedily pass a repeal of the relevant section of the state code.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Antony-Kyre]

You know what we need? A federal law mandating that the top six political parties automatically get on the ballot for the Presidential election. The top six would be determined by the top six vote getters, nationally, as of the previous presidential election. This would ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again, but would significantly help third party candidates.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[MrCreosote]

Or maybe something crazy like, oh... lets see... one set of laws that covers how federal elections should be run, maybe passed at a federal level. You know, like other civilised countries have.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Anonymous Coward]

They've also missed the deadline for running as write-ins. They should rightfully face the same penalties Barr would have to if he made the same mistakes.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[QuickSilver_999]

(with Virginia and Connecticut being Commonwealths in and of themselves).

I'm hurt... Don't forget us in PA too! And for that matter KY. :)

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mi]

one set of laws that covers how federal elections should be run

That would require an Amendment to the Constitution. For no good reason.

maybe passed at a federal level. You know, like other civilised countries have.

Few other countries (civilized or otherwise) are as big as to be a Union of states.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Russ Nelson]

The rule of law would be nice, wouldn't it?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Workaphobia]

I'd settle for a voting system that isn't as mathematically flawed as multiple-candidate-single-vote/majority-required.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mrchaotica]

But the states elect the president of the union, not the people.

Indeed: the real problem is that the states are letting the people choose the electors, when it ought to be the state legislature doing it!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Hal_Porter]

If America were interested in civilization, we'd be a Commonwealth State and not the United States (with Virginia and Connecticut being Commonwealths in and of themselves).

You could join the Commonwealth if you wanted. Find some English expat, have him swear and Oath of Fealty to HRH Queen Elizabeth II and then you can all sign an Oath of Fealty to him. All land will be collective and as serfs you will be expected to work for the collective six days per week.

I'd be willing to come over and act as Lord, once we can get details like droit de seigneur sorted out.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mrsteveman1]

Don't forget the KY? Just what are you planning here, exactly?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Toonol]

There is one set of laws that cover federal presidential elections. That governs the electoral college. All this voting you do in November is not federal, it's to pick your state's representatives to the real voting, done the second week in December. States are free to use whatever method they wish (well, not totally free). It's interesting how many people misunderstand how our elections work. There is not, never has been, a national vote on anything in the United States.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[OrangeTide]

Well we (Americans) lost our own Civil War. The repercussions have rung through the last century plus. The federal government was not meant to be a massive overriding force in our lives. States were supposed to govern their own borders and the Constitution was there to limit a few things that states could not govern (like trade between states, or basic rights).

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Xonstantine]

I fail to see really how the failures of 2000 were "catastrophic" in any sense of the word. Nobody died, the government didn't shut down, and there was a peaceful succession of power.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

States were supposed to govern their own borders and the Constitution was there to limit a few things that states could not govern (like trade between states, or basic rights).

That's why you had a civil war. People in the southern states were keeping slaves. Now if you'd like to make some big spiel about how the Union winning the civil war lead to negative repercussions for your state's rights, then I'm simply going to point out that the previous system was far, far worse. It allowed slavery. Yes it did. So arguing for states rights to be reinstated in order to protect people's rights is not really a solid argument.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jandersen]

I don't know that it is fair to call it a loss. I realize that it is always annoying and inconvenient to have to accomodate the needs of others in the name of cooperation, but this is very much in the future of the world; it has to be if we are to not just survive, but create a great future. With the internet, globalisation, international travel etc, there are simply too many issues that can only be tackled by international cooperation. We are slowly approaching a situation where the idea of an actual international government becomes the natural thing.

Both the EU and the US are examples that this can actually be done. There is a lot of room for improvement, of course, but I'm confident that we will get there.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mpe]

Well we (Americans) lost our own Civil War.

Can a civil war end in any other way?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[allanc]

Participation in the United States political process.

We're gonna need it.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like that, amend the constitution or move.

STFU. Since *I* don't like it, I'll keep right on making noise about it until it is changed. I cannot amend the constitution alone and I damn sure am not going to move because some asshole has the kneejerk reaction of a child.

"Or move." What a crock of shit that tired line is.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[electrictroy]

Actually the Civil War is not the main cause of today's over-reaching Congress. The "Commerce clause" and the U.S. Supreme Court is the main problem. The U.S.S.C. has interpreted the commerce clause in such a way that Congress can now regulate almost anything it wants. That happened during the Depression (1930-40s), and the decision allows Congress to tell you how much wheat you can or cannot grow in your own backyard. Clearly this was not what the Framers intended when they gave the U.S. the power to regulate interstate commerce. What I grow in my backyard is INTRAstate commerce and should not involve Congress at all. It should be the Pennsylvania government that regulates that.

It would be roughly equivalent to the European Parliament telling British citizens how much food they can grow for their own personal consumption. Clearly that's not part of the EU's mandate, and it's not part of the U.S.' constitution either.

Stupid, stupid supreme court justices.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Sique]

But also with range voting you can get a less popular candidate winning. If he has not many but loyal followers who give him a 9 and 0 to everyone else, and the other candidate has many more followers, but they will give him 7s and 8s, and 2s and 3s to the other, then in the end the candidate the majority disappoves still manages to win. The disparity can get worse if there are more than two candidates running.

Lets assume 30 voters for three candidates.

A gets 9 from his 10 supporters, who give 0 to all other candidates.
B gets 7 from his 10 supporters, but they give 2 to all other candidates.
C gets 7 from his 10 supporters, who give 4 to B and only 1 to A.

So A is heavily unpopular with everyone exept his own supports, and he gets 120 votes. B is popular with his own supporters, but also the fans of C will agree with him. He gehts 110 votes. C is definitely unpopular, but the supportes of B would rather have him than A.

But still A wins.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[z80kid]

> It allowed slavery. Yes it did.

That's ridiculous.

Both systems allowed for slavery. It doesn't take a change in the type of government to prohibit slavery. It just takes the willingness of those in power to prohibit it.

Slavery ended with the passing of the 13th amendment after the war. Until then, it was still legal in the North wherever individual states or territories didn't prohibit it. Thanks to our lousy government run education, everyone thinks Lincoln abolished slavery with his "Emancipation Proclamation". Read it. It allowed slavery in the north.

It's amazing how our government has managed to whitewash history to make it look like hundreds of thousands of chivalrous northern soldiers fought and died to free the black man. Yet if you look at the way blacks were treated in the north before and after the war, you'd quickly realize that these northerners were hardly willing to die for the rights of blacks. But the whole "free the slaves" cover is great for whipping up patriotism while covering the real reason for the war - a federal power grab by wealthy interests.

Face it. If the northerners really believed in equality and rights strongly enough to fight for them, we wouldn't have had another century of segregation in both the north and the south followed by race riots all over the north in the 60's.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[hey!]

If neither candidate can run on the ballot OR as a write in, that would almost certainly precipitate a nationwide constitutional crisis.

To win the Presidency in a one on one race, a candidate needs to get 270 electoral votes, because there are a total of 538 votes in the Electoral College. Texas has the 34 electoral votes, meaning that if the electors from Texas were barred from voting for either candidate, Obama would almost certainly win a plurality.

Except -- the electors aren'tspecifically bound by the constitution to vote for anybody. Theoretically an elector, while elected standing for candidate A, can change his mind and vote for B. About half the states have laws which punish "faithless electors", although the constitutionality of these laws have never been tested. It's doubtful that they are constitutional.

If Obama wins 270 electoral votes, it won't matter. But if he wins 235 electoral votes it won't matter (because McCain will have 370), although that is unlikely in the extreme.

If we have anything in between, we have a constitutional crisis. What would be clear is that had the will of Texans been honored according to how the system was supposed to work, then McCain should have won. If some TX electors acting on this theory votes for him, then he will win, but the legitimacy of this win will be questioned by around half of Americans who voted for Obama -- possibly more than half if Obama wins the popular vote. If not enough TX electors vote for McCain to put him over the top, the people who voted for McCain will not recognize the legitimacy of the elections. If each candidate gets exactly 252 votes (I haven't checked whether this is possible mathematically), then the election goes to the House, which will give the Presidency to Obama.

In any case, in any of these crisis scenarios, the reasonable outcome would be for McCain to get the presidency, because that reflects the will of the peoples as it would have resulted had the proper procedures been followed. But no matter who wins the presidency, the presidency would be deeply weakened -- a happy result for the Libertarians, but potentially disastrous for the country as we navigate some pretty rough waters ahead with a president distracted by legitimacy questions.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[nahdude812]

Not at a state level, only on an individual level (this was one of the original mandates of the federal government, specifically to prevent trade embargoes between states). You'd easily end up with individuals willing to trade in slave-produced goods from the south, and with less competition in the market (and higher demand for those products as a result of other people being unwilling to trade in it), such individuals would profit substantially.

Even if no such individuals already existed in those states (presuming all citizens of the northern states were of like mind), southerners would have readily traveled north and taken on the role.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[swillden]

Weren't the northern states, in the old system, capable of declining trade with slave-enabling states?

No. Regulation of interstate commerce is a federal, not a state prerogative. Under the Constitution, states are not allowed to impose embargoes, tariffs, or other trade restrictions on their neighbors. Individuals in the north could have chosen not to trade with the south, but that wouldn't work.

However, slavery wasn't really the reason the southern states seceded, any more than taxes were the reason for the Revolution. In both cases, the reasons were complex and deep, and had as much to do with people feeling like they didn't really belong as any specific concerns. As another poster pointed out, several northern states allowed slavery throughout the Civil War, and that wasn't changed until well after the war was over.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jonadab]

> That's why you had a civil war. People in the southern states were keeping slaves.

While the issue of slavery was a big issue, and was resolved because of the war, the war did not happen because of slavery. The US civil war was inevitable by the end of the revolution.

Okay, it's true that the "trigger issue" that set the thing off was the secession of South Carolina, and the main excuse for said secession was the slavery issue. But this only *caused* the war in the same sense that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand caused the Great War. It's what set the thing going, yes, but if it had not done so, something else would have come along and set it going at some point, probably sooner rather than later.

The real major driving issue behind the civil war was the strong correlation between geography, economy, and politics. You could get out a map and pretty much draw a line between the conservative, rural areas with a simple, primary (and to a large extent agrarian) economy, and on the other side of the line the liberal areas, with higher population density and a more complex (and more modern) economy. The south wanted protectionism. The north wanted a more laissez faire, free-market approach to economic issues. The south was mostly anti-federalist, believing strongly in reserving as many powers as possible to the states and the people, limiting the power of the federal government to the absolute minimum. The north mostly was largely federalist. The southern economy relied heavily on slavery; the northern states didn't even allow it. And so on and so forth.

A lot of people think Lincoln wanted to end slavery, and that's why the south seceded. In fact, he had no such intention. He opposed the unchecked *spread* of slavery to more and more states and territories, but he had no plans to suddenly put an immediate end to it in the south. That's the way things played out, but it wasn't what he had in mind before the war. South Carolina opposed Lincoln and seceded when he was elected for complex reasons, and his position on slavery was just one of several things they hated about the man. It was an excuse, and a rallying cry for other states, but the states-rights issue (i.e., antifederalism) was *also* an excuse and a rallying cry.

South Carolina seceded to prove that the state could do that, that the union with the rest of the country was strictly voluntary on the part of the state, and that the majority of the other states could *not* get together and decide things for them at a federal level. Slavery was *one* of the things they didn't want the federal government deciding for them. Tariffs were another. But the main thing is that the state government of South Carolina felt too much of their authority was being usurped. To them, Washington was the next London. The North didn't agree, because as far as they were concerned the south had full representation. South Carolina had as many US Senators as any other state, and Representatives proportional to their population, and so on and so forth, the same as any other state in the union.

As I said, slavery was a major issue, both in contributing to the war and in being resolved by the war. (The protectionism issue, in contrast, was not resolved until much later, if indeed it has been fully resolved, and there's some question about that.) But it was not, by itself, the cause of the war, nor was it the main thing the war was ultimately about.

And actually, the slavery issue might not have been as completely resolved by the war if Lincoln had not been assassinated. His plan for reconstruction did not include immediate abolition. He wanted to bar the major Confederate ringleaders from holding future political office and then let the southern states back into the union almost immediately, with the understanding that the issue of secession had been decided and it was not permitted. But Johnson wasn't able to make it work that way.

Incidentally, the GOP was the liberal party at the time, and the Dems were the conservatives. The history of how that got turned around is interesting in its own right.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Skjellifetti]

I would argue that it is completely revisionist to claim that the war was not about freeing the slaves. I suspect that this revisionism has its roots in modern Southern politicians and historians who are embarrassed by The Peculiar Institution and want to claim some other more noble sounding reason for starting the War of the Southern Rebellion. One has only to look at the reaction in the North to John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry to see that a major confrontation was brewing over the issue although Lincoln, ever the politician, later tried to spin the cause of the war as "we were just trying to restrict it's growth." The usual reason given for why the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the border states that allowed slavery was that Lincoln could not afford to alienate them too much since they might also choose to secede.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, Saturday, March 4, 1865

Re:I hope they're removed,

[MindlessAutomata]

I don't think you quite understand the point of the electoral college. It wasn't to make some people's votes be worth more than others; the founders had a more state-centered view of the matter, as back then being a state meant a lot more than it does now.

Rather than remove the electoral college to keep in line with modern encroachments on the constitution, why not go back to the state-centered approach instead of the large-central-government one? It would mean that the feds couldn't try to override local marijuana laws and stick sick people in jail, for one thing.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[chuck]

And today we get yet another lesson on why the electoral college is useless and outdated. How is it that someone can get a majority of votes and not win? Everyone's vote should be equal; having some people's vote count more than other people's vote is absurd.

Insightful my ass.

Try reading the constitution. You know, the founding document of our nation? The supreme law of the land?

People don't vote for president. States do. It's the law. Get over it.

Complete disregard for constitutional law is exactly why we're having so many problems today. (Lack of education is another one.)

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Abcd1234]

People don't vote for president. States do. It's the law. Get over it.

Or you could change the law if it's become anachronistic (I'm not saying it has, but saying "It's the law. Get over it" is rather silly... if one were to take that view, women and minorities wouldn't have the right to vote in the US).

Complete disregard for constitutional law is exactly why we're having so many problems today

Funny, many other countries don't have a US-style constitution, and yet they don't have the problems the US does. Mayhap you're looking in the wrong place for an excuse?

Link to the texas code:

[rsclient]

An on-line link to the Texas election code: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/EL/content/htm/el.011.00.000192.00.htm#192.031.00

Re:Link to the texas code:

[Anonymous Coward]

If I read that correctly (I am not a lawyer), then half of Barr's complaint should be legally valid and half should not be.

McCain could not have filed in time, and so clearly does not (according to the law) belong on the ballot.

Barr complains that Obama filed, but said before the vote was tallied that he had already been nominated. However as I read the law, the requirement is that the paperwork be filed and certified by the party's state chair. There is stated no requirement that the party's internal procedures have actually been followed in full. Only that they be certified. Since it appears that the party's state chair did, in fact, file and certify the paperwork, Obama should be on the ballot.

My guess as to what will actually happen here is that a judge will get the case, will rule that Barr has no standing to bring the lawsuit, and will promptly throw the case out of court. Leaving unresolved the question of whether the candidates should, in fact, not be on the ballot. Since nobody can be found with both standing and the desire to sue, they will be on the ballot, and McCain will carry Texas.

I predict that because this is the only decision that the judge can come to which is consistent with the law and the facts, and will not get the judge lynched.

Don't worry, theyll set a court date

[Anonymous Coward]

For two months from now and get this all settled. Oh, what do you mean the election is before then?

Great for Obama

[RootsLINUX]

I'm an Obama supporter living in Texas and I think this is actually a great thing to have both McCain and Obama's names removed from the ballot. Texas is a very conservative state, which makes my vote here virtually worthless. But if neither is on the ballot, then the chances of Obama winning the state because of write-ins or Barr (or another 3rd party candidate) winning because their name is on the ballot increases. Basically if John McCain doesn't win Texas, its a very deep blow for him and this lawsuit is pretty much the only shot we have at it.

When will we abolish this stupid electoral college?

Re:Great for Obama

[Neoprofin]

An interesting thing happened, and I don't know if it ever made it to /. A political group tried to get it enacted that Texas electoral votes would be distributed proportionately rather than all or nothing to take advantage of Texas' large urban areas (the ones that elected your 13 democrat congressmen) effectively turning Texas into a "purple state". I hear it ended right about the time someone threatened to do the same to California and destroy every Democrat presidential campaign for the next decade.(Or because it'd be hard to get something like that pushed through by Republicans in Texas.)

Pretty much a side note.

old news

[larry bagina]

I heard about this a couple weeks ago. Anyhow, the texas filing deadline was before the national conventions, but both parties filed paperwork on time with blank names and amended them afterwards (which is allowed by law). I thought this had already been dismissed, but it's going nowhere.

Re:old news

[Xtravar]

The Republicans tried to remove Barr's name from the PA ballots. Except that using a placeholder in Pennsylvania is legal, and not so much in Texas, if I understand correctly. You can get more details on Bob Barr's website. http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

I'm sure they'll weasel their way out of removing Obama and McCain from the TX ballot, but we'll see! In most court cases involving third parties, the judges side against them regardless of the law, so... good luck Bob Barr!

Re:old news

[Xtravar]

Also, for information about this specific case, see here:
http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/18/bob-barr-rides-again-in-texas/

When we missed our deadline in West Virginia (a month before Republicans and Democrats were required to file I might add), we were forced off of the ballot. The law is clear and belonging to the Republican or Democrat party does not exempt you from its rule.

Re:Hahaha!

[plover]

Hey, this is awesome! Screw electronic voting. Screw pre-printed ballots in general! Just think -- if candidates were forced to rely on a write-in only process, voting participation would drop like a stone because the average American couldn't be bothered. Only the activists would show up, and the polls wouldn't be tainted by idiots who know nothing other than the contents of TV ads.

Re: electoral college

[vthokiestm]

"Favour"? You seem to have already seceded.

Re:It's a publicity stunt.

[Nicholas Evans]

No, it's not just to keep his name in the press. Ballot access is a huge issue for 3rd party candidates. He's trying to make a point.

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[batkiwi]

There is no legal guidance on the steps taken by a state in choosing how to cast their electoral votes. They could toss a coin and it'd likely be legal depending on THAT STATE'S constitution.

Re: electoral college

[drachenstern]

Can you talk about 250 million others into thinking the same as you? If you can just convince them to pass a little bit of legislation making it an official right of ours, I'll help lead the charge for us to separate. I think it would be in our best interest, especially if we can gain most favored nation status pending our departure. I'll then propose that we conquer your so called Mexico by force, as the Union forces once did, but we won't give it back. Then we'll be able to sell you oil at open market prices and profit like mad.

Mad I tell you, MAD!!!!!

Bwah hah ha ha ha!

But seriously, only about 250 Million others should swing the vote enough. Start canvassing. I'll start arming our populace. Oh look, I'm nearly done. Your move.

Re:Hahaha!

[Neoprofin]

Just because someone is an activist doesn't mean they're intelligent or well informed.

It just means they have strong opinions, and I have plenty of those about things I haven't even heard of yet.

Re: electoral college

[Fluffeh]

Maybe he is one of the people you guys refer to as "You Aussies", or one of those British folks. Them and us and our whacky spelling. I mean, we should be telling the English how to spell in English right?

Re: electoral college

[eldepeche]

The current system is worse than mob rule. Why do we have huge subsidies on corn and soy? Iowa is a swing state. Why did we bail out American auto makers in the 70's? Michigan is a swing state. Why do we have steel tariffs? Pennsylvania is a swing state. Why do we have sugar tariffs? Florida is a swing state. Maybe we would have some kind of national urban/metropolitan policy on land use or transportation if anyone cared what people in California or greater New York thought about anything.

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[gamanimatron]

What possible legal grounds could a political party - a private organization - have for forcing a state to do anything? Political parties have no constitutional standing; they're just clubs. Clubs of people who have very effectively fooled you, at least, into thinking that somehow the country would fall apart if they weren't around to tell you how to think.

States can do whatever they like to choose their electors, and put whatever constraints they feel like on the process, SO LONG AS those constraints are clear and unprejudicial. If every private club that wants their candidate on the ballot has to meet the same vaguely reasonable criteria, you don't have a damned thing to say about it unless you live in that state.

At least, that's how it is now. I'll bet just about anything that if Barr did somehow prevail here, the ultimate result would actually be another small death for states' rights, one way or another.

Spell check?

[martyb]

Hey, this is awesome! Screw electronic voting. Screw pre-printed ballots in general! Just think -- if candidates were forced to rely on a write-in only process, voting participation would drop like a stone because the average American couldn't be bothered. Only the activists would show up, and the polls wouldn't be tainted by idiots who know nothing other than the contents of TV ads.(emphasis added)

That could be quite interesting! Here are my predictions on the names of some of the write-in candidates:

• Barrack Obama
• Barak Obama
• Bareack Obama
• Barack O'bama
• Barack Omama
• Barack O. Bama
• John McKain
• John MacCain
• Jon McCain
• Johann McCain
• John McCane
• John Mack Cain

As not even one of the above is the name of a candidate, all Bob Barr needs is for more people to be able to spell his name correctly than they could the other candidates.

For a prank, Bob Barr could have a few people at each polling place who carried signs encouraging people to vote for the above, misspelled candidates. That couldn't possibly work. Could it?

Re: electoral college

[mrchaotica]

What the frack does states' rights have to do with the electoral college?

Electors for each state were originally intended to be chosen by the state legislature, not the citizens of the state. This would have given the state government additional power over the Federal government. Choosing of electors by the people, along with direct election of Senators (the 17th Amendment) represent a lamentable erosion of Federalism, and resulted in things like the blatant abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause, blackmailing states into accepting things like speed limits and Real ID, etc.

Take them the heck off the ballot.

[taliesin1077]

Actually, Barr is having to fight in a couple states for ballot access, despite having made the requisite number of signatures by the deadline specified by the states. Connecticut might be one? I'm pretty sure Virginia is as well. However, the Dems and the Reps, despite having missed the timeline, (and I've seen copies of the paperwork...they missed it) are granted ballot access carte blanche.

Re:Is that the only way?

[chromatic]

If he can't win on his own merit, and has to sue the system because of an unimportant deadline issue, then why does he deserve my vote?

Contrariwise, if major party candidates can't find the time or motivation to follow election laws, why do they deserve your vote?

Const'l amend not needed for all federal elections

[s2k2vidguy]

one set of laws that covers how federal elections should be run

That would require an Amendment to the Constitution. For no good reason.

Not exactly. For presidential elections, yes, because the Electoral College is implicated. But for other federal elections, no. See Art. I, sec. 4, cl. 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators (emphasis added).

Congress has the power of preemption of state laws on elections to Congress. But to implement uniform rules for presidential elections, yes, the Constitution would need to be amended.

Re:Not necessarily

[bigstrat2003]

Federal elections are about choosing between Democrats or Republicans. So long as these two can get ready in time, it's all that matters. Let's keep in mind that we have a legal system here that is based on common law. US law is about reality, not books and schools.

The bottom line is that Libertarians are just not part of the democratic process in the United States. He should just shut up and choose to be Democrat or Republican.

Please stop propping up the two-party system. Thank you.

Re:Not necessarily

[bigstrat2003]

I change what I can, where I can. I have a much better shot at changing the status quo by trying to change people's minds, one person at a time, than I do by pleading with those in power to change the system so that they have less power.