Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the try-getting-the-signatures-for-a-3d-party-in-pennsylvania dept.

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."

31 of 918 comments (clear)

  1. I hope they're removed, by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    1. Re:I hope they're removed, by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:I hope they're removed, by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:I hope they're removed, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:I hope they're removed, by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    5. Re:I hope they're removed, by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    6. Re:I hope they're removed, by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    7. Re:I hope they're removed, by Toonol · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:I hope they're removed, by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    9. Re:I hope they're removed, by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    10. Re:I hope they're removed, by mpe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well we (Americans) lost our own Civil War.

      Can a civil war end in any other way?

    11. Re:I hope they're removed, by allanc · · Score: 5, Funny

      Participation in the United States political process.

      We're gonna need it.

    12. Re:I hope they're removed, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:I hope they're removed, by electrictroy · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    14. Re:I hope they're removed, by Sique · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    15. Re:I hope they're removed, by jonadab · · Score: 5, Informative

      > 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.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    16. Re:I hope they're removed, by chuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.)

      --
      My Freakin Blog
  2. Link to the texas code: by rsclient · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    --
    Want a sig like mine? Join ACM's SigSig today!
    1. Re:Link to the texas code: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  3. Don't worry, theyll set a court date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  4. Great for Obama by RootsLINUX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Hero of Allacrost, a FOSS RPG for *NIX/*BSD/OS X/Win
  5. old news by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  6. Re:Hahaha! by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    John
  7. Re: electoral college by vthokiestm · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Favour"? You seem to have already seceded.

  8. Re:It's a publicity stunt. by Nicholas+Evans · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The Yasashii Syndicate ||
  9. Re: electoral college by eldepeche · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  10. Re:Silly Rabbit... by gamanimatron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    cogito ergo dubito
  11. Spell check? by martyb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  12. Re: electoral college by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  13. Take them the heck off the ballot. by taliesin1077 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  14. Re:Is that the only way? by chromatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    how to invest, a novice's guide