Content from our friends over at Capitol Annex
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 , Updated 12:34 p.m., September 24, 2008
UPDATED: Texas Supreme Court rejects Bob Barr’s attempt to keep Obama, McCain off Texas ballot
Bob Barr
Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr has sued the Texas Secretary of State in an attempt to have the names of John McCain and Barack Obama removed from the November ballot in Texas.
Barr claims that the lawsuit, which he filed yesterday, is filed because the major party nominees missed the official filing deadline to be on the November 4 ballot.
Barr’s campaign is arguing that because neither of the candidates had been officially nominated by their parties by the official filing deadline then it was impossible for the candidates to file under state law.
Randall Dillard, a spokesman for the Texas Secretary of State’s Office, told The Associated Press the ballot was certified on Sept. 3.
“We are confident that the ballot was certified properly and that Texans will have the opportunity to select the qualified candidate of their choice,” Dillard said.
He said the ballot includes presidential candidates nominated by the Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties as well as declared write-in candidates.
At issue here is the semi-sticky situation that, because the nominees weren’t chosen (or at least, vice presidents weren’t chosen) before the deadline, they are not eligible for the ballot. However, previous reports have shown that both parties took steps to make sure their places were reserved on the ballot, either by filing the name of the Presidential candidate sans the vice president or something else.
Expect this lawsuit to go nowhere, although it might cause the legislature to get a bit of a reprimand and be told to fix it next go around.
UPDATE: Yesterday, the Texas Supreme Court rejected Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr’s lawsuit seeking to toss Barack Obama and John McCain from the general election ballot in Texas. Barr claimed that the candidates weren’t officially named nominees by their parties prior to a statutory deadline for submitting their names for the ballot to the Texas Secretary of State.
Drew Shirley, Barr’s attorney, issued the following statement on the ruling:
Obviously, I’m disappointed for a couple of reasons. I think it’s clear that the Secretary of State broke the law by certifying the late nominations of both parties, so I’m disappointed that the petition was denied. I’m also disappointed that the Supreme Court declined to hear oral arguments or even issue an opinion explaining their ruling, so now we’ll never know what convoluted reasoning they used to deny the petition. To paraphrase Ben Bradlee, we may have lost, but that doesn’t mean we were wrong.
No word yet on whether or not Barr will appeal.
Pegasus News content partner - Capitol Annex
Email
|
Print
|
Comment
|
Tell us your story
|
-
»George Bush moves into Dallas home, oh joy, oh ring the bells
-
»Lake Highlands dance team will perform at Texas-centric inaugural ball
-
»Dallas entrepreneurs cash in on Obama fever
-
»Obama won national election, but Richardson chose McCain
-
»Dallas-based Southwest Airlines adds extra flights for Presidential Inauguration
|
an event
|
a restaurant
|
|
a garage sale
|
a drink special
|
|
a movie showtime
|
local music
|
a job
|
a house
|
|
a deal
|
a pet
|
Jason Rice, says:
Oh good heavens!!! Yay!! a valid "No" vote.
I may be turning Libertarian any minute now.
Verified
1 year, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
John Meyer, says:
Welcome to the Dark Side, Jason. It's quiet here. (Not to mention uncrowded.)
Staff
1 year, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Collin Gouldin, says:
If this actually goes through, it would pretty much only hurt McCain.
Verified
1 year, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
David Gouldin, says:
John P. Meyer and I will be there to welcome you.
They're some <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html">smart folks</a>.
Staff
1 year, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Jason Rice, says:
::smart folks
Well, since all the vending machines in my building outsmart our current choices, I'm thinking the contrast would be easy.
Verified
1 year, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Andrew Laska, says:
Does anyone find it ironic that a "libertarian" is trying to restrict ballot choices?
I leave you this for your enjoyment. http://www.dallasobserver.com/content...
Verified
1 year, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
xdavidwattsx, says:
I'm not sure I would label folks who are using donations to file a lawsuit that has zero chance of winning as "smart".
For a party that has limited access to funding I think they should pick and choose their battles a bit more carefully.
Anonymous
1 year, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
David Gouldin, says:
I dunno, the <a href="http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/EL/content/htm/el.011.00.000192.00.htm#192.031.00">election code</a> sounds pretty clear to me. I don't think we're going to be able to find firsthand sources online for when McCain and Obama officially certified, so we'll have to trust the Bob Barr's <a href="http://www.bobbarr2008.com/files/lettertosos.pdf">letter</a>.
Staff
1 year, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Jason Rice, says:
Hey - x*x, they got my attention. I'll bet the suit costs less than the 2 minute and the 30 second slots airing tonight. ;o)
Verified
1 year, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
xdavidwattsx, says:
Depends on if you're airing them during the same time slots that air the 1-900 sex commercials.
1-900-BOB-BARR?
Anonymous
1 year, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Chris Kidd, says:
Bob Barr is no libertarian, he's a neocon nutjob who goes against everything the libertatians stand for (less government/personal freedom,ect..)
Verified
1 year, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
David Gouldin, says:
For any interested, the <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2006/jan/060040.htm">caselaw</a> cited is in the 3rd to last paragraph.
Staff
1 year, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
John McClelland, says:
The interesting point here is that the Electoral College voters do not have to vote for who wins the popular vote. They just have traditionally done so.
So even if Barr won Texas, they could easily snub him and cast their vote for either Obama or McCain.
If they choose to uphold the vote, and give Barr the Texas votes, then neither Obama nor McCain would get a 270 vote majority. When that happens, the vote goes to the US House with each state delegation getting 1 vote. The VP vote goes to the US Senate.
Verified
1 year, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
klue, says:
this is awesome! Imagine... people might be forced to actually learn a little bit about some OTHER political parties before they vote. Nah, who am I kidding, they'll probably still just right in their 2-party-system guy.
Anonymous
1 year, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Jason Rice, says:
John --- OOOOHH so we could technically get a split White House.
I think those two permutations are the only worse choices we could possible muster than the train wreck we have.
We're doomed.
Verified
1 year, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
DC, says:
I think this fellow needs to have a friendly introduction between Mr. Head and Ms. Toilet Bowl.
Anonymous
1 year, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Kevin Kunreuther, says:
Why I left the Libertarian Party after the 1988 election - disorganized, no aggressive fund raising tactics of any kind and the image. If the Libs could ever get their collective act together, they could seriously supplant or at very least hinder current evil that passes itself off as the Republican Party in the Northeast and the West. What happened was in 1964, old time Dixiecrats bolted to the Republicans when Johnson introduced the New Society and joined forces with Goldwater Republicans and eventually infected and took over the GOP. Libertarians need to Madison Avenue up their image, organize themselves and their fundraising tactics, and aggressively get the media and public to take them seriously. Otherwise, pack up the tents and call it a day.
Verified
1 year, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Howard Wen, says:
If a crazy series of events actually unfold in the courts, and the two major party candidates are ordered removed from the ballot, then the McCain and Obama campaigns will shift to Plan B -- airing radio and TV ads to instruct their supporters to write in the name of their candidate.
This would turn out to be a problem for the McCain campaign, I think. They would have to spend additional money campaigning in a state that they were originally guaranteed to win anyway -- a red state with a lot of electoral votes. It would likely turn Texas into a battleground state; Obama would probably have a really good chance of winning Texas under such a write-in requirement for both candidates.
Verified
1 year, 2 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal