Topic: Election 2008
Equal Protection of the Law and Minor Parties
The constitutional right to equal protection of the law is one of the most important tenets of the American democracy.by Kenn Jacobine
(libertarian)
Sunday, August 31, 2008
If any citizen, whether rich or poor, male or female, or white, black or brown is harmed by the law, they have the right to seek relief in a court of law. Specifically, this means that all persons have the same access to the law and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts, both in procedures and in the substance of the law. So, for instance if a minority voter were denied their right to cast a ballot for president based upon the color of their skin they would have the right to petition the court for a legal remedy allowing them to cast that ballot by the same means that as a white person I cast mine. Essentially, we both have a right to be treated equally both in procedure, which is the legal process and in the substance of the law, which is applying the same interpretation of the law to both parties. It can be argued that the second part of the equal protection safeguard applying the same interpretation of the law to all parties is where the U.S. falls far short in regards to ballot access law.
This week, it was announced by the Bob Barr for President campaign that he will be the only presidential candidate to appear on the Texas ballot in November. Apparently, both the Republican and Democratic party state chairs failed to meet state law by signing and delivering to the Texas secretary of state a written certification of the names of their party's nominees for president and vice-president by 5 p.m. of the 70th day before the election is to take place. The exact deadline was last Tuesday August 26 at 5 p.m. On Thursday August 28th Barr sent his supporters an email with a link to the Texas secretary of state's site that showed blank spaces under both the Republican and Democratic ballot slots. Barr and his running mate Wayne A. Root did appear on the ballot under Libertarian. One should assume that since the deadline had passed by two days and the state had publicly posted its ballot on the internet without McCain and Obama's names present that Bob Barr would be the only candidate in Texas running for president. But low and behold, after the Barr campaign brought the "oversight" to the attention of the secretary of state's office both McCain and Obama's names appeared on the Texas ballot. This is peculiar since both McCain and Obama's names were not there on the 28th and because neither man had actually been officially nominated by their respective parties by the Texas deadline. Something smells fishy in Texas and in light of how hot it gets there in August the stench is overpowering.
This is just the latest example of how the equal protection of the law guarantees does not apply to all Americans in terms of election law. In Texas, Barr followed the letter of the law by filing on time. Apparently, the Republicans and Democrats did not. Of course, Barr does have recourse by filing suit in court to have McCain and Obama's names pulled from the Texas ballot. Yea, good luck with that one! Placing the onus on Barr is both ridiculous and unjust. Texas should follow its own state laws in the first place. It should safeguard the public's rights by investigating the secretary of state's office and punish her if she violated the law by placing McCain and Obama on the ballot illegally. It is unjust because in state after state for many years either Republican or Democratic secretaries of state have thrown out minor party petitions for ballot access citing violations of state law or inadequate signature numbers. It would be different if the major parties had to play by the same rules as the minor parties, but they do not. Often times, filing fees are higher, more signatures are required and more complicated paperwork must accompany minor party applications for ballot access. Minor parties have spent a fortune they do not have fighting these battles perpetrated by officials of the two major parties. At present, Barr is fighting at least six ballot access lawsuits – Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Maine. He entered the presidential race to run for the office not to battle unjust laws that keep him off the ballot.
We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a war in Iraq to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. In their National Assembly elections in 2005 more than 20 parties participated with 12 gaining seats in the legislature. If U.S. taxpayer money can be used to guarantee the views of all people in another society be represented in their elections, is it too much to ask that the same thing be done in the U.S? How can we claim to be the beacon of democracy when minority voices are shut out through loopholes, chicanery and unjust rules? When a minority voter is denied their right to vote we are all aghast and we should be. So then, why is it that when minority views are denied a place on the ballot and at the same time that minority voter is denied the choice to vote for it we look the other way? Yes, the election process in the U.S. has become very undemocratic. Hard to believe that Iraq which suffered under a brutal dictator for so long at least for now enjoys more democracy than America.
Kenn Jacobine teaches History and English for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia. Send him email at lovesliberty@gmail.com.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Kenn Jacobine only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Kenn Jacobine is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-08-31 07:15:36
I don't support Barr, but in this case there is no question that your analysis is spot on. The Texas case is one more piece of evidence that equal protection no longer exists in this country, unless you're on the side of the politically or economically powerful.
This "equal protection" thing they talk about is actually the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I am willing to be that Bob Barr, as does the Libertarian Party, objects to the 14th Amendment being applied to the states. I bet that he gets really upset when people make Equal Protection arguments to shoot down a state law. But when it is his ox being gored, he abandons principle for personal gain. Who would have expected that?
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
