The Texas Supreme Court makes a decision about Obama and McCain's right to be on the ballot after missing the deadline. by RS Davis
(libertarian)
Thursday, September 25, 2008
If you've been following The Freedom Files, you know that Bob Barr has sued Texas to get John McCain and Barack Obama taken off the ballot. You see, according to Texas election code, they needed to file by August 25th.
McCain didn't certify until September 4th, Obama on August 28th, and yet they were still included on the ballot, in violation of election law.
Well, the verdict is in, and the court has rejected Mr Barr's lawsuit. Now, I can't say that I am completely surprised - we all expected the monopoly parties to keep their elite status and flout election law without consequence.
What I have been more interested to hear was what would be their reasoning for violating election law and allowing McCain and Obama to remain on the ballot.
My money was on the court saying it was "in the interest of democracy," but the most common defense I've heard for the monopoly candidates late filing is that, in accordance with Chapter 181 of the election code, if a party's candidate recieves 5% of the vote in the previous election, they are automatically afforded a spot on the ballot in the next election.
The only problem with that defense is that Chapter 181 doesn't apply to Democrats or Republicans because that chapter deals with political parties that nominate by convention, like the Libertarian Party.
The Democrats and Republicans nominate by a primary process, which puts them under Chapter 172 of the election code, which has no loophole for five percenters.
Parties falling under both chapters then move to chapter 192, which holds the requirement that they file at least 70 days before the general election.
So if Michael Badnarik had recieved 5% of the vote last time around, Bob Barr would not have had to have certified by August 25th, but regardless of their numbers, both of the monopoly parties are bound by that legal deadline.
But the court did not use that reasoning nor the "interest of democracy" reasoning. This is the entire summation of their decision:
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
Orders Pronounced September 23, 2008
MISCELLANEOUS
THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS DENIED:
08-0761 IN RE BOB BARR, WAYNE ALLEN ROOT, AND THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF TEXAS
That's it. No explanation. Just denied. Now if that isn't Big Government Hubris, I don't know what is. They know that people are so fully inculcated into the "two party system," no one would even question the verdict.
And those that did question it would find that no one else was listening.
I believe they were right.
____________________________
More on this issue:
3rd Parties Get No Respect Published: October 9, 2008 Barr left off the Louisiana ballot. Nice double-standard, there.
Obama/Barr '08 Published: September 30, 2008 Strange bedfellows could make for some interesting politics.
Why Bob Barr Is Right Published: September 26, 2008 Inside the Texas Election Code, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Tyranny.
Barr Gets Smacked Down Published: September 25, 2008 The Texas Supreme Court makes a decision about Obama and McCain's right to be on the ballot after missing the deadline.
Barr Finally Fights For Texas Published: September 19, 2008 Obama and McCain didn't file in time to be included on the Texas ballot, and Bob Barr is trying to make sure they aren't.
Barr Fights for Texas Published: September 2, 2008 This battle could mean big things for the Libertarian Party
The views expressed
in this article are those of RS Davis only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
RS Davis 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.
Law is in place to serve the population that created it. Can anyone possibly think the population of Texas would not want the two major candidates to appear on their ballot? Let's be silly, this is a situation where the letter of the law doesn't comply with the intent of the law.
Mr. Barr was foolish to bring lawsuit . Thank goodness the people of the good state of Texas were served by the courts, rather than Mr. Barr's bean of an idea.
well we now know that the texas judiciary has no respect for the laws created by the representatives of its citizens. and the reason that there was no explaination is that they didn't have one that wouldn't be laughed at. it is a sad day for texas. i feel sorry for those who live there. what law will they choose to ignore next?
UPDATE: Wow, this article has now been linked to by reason magazine! Not just a "we heard about this from," but as the actual source of the information. Totally. Stoked.
The supreme court of Illinois said that it was unconstitutional for the people to vote on term limits. When asked "why?" ,they said" because we are the supreme court of Illinois and we can interpret the constitution any way we want." I guess things are the same in Texas as they are in Illinois. The emperor has no clothes! Only the emperor or the 2 major parties can do what ever they want. Why is this not front page news so the people can be made aware of how corrupt our system really is?
Congrats on the reason link; I hope you get a lot of reason's readers coming over here to check out the Chart. Your reporting on the Texas suit has been first-rate throughout, and you deserve to have a huge success.
I'd have made the headline far more critical of the TX Supremes, but that's just me; there are quite a few people who love to read about Barr being "smacked down" and the like. 8)
"Congrats on the reason link; I hope you get a lot of reason's readers coming over here to check out the Chart. Your reporting on the Texas suit has been first-rate throughout, and you deserve to have a huge success."
____________________________
Thanks, George! Coming from you - the most prolific and popular writer on the Chart - that means quite a lot!
I thought about a more incindiary title, but like you said, I thought maybe I could draw the anti-Barr crowd, too. :)
Dang it!! I live here and was holding on to the slim hope that this would actually work. Sigh. I've been trying as much as I can to get the word out about this. I just don't get why the big boys don't have to suffer the consequences of their mistakes. Wait, these are the same big boys who are going to help Wall Street avoid the consequences of theirs. Right. Double sigh.
Also, I just got this link approved on Fark. I hope it's not long until it's added to the main page and gets more publicity. Let's hope this site can handle the traffic!
My pleasure. I'm just so tired of major democrats and republicans completely ignoring legitimate claims against them. I wish either of them would have the balls to actually debate any or all third party candidates, but the best thing to advance their ideals is to pretend they don't exist, so that's what they keep on doing.
A greater problem was that there was no co-ordination with the Texas LP which has spent a lot of time building alliances only to be stabbed in the back by the Barr managers. According to bloggers there it's been in damage control mode since. Barr's people I've talked to really have contempt for the LP activists, local people in office and structure, saying they don't do 'real' politics. Now many self-described moderates are now throwing up their hands indisgust, saying they were conned by the LRC.
As one said, 'Of course the LRC are anarchists, just look at the mess they made!' If anything, it's the 'purists' who're hanging in there trying to make the marriage work. The 'big tent' has become a three ring circus for more and more activists who do the real work.
That's what comes from building a big tent by getting rid of the price of admission. Maybe they'll propose curing the doctor shortage by mailing MD's to the insanc next as another 'moderate' Libertarian proposal.
No kidding! Like the author, I had little doubt they'd find some excuse to put Obama & McCain on the ballot in Texas in violation of the law, but was wondering what excuse they'd give. We now know the answer -- none. This seems like the breaching of a new threshold of sorts; no longer do they even feeling the need to justify violating a plain-as-day violation of established law when politically convenient. The media should be all over this, and we should try to help bring it to their attention -- not for Barr's sake, but simply to draw attention to the blatancy of the outrageous partisanship and pro-establishment bias of the court. Not directly related, but if you haven't yet seen this terrific pro-liberty video animation (about 10 minutes long), I urge you to check out http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf .
Posted By: John C. Randolph
Date: 2008-10-09 11:24:28
Dimissing without comment is extremely arrogant, and practically begging for an appeal to the federal courts. Bob's a lawyer, he can litigate this himself.
Maybe, just maybe, Barr wanted to lose this lawsuit. They've established a serious precent for keeping candidates on the ballot. Next time a demopublican wants to throw a lib off the ballot we can point to this case & say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. It's a strong precedent.
