Bob Barr Files Suit in Texas to Remove McCain, Obama from Ballot

I agree, I think that everyone should have to follow the rules including the major party. Even if it hurts my candidate I think the rules are there fore a reason.

More power to ya, Bob.

It was a red state anyway.

Dang, Bob Barr isn't playing!

More power to ya, Bob.

It was a red state anyway.

So would you hold the same opinion if it was a blue state? Say New York or California?

Actually, they've got a point. In this case, I have to acknowledge that both parties -- including Mr. Obama -- have shown arrogance beyond measure this time. I wonder how many other states they let "slide by."

It'll be interesting to watch.

The ruling should be upheld. Just like the ruling for Michigan should have been upheld. Americans are too wussy to let any consequences stick, however. Just look at the Michigan/Florida fiasco.

Yet another cog in one of the most bizarre elections in recorded history. Maybe everyone should just write in "Bart Simpson" while we're at it.

I'm pretty sure the comment left by Mike D at AAB is accurate:

The August 26 deadline is for independent and third party candidates. -- Texas Election Code - Section 192.031

Since the D's and the R's nominate by convention, and those parties have each had "a nominee for a statewide office who received a number of votes equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes received by all candidates for that office," Texas Election Code Section 181.005 applies.

I think Bob Barr is trying to pull a fast one, or he hasn't been accurately advised regarding Texas election law.

Automatic qualification laws are fairly common, which is why Ross Perot's Reform Party automatically qualified after the 1992 and 1996 elections, but was unable to automatically qualify after the 2000 election in most states.

this was from a previous article on this same issue. nice try though

deja vu all over again ... Michigan and Florida, anyone?

This is directly copied, without attribution, from the Bob Barr we site. This is a CoH violation, and is being reported as such.

What Bob Barr did for Georgia?

Now I see him like a spoiler.

Not even. He's running behind NADER.

This is directly copied, without attribution, from the Bob Barr we site. This is a CoH violation, and is being reported as such.

It is attributed it is also obvious that it is a press release.

This is not a CoH violation or a copyright infringement.

#1.10 is attributed? Where?

I see your point. If anything the comment is more guilty of being longwinded than violation of the Newsvine code of honor. If you want to list someones bio you should just link to it, but its not really worth getting worked up about in this context since its obviously a cut and paste job and the author wants it spread around.

More power to ya, Bob.

It was a red state anyway.

So would you hold the same opinion if it was a blue state? Say New York or California?

No, of course not. ;-)

Not a chance since the past elections would be affected. Without Texas votes in the electoral college Bush would not have been elected either time. Plus if I rememver correctly Bush got in because federal law on notional elections trump state laws. Hey Barr got his name in the paper but nobody is gonna vote for him any way.

Barr will never make it. He is not popular in GA.

It would still be really interesting to see what would happen if Texas had to vote R or D via write-in!

sorry andrew linking to a comment isnt exactly a "source"
if corect you are right.. but here is the law itself. I see no exceptions for the big parties.
and actually i see the exact oppposite.. as the very next law deals specifically with independants.

nope it really looks like they might have missed the deadline.

Sec. 192 is not the controlling section of election law; the two major parties qualify under sec. 181.005:

A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the ballot, without qualifying under Subsection (a), in each subsequent general election following a general election in which the party had a nominee for a statewide office who received a number of votes equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes received by all candidates for that office.

(comment 6, thanks to spiffie)

Thanks for posting the link to the laws. I am no expert and only did a quick review but it looks like there is more than one way to get on the Texas ballot.

If you review 192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE'S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT you find that there is nothing in this section indicating that this is the ONLY way to get on the ballot, rather it is one way. Nothing in this section says you cant get on the ballot unless you file by the deadline.

IF 192.031 is the ONLY means to get on the ballot then Barr would be correct, but it appears that 192.031 is just one of at least two methods to be listed on the ballot.

§ 181.005. QUALIFYING FOR PLACEMENT ON BALLOT BY PARTY REQUIRED TO NOMINATE BY CONVENTION. http://law.onecle.com/texas/election/181.005.00.html
Provides a differet way for parties that nominate by convention.

Catch22:

Very refreshing to have people discussing the actual detail of the law, rather than just trading insults, as too many of these threads seem to do. As some pundit put it, "You are entitled to your opinions, but not to your facts." Well done!

Interesting find Catch22. If Bob Barr is wrong, he will make the Libertarian Party look foolish. I am disappointed he would take such a gamble even if he has no chance of winning the election. Alternative party candidates need to run more serious campaigns that can inform voters why voitng for your ideals is better than voting for who can win.

181.005.00 seems to be talking about who is entitled to be on the ballot, while 192.031.00 goes to what must be done/true to actually be placed on the ballot . Section 3 of 192.031 referencing 181 doesn't trump section 2 it looks like an 'in addition to' clause. It seems to be saying that the candidate must
(1) be qualified and
(2) file written certification by 5am on the 70th day before the election and
(3) qualify to be on the ballot under chapter 181 or chapter 172 subchapter A

Clearly both candidates meet 1 and 3, but did they comply with 2? Has anybody asked the secretary of state?

Has anybody asked the secretary of state?

Yes, as a matter of fact. The SoS lists Obama and McCain as candidates for this November. That's why Barr filed the lawsuit.

"Neither Obama nor McCain's campaign would comment on the suit, but the office of Texas Secretary of State Esperanza "Hope" Andrade said it certified the Nov. 4 general election ballot 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," Andrade spokeswoman Ashley Burton said in a written statement to FOXNews.com."

(http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/17/barr-tries-to-kick-mccain-obama-off-texas-ballot/)

Honestly, if I were Bob Barr, I'd want to win by taking the high road. Isn't he standing for fighting the corruption of the two-party system?

I'll never forget the debate he had with Neal Boortz on medical marijuana. At one point Neal took the opportunity to reprise Jane Curtin by responding to Barr with "Bob, you ignorant slut"
The whole place just fell apart. I wasn't there but heard the recording.

Waynester, yes, Obama did get himself on the ballot due to a technicality, but it was somewhat different. In that case, they found that many of the signing statements were inaccurate. In this case, I see Bob Barr's point, but all it will do is point out that the elephants & the donkeys did not follow the rule. There is no way the state of Texas will take them off the ballot. Not gonna happen.

On one hand, you could argue that this is why third party candidates are only taken seriously by a very few, because they always do wacky stuff like this. OTOH, it's the only way they can grab even a smidgen of media time.

ut all it will do is point out that the elephants & the donkeys did not follow the rule.

Sigh. No. They D's and R's followed the relevant rule. Barr is trying to make an argument that uses an irrelevant rule.

Relax, I saw your comment about the rules in Texas after I posted.

Isn't that how Obama won his seat in the Illinois legislature?

nope not at all.. how about look things up.. sure he challenged signatures on petitions.. does that mean they werent challenge worthy.. that they were all legit? that he used a gimick? NO

If your opponates used illegal means or faked a bunch of names.. you'sd challeneg them as well. No oen has proven that obama denied anyone the right to their vote.

Like someoen said before rules are rules.. you don't have to like them but you must play by them.
and just cause someone challenges someone else on the rules.. doesn't meant hey are cheating

I'm sorry but it may seem stupid to some of you.. but fighting for the rule of law.. is taking he high road.. why have ruels even mino ones if we let people break them with impunity. That's one of the "Changes" we all want.. not excuses.. no I doesn't matter.. if it doesn't matter than get the law changed.. don't just break it.

No it is not His opponent quit because of a messy divorce with and actress . The Repubs replaced him with Alan Keys. Keys lost.

Good point. I mean he is a fomer federal prosecutor, you'd think he would know what he was doing tin the legal realm...

wish I had read this comment.. ok thos elinks prove nothing ilelgal happened.
still I don't fault barr for looking into it.
rule of law should always be paramount.

I fault him. He should have looked into it, but done some research, not have done press releases, and DEFINITELY not sue before consulting a lawyer worth his salt.

"Truth Is Treason In The Empire Of Lies" - YOU JUST REMEMBER THAT!

*…back away very slowly*

I suggest you check your premise.

Ah hah!

Is there some reason you've come out swinging at everyone?

You only say this because you like the party that you vote for are scared to hear the truth and you don't like it!

What if it was you that was excluded to participate in something because the rules where bent and excluded YOU?

Sir you are obviously walking around with your eyes shut!

Do you guys know how to use NEWSVINE OR WHAT?

Press the button IT'S GREEN at the top of the page that says "READ ARTICLE" yes its the big green button.

Oh wait a minute I will provide them for you, seen as you like to be nannied and depend on someone to look after you like the government.

Who's swinging?

I'd say the people who said those things are swinging. Oh yeah, they were all from one person--you. We disagree with Bob Barr and feel there are two ways to be placed on the Texas ballots; we feel he's on shaky ground at best. And I'm sorry if I refuse to believe a campaign website is the definitive source of news. Positions, sure. Fundraising, sure. Organizing, sure. News, not so much. Campaign press releases are rarely fully accurate. That makes some of your statements here, ah, ironic.

Some people don't like the truth and that is -

"Truth Is Treason In The Empire Of Lies"

Where do you imagine this empire to be? You seem to be confused with the truth and tired jargon and slogans.

Actually, Ross Perot had the Reform Party on the ballot in Texas for the next two (I think) major elections. They're not a major party.

The point that I am trying to make is that this TWO PARTY SYSTEM is CORRUPT and you cant see that.

Oh can't I? Shall I make assumptions about you too? Follow me around Newsvine and you'll catch me saying "because the parties in power make the rules" as an explanation for why the minor party candidates have to jump through a million hoops to get on the ballot at least a couple times a week.

Quite possibly. It could also very well be that the Barr campaign thinks they can twist these laws to make people think something's going on when nothing really is. Either way, it's dishonest at best. And if they really do think they have a leg to stand on, we'll see what happens. I think we'll find that either Texas law can apply. I seriously doubt either major party would "forget" to apply for a state ballot.

"Truth Is Treason In The Empire Of Lies" This is Ron Pauls theme song isnt it not Barrs?

No written certification is required. See either comment #3 or #6. This is a non-issue, and Barr is just wasting his money. A judge will laugh this out of court, and probably should scold whatever lawyer agreed to bring this suit as being incompetent.

This seems to say that "a written certification" is required.

This seems to say that "a written certification" is required.

IF you want to qualify for the ballot under this section then it is in order to qualify under this provision. The point is that there is more than one way to get on the ballot and there is nothing in the law saying you have to meet both.

watch this one with interest??? then you are truly Batty. Perhaps you are a younger voter, but this kind of crap has floated around just about every campaign I have ever witnessed and it always amounts to just that...crap! Barr should know better, but he has proven he is no different than any other politician, republican or democrat - they pull these stunts for publicity only - cheap, but sometime effective...just look at the amount of interest it has gotten, just on this post alone.

watch this one with interest??? then you are truly Batty.

I've looked at all the Texas laws and cannot say (as a layman) what merit this does or does not have.

Since the secretary of state in Texas has certified both to be on the ballot the case is closed. Barr was a nut when he was in congress and still is.

I'm not so sure that's necessary. The headline is truthful and accurately describes the material seeded. It's the suit itself that's on inaccurate grounds here, and frankly I don't know how you'd make the headline reflect that.

I know, but the problem is, people keep on coming here, ignoring all the comments explaining that it (might be?) inaccurate.

I don't like spreading disinformation. I'm one of snopes.com's biggest fans. Speaking of which, I submitted this to them. Hopefully, they put it up.

people keep on coming here, ignoring all the comments explaining that it (might be?) inaccurate.

If only there were a way to include that warning on everything, right? "Warning: What you are reading may or may not be proven factually true. Do your own research." Sigh...

Honestly, if its source (a campaign website) doesn't give someone pause, nothing will.

Hey, don't be too down on them... I fell for it and seeded this a while ago.

I know. I was there. Someone disproved it there, too. I believed it but thought it seemed to fitting to be true... turned out it was. This is definitely not one to miss reading the comments on.

Perhaps we can reach a compromise--the seeder updates the description to include the debunking.

Just curious... why?

Maybe you should use this link it gives the article more creditability as you are apparently a Libetarian and some may think you are directing people to your parties web site.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/DN-barr_19pol.ART.State.Edition1.268aa61.html

Well, Texas has 34 electoral colleges, I think that the more affected is Obama.

Well, Texas has 34 electoral colleges, I think that the more affected is Obama.

Why? The fact that McCain is expected to win Texas and that most objective observers would agree (or even partisan ones) that McCain is extremely unlikely win the Presidency without Texas (approaching but not quite 0%).

If Barr somehow prevailed in this lawsuit, the biggest loser by far woud be McCain's prospects to be President.

Upsetting the 55 EC in California going to Obama, McCain could try to get those 34 EC somewhere else, if the silly Barr lawsuit is a success.

Anyway, I expect an Obama victory.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election

Well, Texas has 34 electoral colleges, I think that the more affected is Obama.

Hmmm. Not so fast. Unless Obama or McCain can get more than half the electoral college votes (270,) this will be thrown to the House and Senate. And who has the majority in the House and Senate?

And who has the majority in the House and Senate?

I see, no Mandate and be appointed. Good, Partisanship w/o a question.

I see, no Mandate and be appointed. Good, Partisanship w/o a question.

Due process under the law.

And, yeah, its a shame that Republicans lost all those seats two years ago.....

In any case let's hope it does not come to that. This campaign season has been ugly enough.

And, yeah, its a shame that Republicans lost all those seats two years ago.....

Well, a lesson was needed to the GOP and it was loud and clear. Some Senators were sent home. I was not going to vote for McCain because I am sick and tired of our Congress, the equation changed when Sarah Palin showed up.

The thing with Barr is that he is not popular in his own State (same w/J. Carter), he had a TTT at the airport and if a Rep or Senator feels superior, we have the power of the vote and send them to the benches.

Part of the legal basis for the suit is the Bush vs. Gore ruling, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that "the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail," and that election laws must be uniformly applied and interpreted.

Wow, an actual response.

That law applies to qualifying for ballot status, not certifying your candidacy. For example, third parties must qualify through petition signatures to actually earn a spot on the ballot, unless they meet the standards specified in the election code you have cited. However, each political party that qualifies for a spot on the ballot must certify their candidates as required by Texas Election Code 192.031. The Republican and Democratic Parties failed to do so for John McCain and Barack Obama.

My response (the press secretary was named Andrew, so don't get confused here):

Andrew, thank you very much for writing back. However, I still believe you're wrong. Again,

"A political party is entitled to have the names of its
nominees placed on the ballot, without qualifying under Subsection
(a), in each subsequent general election following a general
election in which the party had a nominee for a statewide office who
received a number of votes equal to at least five percent of the total votes..."

So if they're entitled, they don't have to put their name. 192.031 is the other way to be entitled. In fact, the other law specifically states:

"A political party is entitled to have the names of its
nominees for president and vice-president of the United States
placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if: [etc]"

Therefore, it seems to me that there are two ways. 192.031 and 181.005. After all, they use the exact same wording.

More from Andrew (the secretary):

Andrew, again, they address two different processes.

The section you quoted addresses QUALIFYING for ballot status, which is achieved by retaining a certain percentage of the vote in the prior election.

The section we are referring to addresses the process AFTER qualifying. Just because a political party qualifies for ballot access still means they must complete the process for certifying their candidates. They are two separate processes.

Thoughts? I personally am going off to read the Texas law, rather than speculate. But I'd love input, since I'm not a lawyer, just a layman.

I see the reading they're trying to use, but I don't think it will fly in a Texas court. For one thing, it's never been read that way in the past. For another (more pragmatic reason), judges in Texas courts are partisan and elected. Barr's suit is toast. ;-)

I'm no lawyer either, but after reading this correspondence it would seem that the Bob Barr campaign's argument might be worth hearing in court, at least to better clarify the law. I still think issuing a press release at this time was a bad idea.

Thanks for following up on this, Andrew. It sounds like they really think they've found a leg to stand on, be it a sneaky, underhanded, twisty leg or not. It's like they were sitting on this, waiting on it to happen.

Andrew. You ROCK for following up on this the way you did!

Andrew (aka Online Apps): My hat's off to you! I occasionally get curious about things like this, then it gets to a "more than curious" stage, finally full-blown obsession. BUT this is a good thing! The rewards are well worth it. Knowledge is a precious and heady thing. And it looks like you have the drive to pursue it. It is a very admirable trait. Hang in there!

Thanks. I'll try, at least until the legalese gets too much...

PS: Have you considered writing your own NV article about it (maybe in diary form) as you go? Some of the things we discuss in NV threads are too broad, but this may be specific enough to follow.

Keep watching... :-)

IMHO, anyone who is desirous of the presidency -- with America in the royal mess that it is currently in -- is 100% certifiably insane and should have his, her, or its head shrunken by a transdimensional time-traveling pygmy psychiatrist.

Two things. Are these the rules? And did they already file? Because it sounds like the SoS said that they DID, or at least they were eligible.

Against Barr

Hah!!