Bob Barr Sues Texas

[The Lantern]

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

Suit alleges that McCain, Obama knowingly missed filing deadlines

Atlanta, GA - 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.

"The seriousness of this issue is self-evident," the lawsuit states. "The hubris of the major parties has risen to such a level that they do not believe that the election laws of the State of Texas apply to them."

Texas election code §192.031 requires that the "written certification" of the "party's nominees" be delivered "before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before election day." Because neither candidate had been nominated by the official filing deadline, the Barr campaign argues it was impossible for the candidates to file under state law.

"Supreme Court justices should recognize that their responsibility is to apply the law as passed by the Legislature, and the law is clear that the candidates cannot be certified on the ballot if their filings are late," says Drew Shirley, a local attorney for the Barr campaign, who is also a Libertarian candidate for the Texas Supreme Court.

A 2006 Texas Supreme Court decision ruled that state laws "does not allow political parties or candidates to ignore statutory deadlines."

Orrin Grover, attorney for Bob Barr and Wayne Root, said that he believes that the Texas Secretary of State is bound by Texas law to remove the Republican and Democratic nominees from the November ballot. "Either we have rules and deadlines, or we do not," Grover said.

The Chairman of the Texas Libertarian Party, Pat Dixon stated, "Libertarian principles require personal responsibility for your acts and failures. Obama and McCain failed to meet the deadlines. They must follow the law like everyone else."

The petition also alleges that the Democratic Party's late presidential filing falsely claimed under oath that Senator Obama had been nominated hours before the nomination actually occurred.

"The facts of the case are not in dispute," says Russell Verney, manager of the Barr campaign. "Republicans and Democrats missed the deadline, but were still allowed on the ballot. Third parties are not allowed on the ballot for missing deadlines, as was the case for our campaign in West Virginia, yet the Texas secretary of state's office believes Republicans and Democrats to be above the law."

Barr will be holding a press conference this Thursday at the Texas Supreme Court at 11:00 a.m.

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.

[newyearsrevolution08]

The only thing that bothers me about barr is that he tends to try and solve every issue with a lawsuit. Not saying it isn't a good idea BUT he tends to jump straight to it, or it is just me?

[IRO-bot]

I just read this piece in my e-mail. Wouldn't it be sweet if it worked?

[voytechs]

Good.

[Feenix566]

Ten bucks says this won't get mentioned on television.

[The Lantern]

The only thing that bothers me about barr is that he tends to try and solve every issue with a lawsuit. Not saying it isn't a good idea BUT he tends to jump straight to it, or it is just me?

I talked to the campaign yesterday. They said lawyers did try to talk to Texas but Texas would not respond. A lawsuit is the only way to go seeing as there is not much time left before absentee ballots are printed. If Barr wins we might get to see an election settled by the House of Representatives.

[IRO-bot]

I talked to the campaign yesterday. They said lawyers did try to talk to Texas but Texas would not respond. A lawsuit is the only way to go seeing as there is not much time left before absentee ballots are printed. If Barr wins we might get to see an election settled by the House of Representatives.

I doubt they will even judge on the case until AFTER the elections.

[constituent]

I talked to the campaign yesterday. They said lawyers did try to talk to Texas but Texas would not respond. A lawsuit is the only way to go seeing as there is not much time left before absentee ballots are printed. If Barr wins we might get to see an election settled by the House of Representatives.

i very much doubt that they will respond to a lawsuit either.

[Hurricane Bruiser]

I hope he wins. Lawsuits are good for certain things like this and help show the hypocrisy of the election laws and practices in this country.

[Jeremy]

The only thing that bothers me about barr is that he tends to try and solve every issue with a lawsuit. Not saying it isn't a good idea BUT he tends to jump straight to it, or it is just me?

this is the first time...

[HOLLYWOOD]

Bob Barr WINS LAWSUIT!!!


After the Presidential Election... that's how the Dictatorship of Socialists and Fascists work.

[SnappleLlama]

Dude, nobody messes with the great state of Texas.

[kirkblitz]

he wont win, this issue came up about 10 years ago and texas allowed them on the ballot because big partys are allowed mistakes or somethen like that? It was odd.

[AutoDas]

This is the kind of stuff third parties should be fighting for. Not agreeing on some vague Four Points that each person interprets differently.

[constituent]

This is the kind of stuff third parties should be fighting for. Not agreeing on some vague Four Points that each person interprets differently.

I wonder which of the four "points" Barr has such a problem with.

my guess, the federal reserve and non-intervention.

[RickyJ]

"The seriousness of this issue is self-evident," the lawsuit states.

Bob Barr has no time for a proper investigation of 9/11 but he has time for frivolous suits like this one calling it serious. Bob Barr won't change anything, he is just another puppet of the elite.

[RickyJ]

I just read this piece in my e-mail. Wouldn't it be sweet if it worked?


No, it would be the denying the people of Texas a complete choice of who they want to be President. I don't want McCain or Obama to win but I don't want to deny sheeple that want to vote for one of them that opportunity on a technicality. And that is all this is, a meaningless technicality. Bob Barr should be ashamed of himself, but considering the way he treated Ron Paul I doubt he ever feels shame. He has really showed himself to be just yet another slimy lying politician.

[acptulsa]

No, it would be the denying the people of Texas a complete choice of who they want to be President. I don't want McCain or Obama to win but I don't want to deny sheeple that want to vote for one of them that opportunity on a technicality. And that is all this is, a meaningless technicality. Bob Barr should be ashamed of himself, but considering the way he treated Ron Paul I doubt he ever feels shame. He has really showed himself to be just yet another slimy lying politician.

Do the people of Texas have a complete choice of who they want to be president now? How many parties are on their ballot?

[Join The Paul Side]

Bob Barr has no time for a proper investigation of 9/11 but he has time for frivolous suits like this one calling it serious. Bob Barr won't change anything, he is just another puppet of the elite.


It is not a frivolous lawsuit. There are state election laws in place. Either there are laws, or there are not. Laws either must be followed by everybody, or anybody can break them without repercussion. I commend Barr for making this stance to uphold the law. Something you obviously have no clue about or care for.... :rolleyes:

[Razorback Fan]

The best possible outcome of this lawsuit is NOT that Obama and McCain are kept off the Texas ballot. The best possible outcome, for the long-term integrity of our electoral system and for third parties, is that Obama and McCain are allowed on the ballot AND the ruling is worded in such a way as to set a precedent that can be used to force greater inclusion for all parties in the future. We want the justices to say, "The ballot access laws in Texas are invalid for [specific reason]."

The only bad outcome is a ruling that says, essentially, "Obama and McCain must be placed on the ballot because lots of people want to vote for them, and it would be a disservice to the public not to include them."

In fact, I think this is the most likely outcome, because I have little faith in the Texas Supreme Court's willingness to exhibit some balls. I pray I'm wrong.

[constituent]

It is not a frivolous lawsuit. There are state election laws in place. Either there are laws, or there are not. Laws either must be followed by everybody, or anybody can break them without repercussion.

Well, naturally all actions have repercussions.

That said, i think this continued lawlessness seen at all levels of government will do more to wake people up to the true nature of government than any number of well-thought out essays and eloquent speakers.

A good thing, imo.



I commend Barr for making this stance to uphold the law.

Yea me too. And when the state of Texas proudly displays that middle-finger, I think it will make for an epic showdown between our republic and America's.

One of the first of many to come (and not just in Texas), of that I'm quite certain.

The lawmakers in Texas may be no better than those in D.C. (in fact, i'm quite certain that they aren't), but if we can peel back government's outer shell that'll be an excellent start.

[Knightskye]

The only thing that bothers me about barr is that he tends to try and solve every issue with a lawsuit.

That's the only way to solve this one.

Other than that, give some examples please. I'm not complaining that a third party's trying to play by the rules.

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.kxan.com/global/story.asp?s=9023493

[RickyJ]

http://www.kxan.com/global/story.asp?s=9023493


Bob Barr even sued a church in California because they didn't invite him. Talk about frivolous lawsuits! The guy sounds kind of psycho to me with the way he dissed Ron Paul at the last minute then claimed he never said he was going and suing everybody over virtually nothing. He is making the libertarian party look really bad by choosing him to be their nominee.

[Minuteman]

No, it would be the denying the people of Texas a complete choice of who they want to be President. I don't want McCain or Obama to win but I don't want to deny sheeple that want to vote for one of them that opportunity on a technicality. And that is all this is, a meaningless technicality. Bob Barr should be ashamed of himself, but considering the way he treated Ron Paul I doubt he ever feels shame. He has really showed himself to be just yet another slimy lying politician.

So, do you believe Barr should have been kept off the ballet in WV I believe it was? Or, are you a hypocrit? Shouldnt the same laws be applied across the board?

[kathy88]

No, it would be the denying the people of Texas a complete choice of who they want to be President. I don't want McCain or Obama to win but I don't want to deny sheeple that want to vote for one of them that opportunity on a technicality. And that is all this is, a meaningless technicality. Bob Barr should be ashamed of himself, but considering the way he treated Ron Paul I doubt he ever feels shame. He has really showed himself to be just yet another slimy lying politician.


I have to disagree. If it was RP that filed late you bet your ass he wouldn't get on the ballot.

[RickyJ]

I have to disagree. If it was RP that filed late you bet your ass he wouldn't get on the ballot.

If RP was the nominee of the Republican party then yes, he would have got on the ballot too despite the fact that he couldn't have filed until after the convention. The Republicans and Democrats have extensions for filing for this very reason. Nothing illegal took place here and Bob Barr of all people knows it. He is just trying to get his name in the press anyway he can.

[Razorback Fan]

I don't understand why so many people are using this to denegrate Bob Barr. Whether you like the man or not, you've got to admire, grudgingly if necessary, anyone who stands up to the hyposcrisy of the two-party system. This lawsuit is not going to make Bob Barr the next President, and he knows that as well as we all do. But it might, just might, make it easier for someone other, future candidate from outside the establishment to make it.

So what's the point of all this "Bob Barr is slimy," "Bob Barr is just trying to get his name in the press?" Of course he's trying to get his name in the press, and it's going to help Ron Paul and everyone like him in future elections. So for God's sake, come off it.

[Knightskye]

Bob Barr even sued a church in California because they didn't invite him. Talk about frivolous lawsuits!

A debate. No debates = Bob Barr at 5% in the polls.


suing everybody over virtually nothing. He is making the libertarian party look really bad by choosing him to be their nominee.

They broke the rules and he's taking them to court. That's how things are supposed to work. It's making the Libertarian Party look like they chose someone who cares about accountability. Bug off.

[georgiaboy]

kick their Texas asses, Bob!

[LibertiORDeth]

I talked to the campaign yesterday. They said lawyers did try to talk to Texas but Texas would not respond. A lawsuit is the only way to go seeing as there is not much time left before absentee ballots are printed. If Barr wins we might get to see an election settled by the House of Representatives.

I don't see how, even if he polls at 10% nationally (a very liberal estimate) with Texas he can't win...

[The Lantern]

I don't see how, even if he polls at 10% nationally (a very liberal estimate) with Texas he can't win...

If Bob Barr wins his lawsuit, the Republicans and Democrats will be denied 34 electoral votes. If the election is as close as it has been in previous years, neither party will have 270 votes to win. The election would be settled by the House.

[qh4dotcom]

Here's another article about it

http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/disenfranchise-texas

Since Obama is unlikely to win Texas, it should be to his advantage for the law to be enforced even if his name is removed from the ballot...because McCain would lose the Texas 34 electoral votes and McCain would be unlikely to get the 270 electoral votes needed to win the election.

[BeFranklin]

I talked to the campaign yesterday. They said lawyers did try to talk to Texas but Texas would not respond. A lawsuit is the only way to go seeing as there is not much time left before absentee ballots are printed. If Barr wins we might get to see an election settled by the House of Representatives.

That would be significant. Texas is large. If neither party can get votes from Texas, it is more likely to be thrown to the house.

As the credit crisis depends, the idea that the "political parties" are too large for the rules (like banks are too large to fail) will fall by the way side.

This isn't just a valid lawsuit on a real legal issue, but it has political validity. People are going to get increasingly angry as they realize what has happened. Texas will have a reason to throw the parties that caused it off the ballot.

[BeFranklin]

FYI: Bob isn't the only one that can file a lawsuit on this issue, and I think its too important to put in the hands of one man.

A bunch of groups can separately sue and join forces later.

[georgiaboy]

I wonder if any Texas Congressfolk would be willing to bolster this effort alongside the Barr campaign? Anyone?

[kirkblitz]

270 votes is only needed in a TWO way race.

[pacelli]

This is the kind of stuff third parties should be fighting for. Not agreeing on some vague Four Points that each person interprets differently.

Maybe if Bob showed up, he could have used some of his speaking time to promote the fight. I still haven't seen a video of his post-RP press conference.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'd love to see the law upheld, but for some reason I doubt that it will.

[georgiaboy]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=156055

[cjhowe]

270 votes is only needed in a TWO way race.

270 is needed in a three way, a four way, a five way, an n way as well. A candidate must carry a majority in the electoral college, otherwise the presidency is determined by the newly elected House and the vp is determined by the newly elected senate.

[constituent]

Meh, it'll cause a small shift in focus for both campaigns. It really doesn't matter who wins, and fighting for a majority is fighting for a majority, be it from 538 or 504.

Remove Texas from the equation and it's still the same d.c. bullshit, one worthless faction or another is all the same.

[Razorback Fan]

Meh, it'll cause a small shift in focus for both campaigns. It really doesn't matter who wins, and fighting for a majority is fighting for a majority, be it from 538 or 504.

Wake up and pay attention! It's a majority of 538, which is 270. The winning candidate must get 270. If he doesn't, it goes to the House to be settled.

You apparently got 504 by subtracting 34 from 538, but why? If Bob Barr wins the suit against Texas, it's not that Texas's electors won't count. They just won't go to Obama or McCain.

270. Period.

[constituent]

Wake up and pay attention!

You're excused.

Moving on...


If Bob Barr wins the suit against Texas....

Stop right there.

First, step out of fantasy land.

Second, tell me how you think anything will be solved before January '09.

What, you think he'll even get a court date before November (or even Jan. for that matter)?

rofl.

[Razorback Fan]

The Barr campaign (or the LP, I'm not sure which) filed an injunction today to prevent the Texas SOS from printing the ballots until a ruling is issued. If the injunction is granted, then the case will be settled before the election.

I don't think the odds are high, but aren't you even a little interested in seeing the outcome, reading the wording of the ruling(s), seeing what positive exposure we can squeeze out of this case? You sound like you're ready to crawl off into a corner and die.

[constituent]

You apparently got 504 by subtracting 34 from 538, but why?

B/C that is how many will be up for grabs that "count," assuming that electors from texas do not cast votes for either dem. or repug. (which is a bad assumption to make.)

again, all that it will cause is a slight shift in the calculus. It will not however throw the whole thing into a tailspin as some appear to be suggesting.

[constituent]

The Barr campaign (or the LP, I'm not sure which) filed an injunction today to prevent the Texas SOS from printing the ballots until a ruling is issued. If the injunction is granted, then the case will be settled before the election.

So all of the other elections (i.e. the ones that actually matter) should be held off to satisfy Bob Barr?



I don't think the odds are high, but aren't you even a little interested in seeing the outcome,

Yea, I hope the state of Texas tells Bob Barr to stick it. I hope Bob Barr seeks to bring in the feds and the state of Texas tells them to stick it too!



reading the wording of the ruling(s),

legalese is a waste of ink, imo.



seeing what positive exposure we can squeeze out of this case?

Positive exposure for whom?



You sound like you're ready to crawl off into a corner and die.

No, but I am ready for the states to start bucking up the the D.C. establishment though, whatever form that takes.

[Razorback Fan]

No, but I am ready for the states to start bucking up the the D.C. establishment though, whatever form that takes.

I guess the idealist in me is still alive. I like to think there is a slim chance that this will start with a pissed-off Texas Supreme Court justice who decides to screw with the system, just to see what happens. Slim chance, but not zero.

[constituent]

I guess the idealist in me is still alive.

Same here, just different ideals.

It's cool though, we'll see how it all plays out.

[Michael Ingram]

Sorry guys, no way is this going to work.