2aggies -- with all due respect, this is no menial issue. The letter of the law is used to exclude third parties all the time here in Ohio as well as Texas. It seems the law can be selectively applied.

"we all know the major parties are going to be on the ballot"

Well, by all means then, do whatever the hell you want. Why file at all?? Let's just allow the major parties an outright exclusion because, after all, they are the MAJOR paties -- they shouldn't be expected to follow the same laws as others.

O - I apologize if it seemed I approved. I agree with the letter of the law, however, we know a group of legal eagles are going to come up with some change, amendment, statute or some other "excuse" to change the rules. Let's not bury our heads in the sand, but we must all pick our battles and to me it seems impossible that we are going to be presented with a bollot on Nov 4 without the major parties candidates on them. If so, I'd like a copy of one to frame and put on my wall. And I do not believe we are so naive to think there was not talk of this before the deadline approached, however, as I pointed out earlier, the conventions had not yet officially nominated their candidates at the time of the deadline. Me thinks that will be a presentable arguement. On that subject, are the national conventions really just a HUGE waste of $$$. Great for the host cities and airlines though, but in reality the candidates have been choosen. MHO

Your credible source is the offending party. How credible is that???

DS - The State of Texas, Secretary of State, as oppossed to a copy of a letter suppossedly sent by a third party campaign manager..... HMMMM so are you saying that is more credible. So I guess you are saying we should believe everything on a candidates letterhead or website? We each get to choose what we think is more credible. I choose not to use the info of McCain or Obamma sites as well.
Regardless you too have missed the entire point of my post.
And yes, for me, I find the SOS site more credible than a copy of a letter from a third party campaign manager that has no proof of even being sent or real.

I see your point 2aggies and it is reasonable. However, this is a legitimate cause for third party politics. We finally won a victory in Ohio that will allow third party labels to be used (Green, Libertarian, Constitution, etc.) If your same argument were applied here, the case holding the Republicans to the same rules as third parties would never have come to pass. It was successfully argued that by their own rules, Republicans and Democrats shouldn't have their party names on ballots in Ohio. A judge finally saw the double-standard and real change resulted. The same powerful step forward could happen in Texas if a courageous judge were to do what's right.

If only the Libertarians owned a few Judges like the Republicans and Democrats do !

Reminds me of Dudley Moore in one of the many great scenes from Arthur proclaiming to the old drunk in the bar before his wedding that "what we need here is a few more communists!"

O - I agree with you. I think all parties should be listed or none at all. Boy wouldn't that be a challenge for some voters to actually be knowledgable of whom they were voting for rather than voting by party?
Pug - I would like to own my own judge too, but I checked the prices in todays sale ads and I can't afford one. LOL Maybe EBay? Although the reserve would be out of my range.
It's a beautiful day in East Texas!! Hope everyone else has the same. Think I'll go enjoy it and catch up with my board friends tommorrow while I should be working. :>)

I have a couple I'll give you for free - they're useless to me.

LA - we already have all the worthless/useless judges we need in TX. There should be a recycle program were we could convert them to fertilizer or something.

Here is your logic...

I prefer to believe the lies spewed by the establishment because they are the establishment which then makes them more credible.

The pdf lays out the case for why the website you state was acting in violation of the law in listing the candidates. Yet you say the fact that the candidates are listed inherently makes the case layed out in the pdf bunk.

If you are going to argue the merits of the case layed out in the pdf, that's fine, but stating the site itself as the credability of your case makes no sense.

But it doesn't matter. The courts will decide and I'll keep you all posted on the progress.