It turns out that McCain and Obama both missed the filing deadline in Texas. This means that Bob Barr will be the only candidate legally on the ballot.

http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/08/27/bob-barr-only-presidential-candidate-on-ballot-in-texas/1617/

c'mon deadserious, campaign laws only apply to third parties -- duh!

Just in our dreams!!!!

right azbob, I forgot. They also apply to candidates that must "approve this message." I am already sick of campaign commercials.

This could be something fought all the way to the supreme court.

Imagine McCain winning this November with fraudulent votes from Texas, then having his TX electoral votes thrown out in a Supreme court ruling. Chaos ensues

Here's an email from the Barr campaign...

Dear Jason,

As it stands now, Bob Barr is the Lone Candidate in the Lone Star State.

As the filing deadline passed this week, Bob Barr was the only presidential candidate legally certified on the ballot in Texas.

The new Texas law is clear:

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 . . . before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party's state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of the names of the party's nominees for president and vice-president . . .


Given that the deadline passed on Tuesday, Senator Obama was nominated on Wednesday, and Senator McCain has not even announced his selection for Vice President, the Republican and Democrat parties in Texas were technically unable to certify their candidates by the deadline.

However, I have a sneaking suspicion that the ballot situation in Texas will magically correct itself.

Since we sent out our release yesterday regarding Bob being the only presidential candidate certified in Texas, a spokeswoman for the Texas Secretary of State's office stated that, "Upon further checking, both parties filed before the deadline. We expect their amended filings after both parties finish their nominating process at the conventions."

Upon further checking . . .

Hmmm . . .

As it turns out, upon further checking , we were able to collect 10,000 more signatures in West Virginia a few days after that early deadline passed.

Upon further checking, we found that ballot substitution is permitted in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.

Also, upon further checking, we found that Maine stopped accepting our petitions a week earlier than they had done in the past.

Not to mention that, upon further checking, we do object to the state of New Hampshire insisting that two libertarian candidates for president be listed on the ballot.

Finally, upon further checking, we found that the signature thresholds in Oklahoma are a bit too high.

Will our diligence pay off for us in West Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine and Oklahoma where we have active interests?

Do you think that John McCain and Barack Obama's names will eventually be printed on the ballot in Texas?

I would be willing to make an educated guess and say that we're going to have to fight our hearts out to get on the ballot in the states above while the Republican and Democrat candidates won't have to lift a finger to secure their place on the Texas ballot.

. . . that is unless we make a stand in Texas.

And that's exactly what we're going to do.

This situation in Texas is a perfect opportunity to highlight the double standard that exists in our nation.

Over the past several decades, Libertarians have spent millions of dollars, filed countless numbers of lawsuits while being sued countless numbers of times over their right to be on the ballot. Thousands of people have put in their time, energy, earnings and passion in an effort that, in the end, simply allows a voter to see a candidate's name printed on the ballot.

Throughout every battle that we engage in each election season, we must dot every "I" and cross every "T" or face the consequences of failure for our ballot drives.

Even when we follow the letter of the law, as we did in Pennsylvania, we still face challenges that drain our financial resources and strain our staff.

Should we give Barack Obama and John McCain a pass in Texas and look the other way? Would they do that for us?

. . . I don't think so.

If John McCain and Barack Obama want to bend the rules to get on the ballot in Texas, they're going to do it with the Barr Campaign and tens of thousands supporters looking on and scrutinizing their every move.

If you want to join us and support our efforts in Texas and around the nation, now is the time to do it.

Our campaign is taking off with tremendous opportunity and we're going to need your commitment to kick it into a higher gear.

A significant gift before the holiday weekend will help us roar into September and face our challenges in Texas, Pennsylvania and many other states.

Please consider a gift of $1,000, $500, $100 or any other amount Also, if you can give up to the maximum, please do so soon as September 4th represents the close of our primary season.

Thank you for all that you do.


In Liberty,

Shane Cory
Deputy Campaign Manager
Bob Barr for President
P.S. A reporter called last night about Texas and asked, "Do you think you're blowing this out of proportion?" I literally bit my tongue. Voters need to know about the double standard that exists within our political system and this case in Texas is the perfect way to get that message out. Please help us today with your most generous gift.

To donate by mail:

Barr 2008 Presidential Committee
P.O. Box 725007
Atlanta, GA 31139

Latest on TX ballot:

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/files/lettertosos.pdf

ds, thanks for keeping us up to date. Do you know what the orginial intent of the statue was? If it was just to give the Election Department time to print the ballots at a reason cost, it may be cause to overturn.

I just checked the Texas Secretary of State (who conducts elections) and the Nov 4, 2008 ballot shows all 3 listed.

www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/general/2008gensbs.shtml

2aggies,
Good job, most of the time all it takes is checking and the story falls apart. Like they say, don't believe anything you hear, and only 1/2 of what you see.

And yet no-one seems in the least bit disturbed that state law is overturned so easily?

Why would Tx make a law requiring filing before National Conventions elect the candidates? Just wondering. I know politicians do strange things.

Can anyone please tell me the law or statute reference info. I have the entire Texas Civil Code and Law Resources on hand and would like to look it up.

2nd edit : Here are the deadlines listed. Note the Aug 26 date is for local positions only.
www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2008dates.shtml#November

Sorry for not having that included before

2a, dead's last link list 192.031 of the Election Code.

Both conventions were pushed back this year due to the Olympics.
McCains people probably neglected to check all 50 states' laws,

and Obama's all 57 !

Oh that's right. I forgot above those Olympical things, that I don't watch anymore. I can watch all the pro athletes anytime and I'll see the swimmers at Peters pool. I liked it when it was all amateur. I digress.
I would think there will be an amendment, but shouldn't it have happened before the deadline? In the meantime let's get our drawers all in a wad, which is okay after a night of drinking and you throw'em on the floor.
I wonder why McCain's people didn't check those other 7 states? Shows how incompetent they are.
Sarcasism does not become me. HaHa

Here's one young man who has earned his right to express his opinion and cast his vote...

Excellent ad!

Yes. And the pdf I posted says that the site was updated to include their names. But as explained in the pdf, it was done so in violation to state election rules. And Bob is going to fight this in court. It's going to be interesting.

You obviously didn't read the pdf.

DS - Actually you are wrong. I did read the .pdf, however, unlike many sheep I prefer to get my facts from creditable sources not from a "candidates" (I use that term loosely here) letter or website. That is why I went directly to the SOS site. I appreciate your efforts here , but if Barr plans to sue the state of Texas isn't he going to be wasting a lot of campaign $'s, because in reality we all know the major parties are going to be on the ballot. In addition, he is going to offend many potential third party voters for wasting taxpayer $'s defending his suit. I understand principle and law, but I am more of a common sense kinda guy. That's why I don't care much for politicians.

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.

WOW - you got all of that dribble out of my post. I must be more profound than I thought. I stand corrected, I will start taking ALL of my facts from the candidates websites and speeches. Who's site shall we start with..... Well, since I wouldn't vote for Barr if he was the only candidate on the Texas ballot...
I tell you what, back to the point of my posts, remember way back there?
I'll bet you a $1.00 BZ the names ARE on our ballot.
BTW, what about the Aug 25 letter and the subsequent amended letter? You have any thoughts about those?
www.bobbarr2008.com/files/dqcertification.pdf
page 9 of 14
Silly me, sure you will. Please share.

I'm not asking you to take facts from candidates websites and speeches. But to say that you believe the establishment because they must know what they are doing and are going to do the right thing is just plain naive.



You don't have to. But you can't legally vote for McCain or Obama either.



No one is saying that they won't be. But they won't be there legally. There is a difference. And after they are there, and McCain or Obama is elected with the electoral votes, then a court throws the electoral votes out due to illegalities of the process, we will be in a huge mess won't we.

Let's just hope they do the right thing from the start.



I'm not sure I understand your question. There was no Aug 25th letter which certified McCain/Palin or Obama for the ballot.

I was referring to the letter on Barr's site that has McCain's name and "his running mate" that shows it was filed Aug 25. I am curious as to whether that has any legal meaning? I am being serious here and not trying to get a reaction. The letter shows it was received by SOS on Aug 25, but does not list his VP. I have read the election code and to me it appears you have to list both Pres and VP names by Aug 26. Do you have any info or have you heard anything about whether that holds water.

Edit: Oddly the letter has Aug 26 on it but someone wrote "received Aug 25". See the .pdf above and go to page 9.

Ok. Let me clarify the situation as it is today... at least as far as I know of it.

By law, certification papers must be received by the state on August 26th, 2008 by 5pm.

Obama's certification letter (pages 4 & 5) is dated August 27th. It was also notarized on August 27th. He's out.

McCain has a letter dated August 26th (page 9) which certifies nothing but instead makes the argument that they cannot certify as the convention has not completed. This letter is marked received on 8/25. Doesn't matter. It's not certification of the president and VP nominees.

McCain has another letter dated August 26th (page 10) which was replaced by the letter above. Still not a certification.

McCain has a third letter dated August 29th (page 14) which finally indicates McCain and Palin intend to run in the general election, but includes no certification and no notary signature. Regardless, even if you accept this as certification of the nominees, you will see that it is dated received on August 29th.

This is the rational being used to challenge the retroactively adding the names to the ballot. Outside of this timeline, I have no further info at this time. But I will let you all know when I do.

I didn't look at this very much, but my initial read is that once papers are filed they can be amended any time thereafter. It looks to me like that's what the RNC did. And it makes sense to me that such amendments be permitted - for example: what if the originally "certified" candidate died prior to the election? Are you saying the party could not amend and add someone else?

Don't know what to tell you about Obama - by my initial read, he's out.

After giving us GWB, Texans shouldn't get a vote!
Sorry Spurs, Pug, TQ, Chloe...

Thanks DS - I am more curious now about the certification. We know the certification letter was received by the SOS because that is who forwarded it to Barr, but does the Aug 26 letter meet code since it does not specifically name a VP until the amendment letter of Aug 29? I still contend there is something in the works about changing the process due to the timing issues of the conventions, but I also concede there is a violation of existing code as we read it. We have to wonder what is going on and I am sure it will come to light soon.
Reaper, come on now, you know Texas doesn't get to elect the Pres all by ourselves. (We should, but we don't ;>)) BUT, if we do I know this really cool guy that tends bar and he would be a great Pres. He has tattoo's though, think that'll hurt?

A letter sent stating that they intend to certify a candidate is not certification. It's up to the parties themselves to make sure they time their conventions such that they can comply with all 50 (or 57) state election laws. In the case of the Republicans, they just assume that the rules will be bent for them rather than comply. They must be held to the letter of the law on this as they are forcing upon the third party candidates in every other state.



At least you and I can finally agree on something.

192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE'S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ONBALLOT.

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:
(1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;
(2) before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party's state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of:
(A) the names of the party's nominees for president and vice-president; and
(B) the names and residence addresses of presidential elector candidates nominated by the party, in a number equal to the number of presidential electors that federal law allocates to this state; and
(3) the party is:
(A) required or authorized by Subchapter A of Chapter 172 to make its nominations by primary election; or
(B) entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot under Chapter 181.

DS - I hate for you to go to so much work becasue I was wondering out loud. I read the code, just wondering (out loud) if the filing is even amendable. It does not appear to be.
Let's wait this out and first one to get some insight on the state's position regarding the inclusion of the majors on the ballot, let's share it.

Does anyone know if there has ever been a case where a Presidential candidate was not allowed on the ticket because he filed late?

Bush filed late in Florida in 2004, but they bent the rules.

There was another case where a suite was filed against someone else, don't remember who right now. But that case was thrown out because of procedural problems with the lawsuit filing.

Latest Update: For Immediate Release - Sept. 17, 2008

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.

DS - Thanks for the update. I continue to have a keen interest in this from the legal aspect and do not care about the political point of view. I also still want one of those ballots without the Rep/Dem names for my wall. Guess I may be writing in this year.
Keep us posted and I will have to record tommorrows press coverage due to a trip down to the Boliver Pennisula. Going into area hit hardest by Ike and helping my father-in-law board up his cabana and salvage whats left. We know it's still standing from Coast Guard photo's. Amazing. Carrying in water and dry goods for those stranded there.

Latest:

--------------------------

Dear Jason,

Late last night, I returned from Texas where we had just filed for an emergency legal stay to prevent the Secretary of State from mailing ballots until our case is resolved.

Before I could even unpack, I received word that our emergency stay had been rejected.

The good news, however, is that our original case that challenges Senators McCain and Obama's place on the Texas ballot is, according to our attorney, "alive and well."

While I am disappointed, I am more alarmed by the opposition brief submitted by Texas' Attorney General. Rather than address this issue on its legal merit, the Texas AG is politicizing this issue under the guise of protecting troops stationed overseas.

Can you believe this, the opening paragraph of their brief?

"Undeniably the Constitution of the United States protects the right of all qualified citizens to vote." In that spirit, the State of Texas opposes any threat to the rights of military service members to receive, case, and return ballots from abroad. The Motion for Emergency Stay filed by Relators Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root, and the Libertarian Party of Texas presents precisely this threat, in asking this Court to stop the mailing of ballots to our men and women in uniform around the globe. This Court should deny the Motion and protect the constitutional rights of military voters.


As a decorated war veteran myself, I have literally fought for our right to vote, but more importantly, I fought to preserve and protect our Constitution and the rule of law.

Rather than addressing the law, a bureaucrat in Texas has decided to exploit our troops serving overseas to buffer his arguments to violate the law.

While I am upset by the actions of the Texas Attorney General, I still maintain faith that the Texas Supreme Court will not interject partisan politics into this legal matter.

In other news, I also learned last night upon my return that John McCain's operative in Pennsylvania, Republican County Chair Victor Stabile, filed an appeal after soundly losing his case to throw Bob Barr off of the ballot. This operative for John McCain is relentless in his quest to remove Bob from the ballot despite the Pennsylvania Libertarian Party dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" in their effort to place Bob on the ballot.

I'm confident that we will win the appeal and I'm confident that our efforts in Texas will generate a positive outcome.

We have 46 days left to fight in this campaign and we're not going to waste a day.

Bob will be hitting battleground states hard in the coming weeks while we continue to fight tooth-and-nail to get on as many ballots as possible and continue our efforts in Texas.

Nancy -- yes, all the time -- never Republicans or Democrats -- but all the time. Latest I am aware of at the presidential election was the Libertarians in West Virginia. The laws do not apply to Republicans and Democrats -- just everyone else.

Sept 23 the Texas Supreme Court denied the Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Without opinion, the 8th decision this month without opinion.
FYI
Wonder what's next? I am in Texas and the story is not getting much if any air time. Just a blurb last night on the news.

All a Writ of Mandamus is as far as I understand is an instruction to a lower court to take action. So all this means is that the Supreme Court is not forcing a lower court to act quickly.

Not ideal for Barr, but doesn't kill the suit.