In Texas, the evidence is clear . . .
September 4th, 2008 by Shane CoryThis evening I received a response from the Texas Secretary of State’s office to my request for the certification papers of both John McCain and Barack Obama.
The certification deadline which passed at 5 p.m. on August 26th – before the nomination of Barack Obama and even before John McCain selected a running mate – was clearly missed by both major party candidates.
Our campaign manager, Russell Verney, transmitted a letter to the Secretary of State’s office this evening after we obtained the documents which you can view here.
In the letter, we made our stance clear:
The Democratic Party, and Mr. Obama and the Republican Party and Mr. McCain blatantly ignored the Texas statutory deadline.
Therefore, the Libertarian candidate for president, Bob Barr, as represented by his principal campaign committee, Bob Barr 2008, demands that your office keep the names of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain and Sarah Palin off the Texas general election ballot.
Failure of the Secretary of State to comply with Texas law will result in serious legal consequences.
Please take a look at the attachments linked above, give us a hand in getting this story out.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
The eyes of Texas are upon you all the live-long day! Time to call Walker, Texas Ranger. By the way isn’t Chuck N. a Ft. Worth resident? Is he still supporting Huckabee?
September 4th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Not to nit-pick…
But did you happen to read the confidentiality notice at the top of the cover page?
I’m sure we all greatly appreciate the info, but just make sure if you are going to sue the State that you mind your Ps and Qs.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Great job. I have been telling everyone I know about th Texas ballot, and many people are intrested! (D) and (R) are now starting to see the Libertarian party as a new Major part in the future. If we are able to get just 5% in every state this Nov., the libertarian party in 4 years will save time and money on the ballout access.
The Libertarian Party will become a majo party in 4 to 8 years and there is nothing that can stop it
September 4th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
This is all well and good, but it is basically just a distraction. We all know that the Rs and the Ds will be on the ballot. Also, as Libertarians aren’t we supposed to support easy access to the ballot? We have challenged laws in other states where we were not able to meet deadlines, but now we are trying to keep other parties off of the Texas ballot for missing deadlines there. Obviously, since the major parties don’t officially nominate their candidates until after the deadline it is not possible for them to meet this certification requirement.
My point is, I would love to have Bob Barr get 100% of the vote in Texas, but abandoning our fight for easier ballot access is not the way to do it. After all, we are supposed to be the Party of Principle.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
I am really interested in the outcome of this situation. I have been greatly disappointed by the NRA already and am hoping to revive some of my hope with a positive outcome for Bob and the LP in this case. I still can not believe that the NRA endorsed McCain over Bob Barr when Mr.Barr sits on their board and McCain received less than high marks from them on 2nd Amendment issues.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Matt
I agree with you but I think giving them a taste of their own medicine is deserved. I also believe that they will be on the ballot in TX and that they should but maybe a wake up call is needed so they as the establishment will work to make ballot access easier in the future so they do not get hung up like this again. Competition is what we would all like to see and we would all like to see equal media coverage and all ideas debated and when that happens then we will see the LP succeed because there is no denying the message of freedom. I think they will be on the ballot but I also think they need to feel a bit of anxiety about it to make access laws change.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Easy ballot access would be great. However, the Rs and Ds have made the rules and try to hold everyone to them…why shouldn’t the have to be held to the same rules as everyone else???
September 4th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
The way I see it, the system for elections is in dire need of reform, and the Libertarian Party should continue to fight for reform. However, until laws change, they still need to be followed.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I don’t think it’s wrong at all to use it against them. If nothing else it makes a point about how the laws are selectively enforced.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Matt…I believe you are right in that we as Libertarians should support easier ballot access. In fighting the laws of Texas to refuse the access of the R&D’s, we are actually opening doors in other states to allow the Libertarian Party easier access, for we all know that the R&D’s will NOT be kept off the ballot in Texas. It will set precedents for other states. Maybe it will open the eyes of many more American’s to how hard it is for 3rd parties to get on the ballot.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Am I the only one with a problem for this website publishing a confidential form and listing the names and addresses of the electors without their permission??
September 4th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Yes, Matt you are right. However, the R and Ds propagate these ballot access laws to perpetuate their agenda of power and control, and to subvert the democratic process. Do we not have the right to petition for redress and pursue Liberty and Justice for all?
September 4th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Amen I dare you to come here and step on Liberties by saying we arent allowed to know whats going on.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
No Bruce, you’re not the only one with a problem regarding the publishing of names and addresses of electors without their permission. You are definitely not alone.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Bruce - they are candidates for public office.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
The Democrats definitely missed the deadline. For the Republicans, it gets interesting. Their first two filings were dated the 26th (oops) but the Elections Division logged them in on the 25th. What is suspicious is if you look carefully at the date marked on their first filing (fax page 9). It definitely looks altered, like it was possibly changed from the 26th to the 25th.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
I was hoping for a good street fight after a slow start and it looks like we got one…….
Send these emailable attachments to anyone you know in the media or anyone in the media you have an email address to
Rope-A-Dope as Ali would say
September 4th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Well, in a just, honest nation, all things being equal, it seems that the O’Bama campaign is in violation. While, depending on what Subchapter A of Chapter 172 says, McCain might be in the clear.
I would definitely subpoena any and all phone records down there.☺
September 4th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Bruce,
Your nomination papers are public record and can be reauested by anyone. I should know the Republicans in my state keep pulling all my paperwork.
They are not confidentail papers!
September 4th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I tend to agree with you, Bruce. It might be a viable avenue to pursue, but posting the electors’ names and addresses looks a little shaky and could possibly have repercussions. Then part of me says “Why not?” All publicity is good publicity when you’re garnering 3% in the polls.
If the Libertarian party is going to grow, it will have to fund its own large scale media outlet and get the backing of someone with the clout of a Rupert Murdoch. It’s possible, if all the John Galts of the world get fed up and unite.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
It’s interesting to note that on the original Republican facsimile, the one that has “old” marked on it, that the date received was obviously changed from something else to 8/25/08. The one that says “Replacement from Original Filed” marked on it has the received date as 8/25/08. Surely there is some sort of signature of receipt document that the Republican Party of Texas has as proof that the Texas SOS received the document that can be subpoenaed.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Barr may be the only candidate for the state of Texas, but the electoral college can still vote for John McCain and Barack Obama through faithless electors. Prevent this by running your campaign in Texas and getting Texans to vote for you, this should mitigate the faithless electors, and that is another fear — that the electoral college will just ignore Bob Barr.
Bob Barr: Make Texas a state to campaign in and get Republicans and Obamaniacs to vote for you, because you still need a turn out for the electoral college to take you seriously.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Go get ‘em Bob! It would appear the Republican Party in Texas has taken notice of the Bob Barr campaign indeed. Hey, the law is the law, no one is above it. If they screwed up, so be it, better luck next time. What’s that saying you hear from those in government, “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
September 5th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Yes, but has the lawsuit actually been filed? It happened in the past where libertarians were in a position to do so but due to inefficiencies in their campaigns, did so after the statute of limitations had run out. Thus there was no lawsuit.
The clock is ticking, and I hope that Barr files quickly. This is too important an opportunity to waste.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:39 am
A casual observation. I’m surprised Obama doesn’t jump on this too. They have no chance at really winning Texas, yet Texas is a huge part of the Republican attempt to mass more electoral votes. Maybe we can get help from Obama to get them off the ballot. Obama won’t care because if the rule isn’t enforced he won’t win the state, if it is enforced, McCain won’t either.
Some might call this making a deal with the devil, but if we effectively knock a major party ticket off the ballot, we can get news coverage on the unfairness that keeps many 3rd party candidates off the ballot, and better our chances in the future.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Matt: Missing a ballot access deadline cannot really be equated with missing a candidate selection deadline. The former involves lots of hard work and uncertainty; while the latter involves filing a simple form at the appropriate time. The only variable for the latter (when a party holds its national convention) is well within their control.
I thought we were a nation of laws, not a nation of men? As Kasie said, if nothing else, this may wind up setting precedents that benefit alternative parties.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:06 am
The Democrats only filed their electors on time (barely 20 minutes before the deadline if the time stamp is right), but didn’t name their candidates until the next day.
The Republicans never officially named their candidates. Even in what was submitted on the 29th they continue to say that they are merely scheduled to nominate McCain/Palin.
September 5th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Damn….Verney is pissed!! Im sure it will be twisted in their favor or the LP will be ignored and treated like a pest, and the two socialist party system will be on the ballot for all of their loyal puppy dog followers to vote for. Havent we learned yet that the Republicrats are above the law no matter what? I mean, that is the impression they give everyone else accross the country. Heaven forbid that they actually follow the law for once and take their lumps as they deserve them. I applaud Mr. Verney for taking action in the matter and wish you all the sucess in winning this battle.
September 5th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Matt, these ballot laws were specifically put in place by Democrats and Republicans to make it more difficult for alternative political parties to meet the deadlines and requirements and gain ballot access. When an alternative party misses these deadlines they are never given second chances or have the rules bent to allow them onto the ballot. But one of these laws has come up and bit the Republicrats right on the behind and the Texas SOS just ignores it and covers it up without thinking twice. We must fight to keep them off the ballot in order to make the general public understand just how wrong these laws are. If a judge rules in our favor and removes them from the ballot, then the Republicrats will have to have the Supreme Court rule that the ballot laws are unconstitutional and that will be the ultimate victory for Libertarians.
September 5th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Wow Russ, love the response letter. Great work so far, keep it up
September 5th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Two points…
Simply because a form says “confidential” on it does not make it so. Attorneys do this as a matter of routine practice, but it does not mean there is any legal, or other, obligation to follow the confidentiality notice. Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.
The other thing is that the names of electors are not confidential information. They are candidates (from a legal perspective, they are the true candidates, and not the Prez and Veep nominees).
Good job Barr team.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:43 am
I’ll have to tell you, I totally agree that ballot access laws are restrictive, harmful to democracy, and most of all unnecessary, because this campaign didn’t have any traction anyway….sorry I’m going to be blunt about that, despite being a supporter.
And I want to comment on the so-called confidentiality notice. ciborium, someone’s notice is not a binding agreement. When you ask for public documents, they are public, period, you can print them.
You may see notices like this all the time, I got a new cellphone and creditors were looking for person who had previously had this same cell phone number, and they would leave messages like ‘by listening to this message, you are agreeing you are Jane Smith’
No, by listening to the message, I knew I was the owner of that number, I didn’t agree to anything…agreements are TWO WAY, not ONE WAY ANNOUNCEMENTS.
I digress, but so what, the campaign has become about ballot access laws in Texas, and we are in favor of restrictive enforcement, WOW.
WOW.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Bruce,
The documents were in a request for “public information”. How can the secretary of state say here is the public information you requested now keep it confidential.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Thanks for the update, and keep their hands to the fire!
It’s like playing a board game with a jerk that keeps changing the rules to fit his/her best interest and disadvantage you.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Fantastic! Yes, we should pursue this to the fullest extent possible, if for no other reason to draw attention to the ballot access issue. To Matt, I completely sympathize with what you’re saying about making it harder for ballot access…but since this deadline is the rule of law, I’m of the opinion that we should use the law to our favor until it is changed (when it is ethical and still in the spirit of the law, which I believe this endeavor is). It’s like term limits: I support them, but I wouldn’t want my senator to voluntarily impose term limits on himself when all the other senators do not…we’d lose seniority and influence. We need to all play by the same rules, and enforce them, until the rules are changed. In fact, playing by what we consider as “unfair” rules may actually help get them changed!
Let’s spread the word. The major news media need to broadcast this story, but won’t happen unless it gets traction.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:47 am
We should push this to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Just think, if we lose, we win.
If the Court says it is not in the best interests of voters to have fewer choices due to such immaterial technicalities, then it will be a decision that helps us in all our other court cases.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Everyone needs to remember that this issue is not necessarily about ballot access and electoral law. The real issue here is government corruption.
Having only one candidate, regardless of the party, on the ballot is a very bad thing. Our goal shouldn’t be to keep choices off of the ballot no matter how much we might want Bob to win. Our goal should be to highlight the corruption that is occurring behind the scenes to maintain an unfair election.
This should not be taken as a chance to attack McCain and Obama, it should be taken as a chance to attack the system that locks others out of the ballots.
If we cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these parties made their filings late, and that the Texas Secretary of State department has attempted to cover it up, then we have nothing. Proving the filings and documents were altered could be harder than we think.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:24 am
In response to the person who suggested that it may be unlibertarian to try to McBama off of the Texas ballot, there is a more important principle involved. The Texas law is restrictive and discriminatory. It should be abolished. One of the best ways to get rid of bad laws is to enforce them, as long as no innocent parties are injured.
I hope that there is no one who believes that the Demopublicans are innocent parties. Therefore, I support the Barr campaigns efforts. If Texas Republocrats aren’t able to vote for their candidates, a highly unlikely event since the law will be twisted to get them on the ballot, then they will know how we feel when we are restricted. Hopefully, it would be an educational experience for them.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Ive already sent an email to a majority of the Dems in the State of Texas in addition to the Sec of State for Texas. Dont hate on me, I figure that ‘The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend’ and maybe, just maybe, the Dems might help with this. At the time I sent the email, I hadnt heard that they missed the deadline, but the Reps grossly missed it.
I did a search for Texas Senators/Represenatives and got a boat load of email addresses, web sites and was busy for sme time sending the emails.
September 5th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
In reality, it does not matter. It is my understanding that Texas law allows for “faithless” electors and that it also allows the legislature to “appoint” electors when the election is in doubt. If Bob Barr succeeds in keeping Obama and McCain off the ballot, would it not be simple for there to be a “problem” with the election wherein no winner can be declared (due, perhaps to a decision by the two campaigns to pick two different obscure third party candidates who are currently certified as write-in candidates as their proxies) due to the difficulty of actually COUNTING all of the write in votes the voting process takes us up to the point in the election where electors must be certified by the state without declaring a winner? In that case, according to Texas law, the state legislature can appoint the electors directly.
September 6th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Matt, I agree with you that getting on the ballot should be easier, not harder. However, I think you miss the greater point here: the duplicity. The Libertarians are held to one standard, while the two major parties are held to another standard. So long as Libertarians are not on the West Virginia ballot due to the deadline, then why should Republicans and Democras be on the Texas ballot when they, too, have missed a deadline?
September 7th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Wow…what an interesting opportunity to get some additional exposure for Barr. I hope someone is working on a way to attract the attention of the national media outlets to cover the issue. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the libertarian candidate had a shot this time?
September 7th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Trying to keep the other parties off the ballot has the potential to create negative blowback, as the majority partisan will no doubt claim the libertarians are trying to interrupt “democracy.” Barr should still sue, but he should sue for permanent recognition by the State of Texas of minority parties such that everyone is finally put on a level playing ground.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:20 am
It’s not trying to keep them off the ballot. But to ensure they abide by the same rules as everyone else. Instead of grandstanding and causing such a scene in the delaying tactics of choosing their running mates(and keeping it secret til the last possible moment), they should have made their decision, announced it and followed each state’s laws concerning the election process in general. The big excuse is that the RNC and DNC didnt meet til after the state’s deadline isnt the fault of the states in question, but rather lies with the planners of the conventions themselves. They had plenty of time to plan ahead, schedule the conventions and follow the rules.
As a side note, I just got a video from my mother about a guy that made a video clip supporting McCain. It makes me sick to think of the levels that some people will stoop(not my mother, the guy in the video) by saying that being against the war in Iraq is being against the military and is being Un-American. I’m former military and believe that we do need a strong military… but not to go around the world and act as the Earth’s Enforcers.
Ok, before I make a comment that lasts a whole page, will cut it off at that.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Debate update:
Another poster put the phone number for the Commission on Presidential Debates, just called it and the lady directed me to the web site. I asked her about how to get Bob on the debate stage and she stated that the best way to do so would be to do exactly what I’m doing… calling the office. Supposedly, she was recording the conversation and would ‘forward it’ to her superiors. That may or may not be true, but it sure cant hurt to call. The line was busy the first couple of times that I called, but on the 3rd try, I got through to an actual person, not an automated system.
I suggest we flood that phone number with as many callers as we can muster. Even if there is no ‘recorded message’ to send to superiors…. the volume of calls for Bob should speak for itself.
Again, the number is (202) 872-1020
September 10th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
If Dr. Paul accepts the VP invitation, wouldn’t that put the Barr/Paul ticket out of compliance with these very rules?
September 13th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
I know this isn’t going to be an overly popular opinion, but come on. How is this the right attitude to have in an election? How dare the state use a little common sense in making a decision to allow the two serious contenders to be on their ballot. Since when is the letter of the law more important than the spirit? Isn’t this what got us into our current situation in the first place? People keep turning the law constitution into technicalities. The fact in, Texas has just as much of a right to cast their votes for John McCain (we know they will, they are the ultimate red state), as every other state. I know it would be nice to let the party win a state for once, but don’t let it be at the cost of millions of voters being disenfranchised.
That being said, I would think it was hilarious if this were successful. Bad for the country, but incredibly funny.
September 14th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Liberty Chick and some others are right. The names and addresses of electors and candidates that have been filed with the Secretary of State (SOS) are not confidential, but public information. The confidentiality notice is just on their fax cover sheet in case they send something truly confidential (who knows if that happens).
I do think the law should be enforced. They need to have the names some time in advance, to get all the election machines, etc., prepared. So, it’s not a law that is bad in principle. Maybe 70 days is more time than they really need, but that is what the law is now, and everyone knew the deadline well in advance. This is not a law that made it difficult for anyone to comply.
Here are the issues I see. The names of Obama and Biden were just not delivered timely. The Ds sent only electors’ names by the deadline. Whether even they were timely delivered might depend on the email address to which they were sent. The email was to an employee of the SOS, but the document does not show the email address. Another provision of the Texas Election Code (far from title 11 on Presidential Elections) says:
Ҥ 1.007. DELIVERING, SUBMITTING, AND FILING DOCUMENTS.
(a) When this code provides for the delivery, submission, or
filing of an application, notice, report, or other document or
paper with an authority having administrative responsibility under
this code, a delivery, submission, or filing with an employee of the
authority at the authority’s usual place for conducting official
business constitutes filing with the authority.”
That allows delivery to an employee of the SOS, but it still must be “at the authority’s usual place for conducting official business.” The time shown on the email is 4:40 pm, 20 minutes before the 5 pm deadline. If the email was sent to an SOS email address, it would have gone fairly quickly to the SOS’s server and so likely was delivered by 5 pm. However, if it was sent to the employee’s personal email address, it was probably not delivered “at the authority’s usual place for conducting official business” until the employee’s computer at the SOS office downloaded the email from her email provider’s server. The employee’s email acknowledging receipt was at 5:12 pm. Barr’s attorneys will need to ask for the right further documents to see when it was delivered to the SOS.
The Rs gave McCain’s name and the electors’ names timely, but not Palin’s. Even though McCain was not officially the nominee when the certification was sent, it would be very weak to challenge McCain on that ground. He was in fact named, and is in fact the nominee, plus, by the rules, it was known when the certification was sent that he would be the nominee. The Rs have some problems other than there being no basis for Palin’s name to be on the ballot. The Code provision at issue provides that the party can have the names of the Pres. and VP nominees on the ballot if the party’s state chair delivers timely:
“(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.”
Note that (A) requires both names. There is no provision for just the presidential nominee to be on the ballot if his name is delivered timely, but no VP name is. Perhaps worse is that (B) requires residence addresses of presidential elector candidates. The list from the Rs gave only a PO Box for several of them. Thus, the Rs failed to deliver names and residence addresses in a number equal to the number of presidential electors that federal law allocates to Texas.
OK, Barr attorneys, take it from here.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Given the above, I concur that there was a probable screwup on the part the D’s AND R’s. Since the R’s want to forever ramble about “the rule of law”, they should adhere to that belief, and bow out of Texas. The D’s should additionally bow out because they failed on a technical error regarding the use of PO Boxes, even though that might have been all the info they had to go by. I cannot imagine someone actually living in a PO Box…they’re awfully cramped.
So, considering all the above, both major parties are going to have to realize that “the gig is up”. For them to not abide by the rule of law, is to expose them as hypocrites. Then, if the electors vote for “other than Barr”, the hypocrisy goes into overdrive, IMO.
I wonder if Texas allows placeholder names, though I didn’t see it in the language from above, and they probably don’t. So, if they don’t, then we absolutely have grounds for failure, and only Barr should be on the ballot.
This will definitely be an earthshaker to be sure.