On August 6, the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts, and the Barr-Root campaign, and the national LP, jointly filed a lawsuit against the Massachusetts Secretary of State. The lawsuit is sponsored by the Massachusetts ACLU, and argues that the Constitution requires Massachusetts to permit stand-in presidential candidates and to then let the party replace the stand-in with the actual presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Thanks to Art Torrey for this news. The case is Barr v Galvin, number 08-11340.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
This is just dumb. Hope Libertarians win big on this for the benefit of all Americans and all third parties.
I think that the reason that this became an issue this year but wasn’t previously is that the stand-in candidate (George Phillies) has refused to step down
No, he has not.
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/07/05/george-phillies-massachusetts-presidential-ballot-situation-was-lphq-decision/
Oh, OK.
Were any of the state’s assurances in writing? (I’ll wager not) Who did they talk to, the head guy or the person answering the phone. Lawsuits are never a “slam dunk” and a lawyer who says so doesn’t know what they are talking about or has a client who hears what he wants to hear.
Well, if worst comes to worst and they lose the lawsuit then they can just get the delegates who are pledged to Phillies to agree that they will defect to support Barr if elected, and then say that all “Phillies votes” are really “Barr votes” and count them as such whenever publishing vote counts.
In some ways, this probably won’t matter. To the extent that the vote in Massachusetts affects ballot access status next year, etc., it shouldn’t matter whether it is Barr or Phillies, and for purposes of counting the national vote, it is only relevant if the LP intends to accept federal financing.