Democratic Party Texas Lawsuit on Order of Names on Ballot

On November 1, the Texas Democratic Party filed a lawsuit against the Texas law on order of candidates on the ballot. Texas Democratic Party v Hughs, w.d., 1:19cv-1071. It is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Lee Yeakel, a Bush Jr. appointee. Here is the Complaint.

The Texas law says that the top names on the general election ballot are the nominees of the party that won the last gubernatorial election. Thus Republicans have been listed first for over 24 years.

The Complaint has the same footnote as in the Arizona Democratic Party lawsuit on the same issue. It says that if the party wins the lawsuit, the relief should not apply to minor parties or independent candidates, and quotes Timmons v Twin Cities Area New Party.


Comments

Democratic Party Texas Lawsuit on Order of Names on Ballot — 16 Comments

  1. DNC tyrants and their hired guns on the march to have TOTAL Donkey RED communist regimes in the USA.

  2. As a third-party voter here in Texas, unless Dems believe that ballot-qualified third party or independent candidates should have equal weight in a random drawing alternative, they should shut up.

  3. Standard remedy

    half ballots A-Z
    half ballots Z-A

    Much too difficult for armies of MORON lawyers and worse judge HACKS.

  4. The lawsuit is kind of fuzzy about whether the Libertarian Party column should appear after the Democratic column. It is of course hypocritical. The only reason that new parties are listed last is because their gubernatorial candidate had zero votes. Independents are even laster is because they don’t have a party column.

    There may be no ballots in Texas that employee party columns, since it is impractical for voting machines.

    And since Texas has eliminated straight ticket voting, there is no purpose in having party columns.

    The better solution is to use county lotteries for each office, as is done for primaries which Chad Dunn and Marc Elias pretend to extol.

  5. @SG,

    The brief claims that the Democratic party is injured because the ballot order might cost them elections. 3rd parties aren’t going to win in any case.

    All are equal, some are more equal than others.

  6. The majority opinion in Timmons v Twin Cities Area New Party was especially hostile to the idea of Independent/minor party candidates.

  7. ‘Timmons’ is irrelevant to ballot order, and for that matter new parties. Just because the plaintiff called itself the “New Party”, does not have anything to do with the case.

  8. Jim

    Yes, but the majority opinion in Timmons went — far — off-topic and made it clear that States can pass laws favoring the two major parties.

  9. It looks to me like, in this case and the Arizona case, the plaintiffs are not drawing a line between major parties and minor parties.

    Instead, they’re drawing a line between parties who had a candidate in the last governor election (which might include some minor parties), and parties who didn’t.

    So, if the lawsuits are successful, some minor parties should benefit as well.

  10. @AB,

    Read points 41 and 55, and 57. There is nothing in Texas statute about major parties. The lawyers probably copy pasted from other lawsuits.

    The Green Party should intervene. The Democratic Party is inimical to the interests of the Green Party. The TDP sued to keep the Green Party off the Texas ballot. Mark Elias was the lawyer who blocked the Green Party in Montana, where the plaintiff’s claimed a property interest in keeping challengers off the ballot. Hillary Clinton, the Democrats presidential candidate has called Jill Stein a Russian asset.

  11. Elias is also a chief lawyer for RED communist donkeys in multiple gerrymander cases.

    ALL Donkey stuff is part of that vast leftwing RED communist conspiracy to PERMANENTLY take over the USA – via DNC machinations / committees.

    HC = robotic queen bee BORG thing – ASSimulated in 1960s.

    Capt Picard and crew to the rescue of Democracy and all life forms.

  12. @Jim Riley: Oh, I know the legal history, at least the basics, of court favoritism to the duopoly. I’m just pointing out Dems’ rank hypocrisy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.