On September 26, the 5th Circuit removed Bob Barr from the Louisiana ballot. The three judges were Carolyn King (a Carter appointee from Texas), James Dennis (a Clinton appointee from Louisiana), and Priscilla Owen (a Bush Jr. appointee from Texas). The action was taken without any hearing. The case is Libertarian Party et al v Dardenne, 08-30922. Technically, the ruling only stays the decision of the U.S. District Court, and a ruling on declaratory relief will be held after the election.
The five-page order says that the state will suffer irreparable injury if the stay is not granted. That irreparable injury is that “absentee voters in the military and overseas will receive two ballots with different candidates, with a resulting likelihood of confusion and duplicate voting.” The ruling also says, “We recognize that the stay will inflict harm on the Libertarian Party, but we believe that the harm may well be of their own making.” The party has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the stay.
here we go again
Is there any appeal to this?
More evidence for the “state laws are arbitrary” pile.
I bet they wouldn’t have found this stay to harm the state of LA had it been Obama or McCain that had been denied ballot access.
bullshit. That’s what that is. +1 to Mr. Gillis.
It just goes to show, some animals are more equal than other animals.
Sounds like Louisiana and Texas need to compare notes and get their stories straight, or perhaps build a fence between each of them, because if they disagree this much they probably don’t make good neighbors.
I don’t get this. I thought Louisiana was one of the EASIEST states for ballot access – pay $500. At least that’s what Richard’s chart indicates. What is the problem there?
I agree with Danny S. I used the Dist. Law in that case in a mailing tonight to my En Banc court case before , I believe , 11 judges there on a requested rehearing. The law was absolutely correct.
Yes, LA is an extremely easy state and the LP had lots of time to file the paperwork. I have no idea why it wasn’t filed on the first day.
M Carling Says:
September 26th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
“Yes, LA is an extremely easy state and the LP had lots of time to file the paperwork. I have no idea why it wasn’t filed on the first day.”
This is certainly true.
Wake up all you ballot drive and ballot access coordinators.
Still, the ruling is wrong, and a Supreme Court appeal along with the Texas decision should get one of them overturned. Except that little fact that:
the United States of America does NOT have free elections. It is a fascist-socialist dictatorship. If the Supreme Court does NOT overturn this decision AND lets the Texas decision stand, then NO ONE elected President this year will have been elected legitimately.
If there is one thing that courts hate more than anything else it is being late. And that’s fine. But it doesn’t explain why Barr can’t be late in Louisiana but Obama and McCain can be late in Texas.
As the 5th circuit itself notes, even the Republican and Democratic Parties missed the Louisiana statutory deadline. The statutory deadline was September 2, but the Dems and Reps turned theirs in on September 5. Since the Secretary of State had extended the deadline to September 8 (but hadn’t told anyone) one could argue that the major parties were on time, but they missed the statutory deadline themselves. And since the law says qualified parties get a grace period of 3 days, one would think that would be 3 days after the Secretary of State’s deadline, in which case the LP was not late.
Louisiana has the sort of ballot access that all your states should have in Presidential elections. Provide a list of Presidential Electors and pay a not unreasonable fee ($500) as an expression that your campaign is serious. It shouldn’t be beyond the wit of any political party with a Louisiana presence to get on the ballot there.
The Socialists seem to have had a problem getting the details for one elector and ended up filing incomplete – not very good and hopefully a lesson learned for the future.
The Libertarians are even worse. A relatively large party with plenty of ballot access experience should not have been leaving this to the last moment. Full stop.
This seems an undemocratic (dare I say un-American) court ruling but I find it difficult to raise much sympathy for the campaigns involved. Happily, there remains a wide spread of candidates and choice on the Louisiana ballot so that voters there will still be able to express an opinion across the political spectrum
Well, that’s the second time in a week or so that the “don’t disenfranchise or confuse the troops overseas” argument has been used. This is fast becoming the bullshit argument of the year for ballot access denial. They’ll probably try to use it next to keep electronic voting machines…
Richard,
Have you considered adding a second row to your “tote” on the front page, showing what percentage of the voters each candidate’s ballot access number gives them?
Are U.S.A. troops fighting against BARBARIANS in Asia so stupid as not to understand any second ballot with a half page court order / statement to RE-vote ???
If so, then Heaven help the U.S.A.
How many New Age party hacks now even in the U.S.A. Courts of Appeal ???
ANY chance that separate – is – NOT – equal being brought up by the all knowing all seeing Barr lawyers for the attention of the party hack Supremes ???
Don’t forget, even the Republicans and Democrats missed the statutory deadline in Louisiana. The statutory deadline was September 2, and they both filed on September 5.
Richard Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 9:54 am
“Don’t forget, even the Republicans and Democrats missed the statutory deadline in Louisiana. The statutory deadline was September 2, and they both filed on September 5.”
I notice this referenced in the Barr/Root brief to the US Supreme Court. Maybe I missed it. I perused the brief quickly. Shouldn’t this fact be referenced, or will it be brought up later?
That is I DIDN’T notice the late filing being referenced ….
The Fifth Circuit opinion itself says the Dems & Reps didn’t file til Sep. 5. And, indeed, the Reps couldn’t have filed on Sep. 2, since they didn’t nominate for either pres or v-p until Sep. 3.
Re: #12
The State of Texas set a procedure with which the Republican and Democratric parties could not comply, or if they could comply, only in a superficial and nonsubstantive manner. The deadline had been set such that the Secretary of State could certify the candidates to the counties in order that ballots could be prepared for overseas voters (in compliance with federal law).
Despite the parties missing the deadline set in law, they were able to file in time for the Secretary of State to meet the deadline for certifying the candidates, such that ballots could be prepared and mailed to overseas voters. Barr did not file his suit until weeks later.
In Louisiana, it appears that the Libertarian filing did not occur until after the Secretary of State had already prepared the ballot for overseas voters.
Re: #21
In the case of recognized parties, Louisiana provides that the national party may file 3 days later (September 5). See La RS 18:1253.E
The Liberarian filing to the Supreme Court notes this difference, and argues that if the Secretary of State’s extension of filing until September 8 was valid, that their filing on the 10th was within this 3 day extension period. The Libertarian Party is a recognized party in Louisiana.
We wanted to file these papers on the first day. However, the Barr campaign took it upon itself, without contacting the state party or the La SoS, to file and pay themselves. They did so incorrectly. The process of receiving the incorrect paperwork back from the SoS, forwarding to the Barr campaign for proper form of payment, and then getting it back in return took till the Wednesday before the Storm hit. It was on Thursday we were informed by the SoS that we in fact, as a recognized party, DID NOT need the payment. Had the SoS office been knowledgeable about the fact that we are to file in the same manner as the Dems and Reps from day one, we would have filed our paperwork on the first day.
Combine the Barr campaign’s lack of communication with the state party, the ignorance of the Secretary of State’s office of their own laws, and the hurricane closing the offices on the last day of filing (not to mention scattering some electors) and you see why we missed the Sept 2nd deadline.
Had we had even just the correct info from the SoS, the rest would have been irrelevant. The case required us to prove there was an action by the SoS which prevented us from filing – the combination of improper information of the requirements, as well as closing the offices on the last day (and lack of communication from them on re-opening) is what prevented the LPL from filing timely. Hence why we were granted the injunction.
There are lots of factors to consider in this case, but much attention is being given to the “three-day grace period.” The assumption being made is that the grace period MUST run from the last day of qualifying.
However, La. RS 18:1253(E) only says that the three-day grace period runs from “5:00 p.m. on the first Tuesday in September.” It does not say that the grace periods runs from the end qualifying, nor does it say that a new grace period is automatically created if the qualifying period is re-opened.
The grace period that the statute allows for recognized parties expired at 5:00 p.m. on September 5. If the Sec. of State or the courts chose to ignore the statute and re-open qualifying on September 8, there is no reason that we should assume that their action also revived the unfair advantage that the statute gave to recognized parties.
I do hope that the Libertarian slate and the Socialist slate both make it onto the ballot in Louisiana, but I don’t see why the Libertarians should have a legal advantage over the Socialists in this case. Whatever advantage Louisiana law gave the Libertarians was lost win they failed to meet the September 5 deadline.
The September 5th deadline in La. RS 18:1253(E) is for a national party chairman to file in the case of failure by a state party to file by September 2nd.
Because of the timing of their national conventions, the Democratic and Republican parties could have anticipated the failure of the state party to certify the candidates on the 2nd, and arranged for certification of the 5th.
September 2nd was the deadline not the first day they could have filed wasn’t it? The convention was in May and the LP as well as the Barr campaign had from May til September to gather 1000 signatures and or $500 dollars. Someone dropped the ball in the state party not to get the LP on the ballot in a timely fashion. Actually they should have filled in August at the latest.