On September 27, the Louisiana Libertarian Party filed this strong brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that Bob Barr be put back on the ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court docket number is 08A269. It is 17 pages, and is well worth reading. Note that this is a microsoft “doc” file, not the usual “pdf” file.
I’m glad this happened quickly.
Great brief.
Let’s hope this wins.
The brief makes a really good point about how the ONLY reason that the State of Louisiana needs relief is because they went ahead and printed and mailed ballots even while they knew a court case was pending and that this would be used as a strategy by elecion officials to win every case in the future. It’s they’re own fault.
Good trick:
“Quick, here comes ________ ! Print the ballots before he can file his papers!”
“We can’t put you on the ballot. We already printed the ballots without your name. It would cost too much now to add you.”
This truly is a powerful brief, and I cannot for the life of me think of any way the Court could not respond to it by providing relief to the Petitioner.
Only 30 something days to election. Please Please donate to http://www.bobbarr2008.com
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5004.html
I have something to say about what these idiot U. S. Supreme Court men and women will likely do to Barr!
Who was it who said ” Great Brief”, get in touch with me, unless you are a lawyer, because it is the lawyers who are most of the problem, they set up straw men, as here, so that they have papers to copy,arguments to make,at one time you needed 40 small books to file in U. S. Supreme Court, it is probably 80 books now so that their clerks, like Cordray, have something to read, with very poor writing, copying everyone to death, over and over , so that they have a job, and get paid for this crap, and MAKE MORE AND MORE MONEY, for less and less substance ? This case is all about Respondents making a false claim that they were damaged, give me a break, but the lawyers and judges had to write 11 pages to say that one sentence. These lawyers will say that a lemon pie is strawberry pie if it will further their motives, to hell with our constitutional rights! !ygenet3f3u@yahoo.com, 614-432-3964
I’ve read the briefs, comments here and elsewhere, spoken with petitioners and LP officials and, while I’ll still vote for Bob Barr, I just gotta wonder how, when everyone in LA had at least 2-3 days warning that a hurricane was coming, the LP could not manage to get its papers in EARLY.
I just don’t have much sympathy for a campaign that lost West Virginia by a matter of a few days work, or Maine, or Connecticut or . . .
It seems there’s a deeper problem here, worth looking at and learning from before 2012, than anything caused by a hurricane.
The deeper problem is institutional memory. There is a fantastic turnover in membership in the LP, as I suspect is also true in other third parties. What was learned 4 years ago was, for the most part, learned by somebody who has since left the party. With the exception of Harry Brown’s campaign, each new presidential campaign has had to reinvent the wheel over and over again. I can only be hopeful for 2012.
Richard,
>>The deeper problem is institutional memory. There is a fantastic turnover in membership in the LP, as I suspect is also true in other third parties. What was learned 4 years ago was, for the most part, learned by somebody who has since left the party. <<
I agree, except to add that some folks who I believe had some of the best institutional memory were cast aside by a new inexperienced group that felt they knew better, paid each other too much, and made a bit of a train wreck out of it (Nader’s better institutional memory and loyal followers for example have him on one more state with far less money spent, and far less acrimony, or so it seems to me.)
Joe and Richard,
We are under a new access law since 2004. Our requirements are now the same as the Dems and Reps. The problem is the Sec. State’s office can’t seem to understand that or didn’t until the last minute. We were instructed NOT to file unless we had everything ready at once.
The Barr campaign, on it’s own volition, without contacting the state affiliate, filed a $500 check on a campaign account, which is an unacceptable form of payment. (must be cash, MO, cashier’s or certified check)
It was not until the Thursday before the storm, after we had finally received the proper check the day before, that we were told we didn’t need it after all.
I was in contact with the SoS office back in June to make sure we did this early. Their ignorance of their own laws, and their insistence that it all be filed together (we were told to expect them to ‘lose’ something if stuff was filed separately) was why it wasn’t done earlier.
But lesson learned, we know the rules now, and we know not to trust our public servants with knowing what those rules are. We must understand the law ourselves, and insist they follow it.
I have to say, the brief by itself certainly sounds compelling, but it seems like the Libertarian Party dropped the ball on this one. Even if Gustav hadn’t hit and even if the Secretary of State had been completely open without any doubt, it sounds like the LP still wasn’t ready to file their papers in time because one elector forgot to mail his affidavit to the party chairman. If that’s true, Gustav was more of a convenient accident that happened to coincide with the LP’s blunder.
Joe: Much of what you described involved an element of external sabotage and LP infighting as well. In some places Nader’s people or the CP’s people interfered with our balloting efforts, and in others disgruntled LP and Boston Tea types tried to place obstacles in the path. Running a well-oiled machine is virtually impossible when you have various factions pouring grit into the oil pan.
YardsGreen: I’m sure that’s true. There seems to have been some confusion down there, and I’m sure the comments from Richard Shepard and Adrien explain much of why. This doesn’t change the facts of what happened, though. From my second-hand perspective it appears as though LP of La could have overcome these problems, in spite of their own mistakes, by the technical deadline of 9/5 at 5:00pm were it not for Gustav’s impact on the situation. This renders the LP of La’s own contribution to the situation moot in my opinion, and returns us to Gustav’s.
Adrien,
>>Their ignorance of their own laws, <<
THAT makes sense. Not sure if it is ignorance, or feigned ignorance by those who wanted to keep the LP off for one reason or another.
Still, when looking at 46 for Nader and 45 for the LP, I want to scream at someone. Especially those who had a “we’re going to do it our way because you’re a bunch of hicks, and we’re professionals” kind of attitude.
That doesn’t seem to be the problem in LA, but it was elsewhere, from what I hear.
Joe
Anyone have any idea about when (or if) the SCOTUS might rule on this?
The LP in LA filed ON TIME under the rules as they are, with the extension for the hurricane granted by the Gov and Legislature, or the extension plus 3 days granted by the Sec of State, either way Barr should be on the ballot.
The Ds and Rs filed late in Texas and they are on the ballot.
We all know the system is a two party monopoly.
The USA does not have free elections.
Contrary to the statement made by an earlier commenter, the Sec. of State did not grant an extension plus 3 days.
As I pointed out in a comment to an earlier post, there is no reason to assume that a new three-day grace period was created by the re-opening of qualifying.
Let us consider what our reactions would have been if this situation had been exactly the same, except that the “recognized” party that missed the deadline was the Republican Party rather than the Libertarian Party.
If the Sec. of State had denied the Republican Party and the Socialist Party USA places on the ballot because those parties had missed the deadline, but the courts had then overruled the Sec. of State and put the Republicans on the ballot, but kept the Socialists off, then I think many of us would have thought there was something wrong with that.
We would have been hoping that a higher court either said that both the Republicans AND the Socialists had to be put on the ballot or that neither party would be put on the ballot.
The three-day grace period is a special legal advantage that “recognized” parties have over other parties. As such, it should be interpreted very narrowly. It should only be recognized in the specific scenario in which the written statute says that the grace period must be recognized. If qualifying is extended or re-opened beyond the end of that three-day grace period, then all the parties should be treated the same.
The Sec of State granted the extension. The 3 days is automatic under the law to recognized parties. The socialists would be out of luck. Election laws are not fair or equal. That’s why parties work hard to get on ballots and to retain ballot status. So that they can get closer to a level playing field with the duopoly.
It’s a shame for the socialists in this case.
They need to become a recognized party as well if they want to get to that higher playing field.
America does not have free elections.
Excellent arguments by Randall Hayes, whose comments regarding the situation in Louisiana, both here and on other blogs, has been right on the mark.
The irony, of course, is that despite only a two-hour notice, Brian Moore and the Socialists did submit the filing fee and the necessary paperwork for at least seven, and possibly eight, of their presidential electors by the new and arbitrary deadline of September 8, while Bob Barr and the Libertarians neglected to file even a single document related to their filing until September 10th.
Coming back to the LP,
The three-day grace period is NOT automatically added to a re-opened qualifying period.
Here is the text of the statute that grants the three-day grace period after the normal deadline:
“If the nominees for the offices of president and vice president nominated by a national convention of a recognized political party, together with a slate of candidates for the offices of presidential electors to support such nominees, are not properly certified to the secretary of state by the state central committee of that party prior to 5:00 p.m. on the first Tuesday in September of each year in which a presidential election is to be held, the national chairman of the political party, after notifying the chairman of the state central committee of that political party, shall certify a slate of electors to support such nominees within seventy-two hours thereafter. Such certificate filed with the secretary of state shall be accompanied by the notarized affidavit of each candidate for elector signifying that the certificate constitutes his acceptance of the nomination.†La. RS 18:1253(E)
Source: http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=81262
As you can see, there is nothing in that statute that says that a new three-day grace period is automatically granted if the end of qualifying is postponed till after 5:00 p.m. on the first Tuesday in September.
I agree that election laws are not fair and equal. However, the unfairness and the inequality which have been written into the election laws by partisan legislators should not be added to by judges. The district judge in this case took it upon himself to reopen the qualifying period AND tack on a three-day grace period for the Libertarians.
I approve of the reopening of the qualifying period (whether done by the Sec. of State or by the judge), because that action was taken in the interest of fairness and openness in the electoral process. However, there is no basis in the statute nor in equity for the revival of the three-day grace period. That was an act of negative discrimination, not of leniency.
If the judge was willing to disregard the statute in order to accommodate parties affected by the hurricane, he should have simply extended the qualifying period through September 11. Then, both the Libertarians and the Socialists would be allowed onto the ballot.
An extension of that length is reasonable, given that normal life in Louisiana had been disrupted for at least three days prior to the September 2 deadline.
Also, there would be no greater harm to the state, since the cost of reprinting ballots would (I would think) be the same whether the state had to add one or two slates.
It is not true that the Libertarian Party had not filed any paperwork in Louisiana until September 14. The party certified the names of its presidential and vice-presidential candidates to Louisiana after the conclusion of the national convention. That was months before the Democrats and Republicans submitted that information for themselves.
I would imagine the entire grace period discussion here today is rendered moot by way of Governor Jindal’s Executive Order. Since the Governor himself reconciled all deadlines to September 12th (and these powers were granted by vote of the Legislature) the Secretary of State can’t be seen as holding any overriding authority to unilaterally set a deadline that falls earlier than the one set by Executive Order.
Anonymous,
Can you give a citation for the Executive Order that you mentioned?
The only Executive Order I know of that says anything like that is Executive Order No. BJ 08 – 92:
http://www.gov.state.la.us/assets/docs/OfficialDocuments/09092008EOHGEmergencySuspensionofDeadlinesinLegalProceedings.pdf
However, that Executive Order seems to only apply to deadlines for court proceedings and the like, not to all state deadlines.
I do admit that it is worded vaguely enough that it appears that it could be applied MUCH more broadly, but I don’t think that is how it was intended nor do I think any court would allow it to be applied much more broadly.
Also, it does not appear that the District Court, which ruled in favor of the Libertarian Party, thought that the Executive Order extended the deadline for qualifying for the presidential ballot.
That’s the Executive Order to which I referred.
I’ll admit, at first glance, it appears to be a stretch to apply it to this sort of situation. I glossed over “proceedings” on my first reading, but even then certain definitions of that word could allow it to be extended to this situation. I just thought I’d mention it since nobody else had. It was mentioned in the brief we’re discussing, and may have an impact on the case.
The office was closed during the three day grace period because of the hurricane. Therefore there was no three day grace period which is required by law.
V2112,
It is not accurate to say that a three-day grace period is required by law, except for the very specific one that is mentioned in the statute. That grace period did run and it expired on Sept. 5 at 5:00 p.m.
The statute does not say that a new grace period has to be granted if qualifying is reopened. (A DEADLINE might have to be extended if it were truly impossible to meet because of the closure of an office, but a GRACE PERIOD is another matter. A grace period is intended to allow people more time to get their affairs in order. The office does not have to be open for that to happen.)
It was possible to deliver documents to the Sec. of State’s office during the week of the hurricane. Any documents delivered during that time were either counted as filed on the day they were delivered or on Sept. 8 (the day that the Sec. of State fully re-opened). In effect, all parties received a grace period of several days. Although delivering paperwork on the 2nd of September would have been very difficult, given the state of things in Baton Rouge, delivering paperwork on the 4th, 5th, or especially the 8th would not have been too much of a challenge, if that paperwork had already been completed.
Further, as I alluded to above, whether the Sec. of State’s office was opened or closed only matters if someone was trying to file something with them on one of the days that the office was closed. The gathering of elector candidates and the completetion of their paperwork requires little, if any, assistance from the Sec. of State. Once the forms and the page of simple instructions have been acquired, the slate does not really need to deal with the Sec. of State again until the filing is made.
The Libertarians’ problems would have likely existed even if the office had been opened throughout that week.
As I said before, I don’t think the Libertarians or the Socialists should be kept off the ballot due to the problems they faced because of the hurricane. However, the proper solution is to extend qualifying so that both parties can be put on the ballot.
The problem here was that the judge re-wrote the law by saying that the grace period must run from the last day of qualifying, even if that last day is not the one set by statute. That would not be such a problem if the grace period were a non-discriminatory one.
Instead, he should have just ruled that the confusion and displacement that happened in Louisiana in the several days just before and just after the hurricane required the deadline to be moved to Sept. 11.
He should have based his ruling on simple fairness, rather than a highly questionable use of a discriminatory part of the statute.
randallthayes,
I agree with your conclusion that the justice would’ve been better-served if the lower court’s ruling had been more even-handed. It’s really hard, though, to argue the point about how “The statute does not say that a new grace period has to be granted if qualifying is reopened” when the statute also doesn’t discuss what should happen if any sort of situation like this crops up. This is one of those situations where common sense takes over, and I don’t really see how the Secretary of State’s office was using common sense by opening its doors and setting a new deadline for later that same day. This seems like it was done more for the sake of creating the paper-thin appearance of good faith than for the actual extension of good faith. One question that could be posed in light of Governor Jindal’s Executive Order, even if the order itself isn’t judged to be legally binding to this particular situation, is why the Governor felt September 12th was an appropriate date for deadlines in many forms of official state business to resume and why the Secretary of State felt September 8th was a more appropriate date.
Anonymous,
I agree. I just think that any rule that gives “recognized” parties advantages over “unrecognized” ones should be interpreted as narrowly as possible.
As you and I have both pointed out, there is ample basis in this case for extending the deadline far enough into the future to accommodate both the Libertarians and the Socialists without resorting to the “three-day grace period” argument.