On October 3, the last briefs were filed in U.S. District Court over whether the Ohio Libertarian gubernatorial ticket should be on the November ballot. Here is the Libertarian brief. Here is the brief of the Secretary of State. Here is the brief of the Kasich campaign, which caused the protest to be filed against the Libertarians (this was not known until September 27).
The brief you have labelled “Kasich campaign” is that of the Libertarian intervenor, Gregory Felsoci.
Yes, I too would like to see the rationale of the Kasich Campaign’ s objection. According to what I have heard/read, Kasich is leading by double digits. So why should he care?
Well, we know the main reason, they (and the Democrats are just as guilty) don’t want anyone on the ballot except a Democrat or Republican. And as I have expressed before in earlier replies, both would keep the other off the ballot if they could.
Yes, there are no doubt some politicians who would support a 1 party state in America!
Yes. They are the same thing.
Back when these deeds were carried out, the polls for the general election were much tighter. Since then, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate has had some major public relations setbacks. Probably none of this would have happened if the current general election polls had been a reflection of public opinion back in April.
Certainly not in any legal sense.
I had the opportunity to hear Earl at the 2014 LP National convention. He did a good job speaking and I think he would have also been good at the debates if he were invited. No wonder the Republicans were worried about Earl.
Interesting references to Ballot Access News in the GOP brief, which contains some interesting facts when stripped of the false narrative they’re being woven into. And their argument they’re making with the reference basically amounts to “those damn Libertarians who read Richard Winger’s website know everything about every ballot access issue in the country. They *had* to have known about [this contested fact], since B.A.N. covered it.” LOL! Ohio Republicans agree: B.A.N. is the must-read paper-of-record on ballot access issues. :p
They also identify B.A.N. as a “Libertarian website.”- which isn’t really true from what I’ve seen, except insofar as the editor is himself a Libertarian. But B.A.N. hardly limits itself to LP issues in its coverage. Any thoughts on that, Richard?
Andy Craig:
I agree with you, BAN is not a Libertarian website.
I’m not a Libertarian, and since I retired 3 months ago, I’ve probably posted more replies than most Libertarians put together. I’m sure many get tired of reading my replies.
As my reply “name” indicates, I am a Independent. Philosophically, I am a “populist” in the tradition of William Jennings Bryan and those of the original Populist Party. Also a “populist” as would be assigned to certain Southern office-holders of the last 4 decades – minus the segregationist baggage that many of them unfortunately had to carry in order to be elected.
I wish that a genuine “populist” 3rd party would come along. And I don’t mean a liberal party disguised as a populist party – neither a conservative party hiding behind the populist label.
But, I’m afraid that day has past.