On February 11, the Texas Libertarian Party filed this brief in Bilyeu v Esparza, w.d., 1:21cv-1089. This is the lawsuit over the Texas law that does not allow a party that nominates by convention to consider nominating anyone who hadn’t already paid a filing fee to the state.
On February 21, Texas filed this brief. The hearing is Thursday, February 24.
The Libertarian Party convention is April 8-10.
TEC 141.032 does not apply to applications under TEC 181.031. TEC 141.031 literally describes the sheet of paper that a candidate files.
TEC 181.031 says that a candidate for convention nomination must file a sheet of paper that looks like that described in TEC 141.031.
We can compare to the procedure for write-in candidates in TEC 146 Subchapter B (this particularly significant because this is the source of Drew Springer’s text for HB 2504 (2019).
TEC 146.021 says that an application for write-in candidacy should look like that in TEC 141.031.
It is TEC 146.026 that applies the review of the application to that specified in TEC 141.032. That is TEC 141.032 does not apply simply because the sheet of paper is similar to that in TEC 141.031.
The deadline for challenging an application in TEC 141.034 does not apply to write-in candidates. Instead there is a separate deadline in 146.027 (albeit one with equal protection and due process problems).
The deadline of 141.035 is 50 days before “the election”. What election is that?
The purpose of a challenge deadline is to prevent procedural challenges after ballots have been distributed and voting begins. The purpose of a review before elections is mainly to prevent ineligible candidates appearing on a ballot and being “elected”.
There is no reason to have prefiling for conventions. There were none before 1961. That is when the Democrat-filled legislature sought to suppress Republican conventions from choosing their nominees from among any eligible candidates.
There has never been a requirement for review of those applications. Convention delegates are totally competent to screen out frivolous candidates (should they choose to do so).
If a majority of delegates at a convention vote for a nominee, clearly has demonstrated a modicum of support.
The state is arguing that they could have the Texas Rangers or county sheriffs raid a convention and shut it down because the delegates were considering for nomination a person who had failed to pay his poll tax.
The fee for write-in candidates is to help defray the expense of counting their votes. The fee for primary candidates is to help defray the expenses of the primary.
The state incurs no expenses in the operation of conventions.
The state might charge a filing fee for independent candidates, but instead requires a petition.
Texas has never assessed a filing fee on the nominees of any party to appear on the general election ballot.
The state argues candidates should have “skin in the game” quoting Drew Springer.
Springer not only had no Libertarian or Green opponent, he did not have a Democratic opponent until 2020. He also had no Republican opponent after his initial primary in 2012.
He was a couple of pickup trucks in debt before winning the primary runoff in 2012. Despite NO opponents in any election until 2020 (4 primaries and 4 general elections) contribution continued to pour in. What were these contributors expecting for their “skin”?
Is it really the position of the state of Texas that judicial candidates should have skin in the game?
The instructions for application for consideration for nomination reference a non-existent section of code. How can a candidate be expected to follow the law in completing the form when the instructions are not based on the law?
The petition form for in lieu of filing fee for convention candidates is no longer on the SOS website (correction it is no longer shown on list of forms).
However it still contains a false statement. Texas petitions have a statement of purpose that a circulator must point to and read out loud. This is ostensibly so the signer understands what they are signing, plus have knowledge of which disabilities will be incurred by signing the petition.
The statement begins with “I know that …”, where the pronoun ‘I’ is from the viewpoint of the signer.
So imagine that the circulator C points to a form and reads.
“I know that the world is flat …”
The signer, S, interjects “are you crazy, don’t you know the world is round?”
C: I’m not saying that the world is flat, you are saying that …”
S: Me? I’m not signing a false statement.
C: This is just goofball form the SOS ginned up. Here’s what it really does …”
You finally sign the clearly false statement.
The circulator then avers under oath that he read the (false) statement that the signer then subscribed to by signing.
In the case of the in lieu of petition the statement is that “the purpose of this petition is to entitle Sam Houston to have their name placed on the ballot for the office of Governor as a candidate for the Mugwump Party for the 2022 general election for state and county officers.”
This is absolutely a false statement. The SOS will not place the name of the candidate on the general election ballot. The signer will either be conned into signing a false statement, or will wilfully sign a false statement, or walk away.
The new law requires a Libertarian candidate to file at two different locations possibly in different cities with identical deadlines.
A Democrat or Republican candidate files with a party official who may be friendly to the candidacy or even recruited the candidate. A Libertarian candidate for county judge will have to file with the county judge who he will be running against and is quite likely a partisan hack.
A county judge who is a Democrat and running for reelection, will likely scrutinize a Green candidate petition extra closely. A county judge who is a Republican and running for reelection will likely scrutinize a Libertarian candidate petition extra closely.
TX — 1 of the 50 ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander state regimes in the USA.
— with top party hack execs/judics.
Too late to repeal TX admission Act and omit TX in USA-Mexico Peace Treaty ???
Would TX then merge with Putin/XI tyrant regimes ???
—-
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
What’s your problem with Putin? He’s making his country great again, like Trump was doing with ours until Xi stole our election and installed his puppet Biden and the crazy commie kamala the wicked witch of the west.
Putin is one more killer tyrant in world history.
NOOOOOO shortage of MORONS who love killer tyrants in world history.
—–
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
That’s nonsense. Putin is freely elected and very popular. You’ve been tricked by fake news.
Jim
Do you have a link to the current list of filed LP candidates in TX? The link I tried at the LPTX website was broken.
Thanks
Putin has the support of the Russian people.
#StandWithRussia
Yes, Stand With Russia!