On the afternoon of September 6, a U.S. District Court in Michigan dismissed the Michigan Libertarian Party ballot access lawsuit. This was the case to get Gary Johnson on the ballot. The judge said he would explain why on September 7. The case is Libertarian Party of Michigan v Ruth Johnson.
The Libertarian Party is ballot-qualified in Michigan. The Secretary of State won’t print his name on the November ballot because his name appeared on the February Republican presidential primary ballot. He had tried to withdraw, but his withdrawal was received three minutes too late.
The state’s brief had hinted that the Michigan Libertarian Party is free to place Gary E. Johnson of Austin, Texas, on the ballot, but the state did not make this explicit. The party, when it had certified former Governor Gary Johnson, had asked that if the state would not do that, that instead the state should accept Gary E. Johnson of Texas. Gary E. Johnson of Texas is a former officer of the national Libertarian Party and he was a delegate to the national Libertarian Party convention in May.
It is difficult to know if the court decision will be appealed until all sides see the judge’s opinion.
this is terrible news
Pingback: “U.S. District Court Judge Rules Against Libertarian Party Presidential Ballot Access in Michigan” | Election Law Blog
I hope Michigan is plowed over by a giant, fast moving glacier. Would serve them right.
And it is my understanding that Gary never applied for the Michigan GOP primary ballot, but the Secretary of State stuck him on the ballot without an application by him, his permission or knowledge. If that is indeed the case, may the Secretary of State suffer from painful and incurable hemmeroids.
As long as Gary E. Johnson is on the ballot who cares? Let’s litigate the sh!t out of this later. For now let’s get the Johnson/Gray ticket on the ballot!
Pingback: Links, 9/7/12 « naked capitalism
Jill Pyeatt // Sep 6, 2012 at 8:34 pm
This was found on Facebook, on the “Lawyers for Ron Paul” page. BTW, I don’t think Richard Gilbert works for Ron Paul. I think he’s just a random person who thought he could somehow broker a deal:
“In recent days, the campaign of Gary Johnson has sought to manipulate Ron Paul supporters with flagrantly misleading information seeking to have Ron Paul supporters harrass Dr Paul by making several telephone calls to Dr Paul to replace GJ’s VP, Judge Gray.
The GJ campaign is diregarding the decision of their own delegates, who with their soul and money,nominated Judge Gray. This is unnacceptable because it disenfranchises the Liberty Party delegates. The sanctity of every vote must matter, but, it doesn’t matter to Gary Johnson.
Some information being used by the GJ campaign are falsehoods such as, Dr Paul cannot have the top of the ticket because of Sore Loser laws.
Johnson himself was a Republican candidate for President and participated in a debate. Sore Loser laws do not apply to Presidential Candidates. Why is the GJ campaign lying to Ron Paul supporters about this? Why is Gary Johnson not offering the top of the ticket to Dr Paul? If the Sore Loser laws applied, they would also apply to Gary Johnson, one of the sorest losers of them all.
Well meaning Ron Paul supporters are being misled by the GJ campaign
GJ supports the use of drones and maintaining military bases in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
GJ supports censorship on his site. Does that sound Libertarian?
There is no need for anyone to make a decision at this time not to vote for Dr Paul as a write in. If on election day you cannot vote for Dr Paul you can choose another canididate. So what’s the rush?
Dr Paul knows he has a standing offer to be VP to GJ and he is not interested. So why harrass him?
I personally negotiated with GJ’s attorney for 3 weeks with the requirement that only the Libertarian Party Delegates must vote on a Paul/Johnson Ticket.
In the end, GJ refused to give up the top of the ticket so, I cut off negotiations. GJ has an ego problem!
Ron Paul said vote your conscience. Dr Paul is our conscience. Why isn’t GJ telling everyone to write in Paul?
If anyone says that I am in favor of, or approve of telepohone calls to Dr Paul to harrass him they are mistaken.
Dr Paul built this Liberty Movement and until Dr Paul endorses another candidate I say, we vote for Dr Paul.
GJ, nor his drones, nor his foriegn military bases, nor his censorship on his site, built any part of the Liberty Movement!
We should throw GJ out and replace him with Judge Gray!
My name is Richard Gilbert and I approve this message!”
Cuckoo cuckoo
@6 is it censorship if someone puts a sign in my yard without me permission if I take it down? Libertarians believe in property rights. You may say what you want to say but no one else has to provide you with space to say it.
Stupid, stupid decision.
@8 If your yard happened to be named the “Yard Access for Political Signs Lawn” and you kept some signs up but took others down, I’d call that censorious. What would you call it, being selective?
@10, It certainly is censorship but libertarians are not against property owners censoring how other use their property. If you don’t like their rules, buy the property. Then you can set your own rules.
This is entirely different then using the force of the government to take your signs down everywhere. Which Libertarians would be against…. but each property owner gets to decide on a case by case basis.
Pingback: U.S. District Court Judge Rules Against Libertarian Party Presidential Ballot Access in Michigan | ThirdPartyPolitics.us