On September 23, U.S. District Court Judge James Brady ruled that Bob Barr should be on the Louisiana ballot, but that co-plaintiff Brian Moore (Socialist Party nominee) should not be on. The case is Libertarian Party et al v Dardenne, 08-cv-582. The judge stayed his opinion for two days to give the state a chance to appeal to the 5th circuit.
Judge Brady differentiated between Barr and Moore by noting that the Libertarian Party is a ballot-qualified party, whereas the Socialist Party is not. He said the law gives a qualified party a three-day grace period, but that the law does not extend that to unqualified parties. The written decision is not available yet; the judge spoke orally. The written opinion should be available by 5 p.m. central time.
The judge also mentioned that one of the Socialist Party elector candidates omitted his address from the form, although that does not seem to have been a determining factor.
Richard, is the Reform PArty ballot-qualified in Louisiana/will this ruling put Weill on or off the ballot?
Belinda Alexandrenko, state chair of the Louisiana Reform Party, was at the court hearing. Plaintiffs tried to put her on the stand, but the state objected, since she had not been on the original list of witnesses. But this means the judge, and the state, are aware of the Reform Party situation. It is impossible to know at this moment if the Reform Party complied with the 3-day window; also it is impossible to know if the judge will acknowledge anything about the Reform Party. We will need to read the written decision. Chances are the written opinion will not say anything about the Reform Party, but one doesn’t really know. The Reform Party was not a plaintiff.
While I don’t support Moore, it is wrong to block him after a hurricane. Cmon! It is a freakin hurricane!!!!
I would think exceptions could be made in time of tragedy. I mean, isn’t that the justification for emergency relief for citizens?
Moore should challenge the qualified vs unqualified distinction.
awesome 46 state ballots , come on Connecticut
I think it is BS not to give these candidates a break.
But to be honest they had plenty of time to this before the hurricane.
Brian Moore has been late in other states with incomplete or late paperwork etc. After a while you realize he is part of the problem.
I still believe the states should provide some
lee way in doing this.
how doed this effect ted weill?
isn’t the real reason for the court’s decision, that the SP USA is a socialist party and the Libertarians are a bourgeois (capitalist) party?
@8: isn’t the real reason for the court’s decision, that the SP USA is a socialist party and the Libertarians are a bourgeois (capitalist) party?
Possible, but not probable for two reasons. First, judges are more likely to be swayed by partisan calculation of the impact on the results, and less likely to be swayed by ideological affinity with the plaintiff or defendant. In this case, Barr’s candidacy is a potential threat to McCain while Moore isn’t really a threat to anybody. In other words, a Republican judge would want to get Moore on the ballot and keep Barr off — the opposite of what Entdinglichung suggests.
Second, this distinction between qualified and unqualified parties is probably quite meaningful to judges. Without knowing Louisiana law you can’t be certain, but it’s likely they weren’t making this up to get a desired result.
Did the judge say anything about the arbitrary deadline itself? That was the central issue in the case, if I recall correctly.
The distinction in Louisiana between recognized parties and unrecognized parties is a clearly defined one.
There are currently five recognized parties in Louisiana (Democratic, Green, Libertarian, Reform, and Republican).
The relatively easy requirements for getting a party “recognized” can be found here:
http://www.sos.louisiana.gov/tabid/180/Default.aspx
The recognized parties get a few advantages:
-The names of those parties are pre-printed on voter registration forms, thus making it easier for a voter to affiliate with one of those parties. A voter who wishes to affiliate with an unrecognized party must check “other” and write in the party’s name.
-Candidates affiliated with recognized parties have their party labels shown on the ballot. Candidates from unrecognized parties do not have their party labels shown on the ballot.
-Recognized parties have U.S. House and U.S. Senate party primaries. Candidates from unrecognized parties are, essentially, running as independents, so they proceed straight to the general election. (This is a very new innovation, since Louisiana only re-introduced party primaries for Congressional elections this year. Also, it’s not clear whether this is really an advantage for recognized parties.)
Outside the presidential race, ballot access requirements in Louisiana are essentially the same for all candidates, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof.
The candidate only has to pay a reasonable qualifying fee and file some simple paperwork. No collecting of voter signatures is required. A candidate MAY submit a petition with voter signatures in lieu of the qualifying fee, but that option is rarely used.
The required qualifying fees and a few other basic ballot access rules can be found here:
http://www.sos.louisiana.gov/Portals/0/elections/pdf/QualifyingFees.pdf
(Please note that the qualifying fee for Democrats and Republicans is frequently significantly HIGHER than the qualifying fee for other candidates.)
There is, however, a difference in the deadline for presidential elector slates from recognized parties and the deadline for independent slates.
The statute for independent slates can be found here (RS 18:1254):
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=81263
The statute for recognized party slates can be found here (RS 18:1253):
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=81262
The last paragraph of RS 18:1253 contains the three-day grace period cited by the judge.
So, there really was some basis in the law for the party distinction that the judge made.
The three-day grace period is not automatic, though.
I’ve not read the judge’s opinion and I’ve not really followed Barr’s case, so I’m not sure whether the national chairman of the Libertarian Party played the part he had to play in order for the three-day grace period to become operative.
In any case, I still think the state should have done a better job of making it clear when the amended deadline would be or else they should have been more lenient in accepting slates submitted shortly after the deadline.
It seems all links to the La Sec of State’s portions of the web are non functional today. I’ll try to print them out later. If anyone is successful in getting to those documents, I’d appreciate it if you could make them available to me. I’m going to make it my business to ensure ballot access for the Libertarians in all election cycles.
If you want to read a reader’s feedback 🙂 , I rate this post for 4/5. Decent info, but I have to go to that damn msn to find the missed pieces. Thanks, anyway!