On September 25, Louisiana filed a notice of appeal with the 5th circuit, in the case over whether Bob Barr should be on the ballot. The issue is the deadline, and its relationship to the bad weather that closed the Secretary of State’s office during the first week in September. Since the state is appealing, Brian Moore (who, unlike Bob Barr, had not been given any relief by the U.S. District Court), can automatically cross-appeal in the same proceedings in the 5th circuit. The U.S. District Court still hasn’t issued its written opinion, so it is difficult to analyze all the issues. Also it is still murky as to whether the Reform Party has any chance for relief. The Reform Party was not part of the lawsuit but it has the same problem, and it (like the Libertarian Party) is a qualified party in Louisiana.
I wrote something about this earlier today in the comments section of an earlier post:
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/23/louisiana-decision-barr-on-moore-off/#comment-524748
As I say in that comment, it seems that the three-day grace period for recognized parties only becomes operative if the party’s national chairman intervenes:
“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)
Does anyone know if the Libertarian Party’s national chairman took such action in the Louisiana case?
Yes, Bill Redpath did intervene, and at the time he thought that had solved the problem.
Why would the state even feel the need to appeal this? The only reason I can see are partisan reasons.
If the Sec. of State thinks that the Barr campaign failed to meet the deadline, then I can see why he would want to appeal. He would not want to have a precedent set that would weaken the importance of the qualifying deadlines. Also, he wants the decision of whether a candidate has met the deadline to be made by his office, not by a judge.
Further, the court’s ruling seems unfair to other candidates who might have filed their paperwork post-hurricane, but didn’t because they thought that the deadline had already passed.
It was looking for awhile like Sarah Palin would draw in all the potential Barr voters, but now that that hope is fading they are resorting to the Dem strategy of “if you can’t beat em, get em removed from the ballot”. I guess it costs them less to remove the competition then to justly earn their votes. Both major parties make me sick to my stomach. I will vote communist before I vote for either one of them.
It is true that the Louisiana Secretary of State is a Republican, but I think the motivation for the appeal is that the state elections office has a very small budget and it pains them to pay attorneys’ fees. But if the state appeals and loses again, the attorneys’ fees they will need to pay will be bigger than ever.
I’m not sure I understand. How is it that the state is appealing to a federal venue over a matter that exclusively relates to the state’s internal prerogatives? This was one of the issues that I saw come up when people were discussing whether or not Barr should appeal the Texas decision. Is not the state’s Supreme Court the final arbiter of such issues? You’re the learned one on this issue, Richard. Take it away!
The U.S. Constitution has certain guarantees, and federal courts are permitted to decide if state laws and state practices violate the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment includes the right of people to associate together. In 1968, in Williams v Rhodes, the U.S. Supreme Court said the right to associate means that people are free to associate together into new political parties. The Court also said that if states could prevent new political parties from getting on the ballot, such state practices would eviscerate the right to associate into new parties.
Yes, but that sounds like it relates more to the legal basis for a non-state actor to bring suit on the federal level. What legal basis would a state actor (like a state itself) have for bringing a suit on the federal level? Or is it based on some sort of reverse application of the principles you just described?