The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania - Forum

What's this BS I'm hearing about the GOP trying to kick us off the ballot? How did the suite even get filed? Wasn't the deadline for this sort of thing last week?

The challengers aren't fighting the signatures.  They're fighting the substitution of the federal (President and Vice President) candidates, and the substitution date is a later event in the process.

I've reviewed the law the challengers are filing under and I do not believe that it really applies.  The election code provides only one official time that the committee to fill vacancies acts, and the BCEL has never disagreed with any third party's committee performing substitution of federal candidates after filing.  The challengers claim that the substitution should have been made at the time of the national convention selecting Barr and Root, and that therefore all petitions after the convention should have been changed and the earlier ones voided.  Which means that either all third parties would have to have their national conventions prior to the Pennsylvania signature gathering period in order to get sufficient valid signatures, especially in years when the signature requirement is high, or risk having no Presidential or VP candidates on the ballot.

This is what I thought was going on. Don't all 3rd parties in PA do this? In any case it's how we have always done it as far back as I can remember.

"The election code provides only one official time that the committee to fill vacancies acts, and the BCEL has never disagreed with any third party's committee performing substitution of federal candidates after filing."

So the LPPA is being challenged for obeying the law? When this gets thrown out as having no merit can we counter sue for court costs?

Under election law, the judge is supposed to rule on costs at the end of the hearing.  I find it helpful to remind them by asking for costs as soon as the ruling is made.  So, it is possible that we would recover all of our costs which I believe we should in this case.

David Jahn

Anyone besides me think this challenge is a good thing? 

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1219270213217690.xml&coll=1

Okay. The Patriot is worthless. How is this in any way related to gerrymandering? I mean its great they wrote an article that is pro-third party, but why can't they edit it? I was with them until the last statement.

This is not, I'll admit, the clearest of parallels that they are trying to draw.  Let me share how I interpret their comparison. 

Gerrymandering changes political district boundaries for political advantage.  The lawsuit seeks to change candidate substitution rules for political advantage.

In an even broader context, Barry is on to something.  The Barr challenge.  Bonusgate. The undeniable bias against political choice in PA. The pay-raise.  These are all glaring examples that the political establishment and its complicit bureaucracy care nothing about the interests of PA. They only care about their own self-preservation and will act in that capacity at-any-cost. 

At some point, each new revelation opens the eyes of more people.  I’m not sure what the critical mass for real change is, but CleanSweep (retirements, challengers, No on Nigro, etc.) seemed to say that it might be attainable. 

Mark

There are three ways to "legally" control elections, gerrymandered election districts, ballot access laws, and campaign finance laws. All of these HEAVILY favor the two major parties, and further heavily favor incumbents. That why until recently if you were an elected official in Pennsylvania running for re-election, there was a 98% chance you would win. It is also why the "two" parties have become one party of incumbents.

The idea that the LPPA was trying to misrepresent ANYTHING is on its face absurd. This makes it clear that there is no way to comply with the ballot access laws in the Commonwealth. This act will not only give tons of favorable publicity to Bob Barr, but it should finally show the majority of Pennsylvania voters what a rotten, corrupt, and self-serving system the government of our Commonwealth has become.

Mik Robertson

Mik, this sounds like a good bases for an LTE to the Patriot.  Did you fire one off? {;-)

--Harold

Here is a copy of an e-mail I sent to both my State Rep and State Senator who are both Republicans.  I'd like to encourage as many people as possible to do the same thing across the state.

Dear Pat and Will,
 
I am writing you to express my sincere disappointment with the actions of the Republican Party leadership in Cumberland County.  Specifically Vic Stabile's attempt to keep the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate off the ballot.
 
Attached is an article by Lowman Henry that sums up my thoughts extremely well.
 
http://patownhall.com/blog/847
 
I suspect that neither of you were involved with such a brazen disregard for the democratic process and I fully expect that you and the other elected Republicans in Cumberland County will take a leadership role and publicly renounce this action.
 
Sincerely,
 
Ronald L. Goodman

Everyone,

I've been communicating much with Andrew Davis of the Barr campaign. He told me that the order to get Bob off the ballot came from someone "hi up" in the McCCP campaign. Thus the reason the hearing is being held in Philly and they've hired some very expensive Philly lawyers.  Stabile is a sock puppet. The McCCP campaign is out for blood! This is serious! We must constantly remind people that Bush did this very same thing to McCCP in NY in 2000. McCCP accused Bush of Stalinist politics.  What a fucking hypocrite! This guy is NO American hero at all in any way!!!

They have a Philly lawyer and two from Pittsburgh in addition to Larry Otter. It seems there is a lot of money behind this. This is a very serious effort.

Also, it appears the parties involved and the court have agreed to move the hearing date from Sept. 4 to Friday, September 5 as Sam Stretton is out of town on the 4th.

Mik

A little more background on this objection to the substitution certificate for Bob Barr...

This appears to be the first time anyone has made this particular objection. There are a couple of cases that address the time frame to file the nomination papers and the Anderson case from 1980 does say that to not allow for the substitution of candidates would lead to an unreasonable result.

The objection is based on intent. Did we intend to mislead and fraudulently represent the presidential candidate to the signers of the nomination papers after Barr was nominated in Denver on May 25, resulting in a subversion of the electoral process?

The answer is clearly no. Our intent all along was to place Libertarian Party candidates on the ballot, and all of our papers were circulated with a duly nominated presidential candidate on the papers and a Committee to Fill Vacancies clearly identified on every page.

The Libertarian Party had no recognized status under the PA election laws. There are only three ways to nominate candidates; by political party, which we are not, by minor political party, which we are not, and by political body, which is a collection of "qualified" voters of the Commonwealth. The "Libertarian Party" was not recognized under the election laws until those nomination papers were filed. If Ralph Nader had filed papers that called the political body "Libertarian Party" before we did, he would have been the Libertarian Party nominee on the ballot.

As it was, once the papers were filed, the presidential candidate withdrew, and Bob Barr was substituted, in accordance with the provisions of the PA election code. The Commonwealth cannot say we are not a political party then penalize us for not being a political party, which would happen if the objector prevails.

Also, it cannot be the case that the election code would create different conditions for different political bodies based on the arbitrary dates of national conventions. If the objector prevails, Ralph Nader would have had about 150 days to collect signatures to gain ballot access, we would have had about 60 days, and the Green Party, who had their convention in July, would have had about 20 days to get a presidential nominee on the ballot.

The real subversion of the electoral process lies in the objection itself. The Commonwealth has already created unequal election laws by creating different classes of nominees. At least for each class of nominee, including all political bodies, the rules should be consistent.

The objection is very weak, but that does not mean it cannot prevail. If it does prevail, there would be no way we could comply with the election laws for a presidential election if a nominee were selected after August 1 (OK - we can't do that anyhow, which shows the inequality of the PA election laws). As we can see this year, there are political parties which did not have a nominee by August 1. It would force all other political organizations into a different standard than independent candidates, which cannot be the way the law currently stands.

The objection is a thinly veiled attempt to remove a political rival from the ballot. The court should find the objection to be the frivolous and should further find it to be the subversion of the electoral process that it is. The fact that several Pittsburgh and Philadelphia lawyers have come in on the side of the objector indicates this case was not initiated by a county R chairman. Is Commonwealth Court being mislead?

My thoughts,
Mik

Status update:

The hearing has been moved to Friday, September 5. It will be at 10 a.m. in Courtroom One, Widener Bldg., 1339 Chestnut St., Philadelphia.

Do we have a release ready for the outcome of this?  As many as possible need to be aware about Friday's hearing.

Here is an interesting note from Ballot Access News:

http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/01/rogers-v-corbett-the-losing-2006-ballot-access-pennsylvania-decision-may-be-useful-this-year/

In the losing Rogers v. Corbett case in 2006, in order to avoid PA election law being declared unconstitutional, the interpretation was that signers of a nomination paper for a minor party were not selecting that party's nominees, but rather indicating they wanted the Party to be on the ballot.

At that time in 2006, the papers circulated were for a minor political party and there are none with that status in Pennsylvania currently. This puts the objection in a catch-22, however. If they claim we are a minor political party, then they have no case, and if they claim we are a political body, then they have no case.

I cannot see how this objection can prevail, but you never know...

Mik

WHAT'S THE WORD PEOPLE???   In OR out?

The hearing ended around 2. It's my understanding that the judge will rule later.

Today:


Texas Evidence Revealed
Today at 3:57pm
From Barr's Deputy Campaign Manager Shane Cory:

Today, I'm sitting here in Atlanta nervously awaiting word from a trial that is taking place today to kick Bob Barr off of the ballot in the state of Pennsylvania.

Although we did everything correct to get on the ballot in Pennsylvania and compete in the election against John McCain and Barack Obama, an operative for John McCain, Victor Stabile, decided that he didn't "like to see anything taint that process."

. . .

While losing sleep over of the case filed against us in Pennsylvania, I've been on pins-and-needles waiting all week to hear the outcome of our case in West Virginia.

We are asking the West Virginia Secretary of State to count and accept the 23,000 signatures that we turned in several days past the early deadline of August 1st - nearly a month before the Republicans and Democrats would even officially nominate their candidates.

I can't fully express to you the frustration that I feel right now.

Let me explain.

Last night, I received a response from the Texas Secretary of State's office to my request for the certification papers submitted by the Texas Republicans and Democrats that would place Barack Obama, John McCain and their running mates on the ballot.

Their certification papers were due to the state on August 26th at 5 pm.

The law is explicit on the matter. The names of the candidates for president and vice president are due by the deadline.

After reviewing the documents, it is clear that both the Republican and Democrat presidential tickets missed the deadlines and, according to Texas state law, should not be on the ballot in Texas.

If you want to see for yourself and download the documents, click here.

Regardless of McCain and Obama's failure to meet the statutory deadline, the Texas Secretary of State seems poised to certify the ballot with their names on it. They've even updated their official candidate listing to include McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden after we first made this public (and John McCain announced Palin as his running mate).

While Republicans and Democrats look to easily slide by in Texas regardless of the law, in both West Virginia and Maine, we are facing an opposite set of circumstances.

I've told you about West Virginia but we are also going through this similar battle in the state of Maine.

In Maine, a contractor for the Libertarian Party was in the process of turning in signatures and we've been told that the Secretary of State actually sent a letter to town clerks instructing them not to accept the petitions during what historically has been a grace period beyond the early deadline.

It's no surprise to us that this is happening but it's still not easy to accept.

It's been clear that if you are running for office as a Republican or a Democrat, you are somehow above the law.

If you are a Libertarian or independent, you not only have to abide by the letter of the law but you have to be prepared when the law is twisted and turned to be used against you.

When I brought this up last week, I said that we would be taking a stand in Texas.

We're doing that and now I ask you to stand with us.

Last night, our campaign manager, Russell Verney, submitted a very clear letter to the Texas Secretary of State.

In the letter, Russ stated:


"The Democratic Party, and Mr. Obama and the Republican Party and Mr. McCain blatantly ignored the Texas statutory deadline.

"Therefore, the Libertarian candidate for president, Bob Barr, as represented by his principal campaign committee, Bob Barr 2008, demands that your office keep the names of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain and Sarah Palin off the Texas general election ballot.

"Failure of the Secretary of State to comply with Texas law will result in serious legal consequences."


In the event that the Secretary of State's office in Texas does not comply with its own law, we are prepared to file suit, however this battle will just be the beginning.

On top of the additional and large legal expenses that we are likely to incur, we are going to have to divert campaign resources to deal with the media that is just starting to carry this story . . . but not in a positive manner.

Here's the New York Times this morning painting Bob Barr as a troublemaker, interfering with the election and even the economy:


What would happen if Mr. Barr prevailed? It is very hard to see how Senator McCain could get 270 electoral votes without getting the 34 from Texas. Could we end up with a messier election than we had in 2000?

Would the Supreme Court again get to pick the man who will pick the court's members? Would all this thoroughly alarm foreign investors, whose sales could damage stock and bond prices while the fight was on?

No, it won't happen. At least we can hope it won't.


It is a matter of principle that we make this stand. It will not be easy and it may not be pleasant but it must be done.

Please join us today by supporting the Barr campaign with a donation of $50, $100, $25 or more by clicking here: https://www.bobbarr2008.com/donate/?c=F20905

I appreciate all that you do.

In Liberty,



Shane Cory
Deputy Campaign Manager
Bob Barr for President

P.S. We've added a new feature to our Web site called the Liberty List. When you make a donation you can choose to make your name, city and state public to show your support. You can also leave a comment for everyone to read. To appear on the Liberty List for September 5th, please donate today at https://www.bobbarr2008.com/donate/?c=F20905

Un-official update - Court heard both sides, decision early next week. 

Spoke with Andrew Davis this evening. We lost the law suit in West Virginia today. Vary sad.

After talking to some folks, it seems the judge asked questions of both sides and appeared to be fair in his hearing of the arguments. The objectors characterized Rochelle Etzel as a "sham" candidate, in the attempt to portray intent to mislead and defraud electors of the commonwealth.

It appears they tried to portray the selection of nominees by major parties and other as essentially the same process, by which electors choose the candidates. Attorney Stretton made some clarifications about the ballot access process and said the parties nominate the candidates.

Judge Johnny J. Butler said he would rule expeditiously. This could go either way. If it goes against us we may never be able to have a presidential candidate on the ballot again depending on when the national convention is held.

So what the flip is taking so long for a decision from the judge here?????

It takes a while to twist the honest truth into a "legal decision".

This business in Texas is worrisome. It does us no good to challenge the ballot access for McCain and Obama, there. In the end, at best, they will still get on the ballot and we will have wasted time and money on a fruitless quest. At worst, they will not be on the ballot and there will be millions upon millions of McCain voters who will never forgive the Libertarian Party for raising this issue. No matter what happens, we lose. It is in this party's best interest to move past this and focus on the campaign.

I do find it troubling that we complain about ballot access everywhere and then we look for a reason to knock candidates out of the running. I mean I understand that they are trying to make a point on a different level about the favoratism shown the two party system, but I think this is the wrong way to do it and it is simply going to play out as the LP playing the same games as the parties we are complaining about.

The wheels of justice grind very slowly. I'm still optimistic about the outcome, but you never know how these things will go.

I think the Texas case will make great public relations fodder for us. I also think it would have been a better strategy if the Barr campaign helped to get both major party candidates ON the ballot. He could both have taken the high ground AND claimed victory!

Great point.

From the Barr Campaign daily spam:

The ruling text can be read here:

http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/Barr-pa.pdf

It is a complete and utter rejection of the petition to set aside the substitution certificate for Bob Barr.

Stabile has appealed the case to keep Bob off the ballot in PA. This guy and his boss McCCP is EVIL!!!!!!

Their attorneys said they would appeal from the word go, and the notice of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has come through.

I really can't see any hope in the appeal, the ruling was quite devastating. I have a hard time believing the case will be heard with enough time to do anything about the ballot, but we'll see. Although we can never be sure how a court will rule, the evidence would have to be pretty compelling to overturn the previous ruling, and there is just no evidence there.

It is odd that the appeal appears to include the LP and LPPA in addition to Bob Barr, while the original petition was served only on Bob Barr. This resulted in the original petition being "dismissed" against the LP and LPPA for lack of "personal jurisdiction" of the court, and denied with respect to all respondents.

Mik Robertson

Is there another court date or is this just reviewed and decided? 

There is another court date where it will be reviewed and decided. Apparently the opposition is piling on the lawyers to try to overturn the Commonwealth Court ruling.

I wonder if McCCP's people think we'll all vote for him if Barr is off the ballot? I know I won't!

I believe the hearing on the appeal is set for Monday, Oct 6. I expect it will take some time for the court to rule, however.

It seems that some PA counties are delaying certification of their ballots pending the outcome of this appeal, hoping the decision comes quickly I would think. I know other counties have already certified the ballot with Barr on it.

The pressure to silence and shut out Barr put on by the McCain campaign is far and away the most intense ever faced by a Libertarian candidate. It is the only time in history that a Republican has tried to remove a Libertarian Presidential candidate from the ballot. Talk radio hosts are threatened with boycotts if they allow Barr on their programs. The Republicans have gone mad, I tell you, mad, hahahaha....

Hypothetically, if we lose this suit, do we appeal?

The Supreme Court is the last stop for PA law. There would be no point to an appeal even if there were federal issues to resolve. There would be no time to restore Barr to the ballot. At that point some counties would likely have Barr on and some would not. If a ruling takes a week or so to be forthcoming, it is likely that most counties will certify their ballots with Barr on regardless of the outcome as time is running short.

Again, you can never tell how a court will rule, but there is just no evidence to reverse the Commonwealth Court ruling. Rochelle was never even called to the stand to testify in the hearing, so there is no direct testimony to review her intent. You only get one shot to make your case, and the objector did not make a very good case. There is only what was presented to review on appeal, I don't believe new arguments can be made unless some new evidence is uncovered.

The bottom line is that Judge Johnny Butler got it right, and it would be an enormous stretch for the Supreme Court to interpret the evidence differently, not that it cannot happen.

As far as this case goes, Barr is the least of my worries.  The final outcome of this case will effect how we conduct signature drives in the future, long after Barr is gone.  I seem to recall Stretton raising a constitutional issue.  If so, he may be laying the foundation for a federal appeal.  I can't recall the issue he raised.  It could have been the state constitution in which case that wouldn't help with a federal appeal.

David Jahn

According to Richard Winger's site, the appeal is to be heard the week of October 6th, not necessarily on the 6th, as I had heard.

http://www.ballot-access.org/

Mik

So is anyone attending and is this again being held in Philadelphia? 

This will be in the Supreme Court Middle District, which is in Harrisburg I believe (434 Main Capitol Building?). Wouldn't it be odd if a favorable ruling came down just as Bob Barr was walking past on Wednesday?

And there is no word as to "when."  And can ppl attend? 

I have not heard a time. I believe the courts are open to the public. Maybe a call to the Middle District would tell us something.

Mik

I have a inside person up there tell me that it will not be "discussed", just a decision will be made.   

OK, so this is just a review of the previous hearing.  Unless there was some significant mis-application of the law, there should be no overturning the Commonwealth Court ruling.

Here is a LTE that I sent to the Sentinel and the Patriot News

To:   The Editor                     10/1/2008

Victor Stabile and the Republican Party’s repeated attempts to destroy the democratic process in Pennsylvania are on full display with their lawsuits to remove the Libertarian Presidential Candidate Bob Barr from the ballot.  When their usual tactics of requiring a small mountain of signatures (25,000 this year) didn’t work to keep Bob Barr off the ballot they had to plot a new scheme.  The Republican leadership know full well that libertarian oriented Ron Paul garnered 16% of the vote in the Pennsylvania primary even after Ron Paul suspended his campaign.  This sent a strong signal that a significant number of people are willing to take a stand for freedom, liberty and small government and are tired of the government taking more and more control.  Pennsylvania is a key battleground state and the power mongers that do the dirty work for the Republican Party have been assigned the task of eliminating one of the strongest Libertarian Party candidates to date in Bob Barr.  Bob Barr is an ex- U.S. Congressman from Georgia with an ex- Ross Perot veteran by the name of Russ Verney as his campaign manager.  I’m thankful for the State Election Board and Judge Butler’s decision that Stabile’s claims are baseless and that Cumberland County took action to support democratic choice by printing the ballots.  This whole episode reminds me of the scene from the movie Gladiator where the Roman Emperor Commodus stabs Maximus with a hidden knife under his armor before entering the arena for the “appearance” of a fair fight.  The shear audacity of the Republican Party’s leadership to try and manipulate the ballot by eliminating choice is entirely un-American and will ultimately alienate even more of their conservative base.

I cannot believe no decision yet.  THE WHOLE WORLD IS WAITING AND WATCHING.  OK, maybe not.  But D%$#, the suspense is killing me.  Could you imagine if we could get a $10 million in marketing exposer that Bob Barr is the only one that was and is against all bailouts......and could have said this in the debates?   No wonder they want us kept out.  We would detroy them....IE like Michael Badnarik did in '04. 

So I have my PA absentee ballot, and Barr/Root is on it.  I haven't been reading much on this subject--I thought the LP's ballot position was already solidified. 

Are they talking about changing ballots that already have been certified?

If I vote on my absentee ballot for Barr/Root, would my vote not be counted due to the change?

WTF?

Again, it seems very remote that the Commonwealth Court ruling will be overturned, so nothing is likely to change.

I do recall reading of a district candidate in another state who lost a ballot access case after the ballots were printed. It was ordered that signs be posted in all of the polling places saying votes for that candidate would not be counted.

Any action would depend on the ruling. They may rule that Barr is OK on the ballot but substitutions on nomination papers can no longer be made. They may agree with the Commonwealth Court that we followed the law and . They may say Barr should not have been on the ballot but what is done is done. They may order signs to be posted and votes not counted as in the other state. We will have to wait and see...

As of October 17, 2008, The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District, has affirmed the ruling of the Commonwealth Court.

We win.

Mik Robertson

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review had a brief article today regarding Barr's placement on PA's ballot:

State Supreme Court affirms Libertarian candidates
By The Tribune-Review
Tuesday, October 21, 2008

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_594393.html

If you read the article (especially the last paragraph), it's possible that the Trib used some of our media releases to assist with their piece. 

Mark

I think you are right, Mark.