The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania - Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the LPPa forum. 
Feel free to join the discussions.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Bob Barr ballot status  (Read 5196 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mik
smf LPPa Moderators Area
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 356



« Reply #15 on: September 01, 2008, 11:43:08 pm »

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
Logged
bdively
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
*
Online Online

Posts: 280



« Reply #16 on: September 05, 2008, 03:59:40 pm »

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

What say you?
evc
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


evc evc
« Reply #17 on: September 05, 2008, 04:04:24 pm »

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

"It is not because a part of the government is elective, that makes it less a despotism, if the persons so elected possess afterwards, as a parliament, unlimited powers."
Tck13
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 40


« Reply #18 on: September 05, 2008, 05:32:19 pm »

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
Logged
bdively
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
*
Online Online

Posts: 280



« Reply #19 on: September 05, 2008, 06:02:38 pm »

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

What say you?
Jim Gordon
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


Email
« Reply #20 on: September 05, 2008, 11:46:28 pm »

Spoke with Andrew Davis this evening. We lost the law suit in West Virginia today. Vary sad.
Logged
Mik
smf LPPa Moderators Area
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 356



« Reply #21 on: September 06, 2008, 04:44:27 am »

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.

Logged
bdively
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
*
Online Online

Posts: 280



« Reply #22 on: September 11, 2008, 09:46:05 am »

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

What say you?
klapton
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



« Reply #23 on: September 11, 2008, 10:26:51 am »

It takes a while to twist the honest truth into a "legal decision".
Logged
JohnKOTR
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #24 on: September 11, 2008, 10:35:31 am »

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.
Logged
johngalinac
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 126



Email
« Reply #25 on: September 11, 2008, 09:34:58 pm »

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.
Logged

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson
Mik
smf LPPa Moderators Area
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 356



« Reply #26 on: September 12, 2008, 01:01:00 am »

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!
Logged
bdively
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
*
Online Online

Posts: 280



« Reply #27 on: September 12, 2008, 07:53:52 am »

Great point.
Logged

What say you?
klapton
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



« Reply #28 on: September 15, 2008, 05:07:03 pm »

From the Barr Campaign daily spam:

Quote
LATE BREAKING:  Word just arrived that we won our case in Pennsylvania!  John McCain's agents failed to remove us for the ballot in the Keystone State!  We're now confirmed on the ballot in 44 states!

Logged
Mik
smf LPPa Moderators Area
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 356



« Reply #29 on: September 15, 2008, 11:35:16 pm »

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.


Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com