Presidential election may hinge on Texas. This could get crazy

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Both the Democrats and Republicans missed the filing deadline in Texas. Texas law is VERY clear about this. Just like the major parties would do if a third party did not follow the law, the Libertarians are asking the state of Texas to honor the law and keep Obama and McCain off the ballot. Are ballot access laws too restrictive and outdated? Yes. Have the major parties ever cared if it keeps third parties off the ballot? Hell no! Turn around is fair play. A judge is going to have to order Texas to follow the law or throw the law out. Either is a good result for the Libertarians and other third parties.

http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/...date-on-texas/

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/files/lettertosos.pdf

Obviously the law will be tossed aside. It would be fun though to see Bob Barr win Texas. I'll probably vote for the guy.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by BlueK

That attitude is why the GOP is staring at a huge loss this time. Rather than fight with libertarians and libertarian minded Republicans on issues like taxes, spending, smaller government and civil liberties, the party using hacks like you and Snipe have turned against them and chased them out. McCain may still pull it out, but have fun being an insignificant minority in Congress for the next 8 years or so.

I think Palin is an improvement in that regard, but not enough to really sell me on McCain. Barr is actually a very good choice. He's moved the LP (at least for now) out of crazy town and into more of a classical liberal realm, iow he's in touch with reality.

[Clark Addison]

Couple of questions on this:

According to Barr's blog, the law requires candidates to file 70 days before the election. This was before either convention had ended. Is this a new law? If so, why did Texas pass a law that has an obvious conflict with the conventions (which are regularly held around this time, aren't they)? If it is an old law, what happened in past elections. Weren't there conflicts with conventions before?

And my last question, which is not really serious: would the Democrats be better served by arguing with the Libertarians? I assume they won't be getting any electoral votes from Texas anyway. I guess the argument against would be 1. they need 50% of the electors anyway, so shifting some from McCain to Barr doesn't do much good. and 2. They know that Barr will lose this fight, so being on the losing end would be a bad thing for various reasons.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Barr has a point, particularly given McCain's lawsuit he filed against Barr for missing the deadline in PA. I am guessing McCain regrets that decision now, as it looks bad.

In the end, though. You will be disappointed. Both parties will file in Texas. That much I can guarantee.

Barr didn't miss a deadline in PA. The GOP there is suing because the Libertarians filed on time with a substitute candidate because the deadline is so early there for third parties that they have to either have their nominee ready or substitute the actual nominee's name in time for the election. It's perfectly legal in PA to do this and there is plenty of legal precedent supporting that practice. The GOP lawsuit will likely just get thrown out by the judge. I'm hoping the judge in Texas will throw out the law, in which case it could set a precedent for other states' restrictive ballot access laws being thrown out also. I don't think the Libertarians have any illusions of McCain and Obama being left off, but would like a ruling that sets a precedent for throwing out silly election laws and or make it harder for states to discriminate against third parties.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Clark Addison

Couple of questions on this:

According to Barr's blog, the law requires candidates to file 70 days before the election. This was before either convention had ended. Is this a new law? If so, why did Texas pass a law that has an obvious conflict with the conventions (which are regularly held around this time, aren't they)? If it is an old law, what happened in past elections. Weren't there conflicts with conventions before?

And my last question, which is not really serious: would the Democrats be better served by arguing with the Libertarians? I assume they won't be getting any electoral votes from Texas anyway. I guess the argument against would be 1. they need 50% of the electors anyway, so shifting some from McCain to Barr doesn't do much good. and 2. They know that Barr will lose this fight, so being on the losing end would be a bad thing for various reasons.

I'm sure it's an old law. Both major parties are holding their conventions later than they used to, I believe.

[Frank Ryan]

which number wife is bob barr on? 7, 8 or 9?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Frank Ryan

which number wife is bob barr on? 7, 8 or 9?

if fewest number of marriages is important then Obama is your man.

[Frank Ryan]

Originally Posted by BlueK

if fewest number of marriages is important then Obama is your man.

hasnt he seriously had six or seven?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Frank Ryan

hasnt he seriously had six or seven?

No, I think he's on #2.