We reported earlier that Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr would be the sole presidential candidate on the Texas general election ballot. His campaign was the only one to turn the necessary paperwork in on time. However, the situation has become more complicated.
While neither major party candidate had their papers turned in on time, and that is the determining factor of ballot access in Texas, there seems to be a chance that they will still be a choice in November. According to Angela Burton, a spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State, the candidates will submit something referred to as an “amended filing.” How this differs from simply submitting the paperwork late has yet to be explained.
Burton also added that “previous case law has provided for this occurrence.” According to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News, her statement is true. This was posted on his website,
The cases are Davis v Taylor, 930 SW 2d 581, and Bird v Rothstein, 930 SW 2d 586. The first case put a Republican nominee for State Court of Appeals Justice on the November ballot; the second one put a Democratic nominee for state house on the November ballot.
Ballot Access News also stated that Ralph Nader filed his petitions two weeks late in Texas in 2004. The independent candidate for president knew that there was a later deadline for independents at the time. However, he was still denied ballot access. What, if anything, will occur from the realization of that apparent double standard is unknown.
The reaction from the Barr campaign, however, is clear. Russ Verney, the campaign’s manager, said,
In Texas, we have a clear deadline that was not met by the Republicans and Democrats, but it is all but certain that some way, some how, the establishment candidates will find a way on the ballot. Some people are just above the law.
If the Secretary of State ignores the deadline for McCain and Obama, and then tries to enforce it against a write-in candidate, that would obviously be unjust. Especially since there is a rational reason to impose deadline to expedite the ballot-printing process, and yet there is no rational reason at all to force write-ins to file in August for a November election. The ballot will carry write-in space anyway, so no one needs to know who the write-in candidates will be, in order to get started printing ballots.
Milnes, being called a political loser by you is like having David Duke brand you as a racist.
You sure have a knack for locking in your unviable i.e. loser, status.
Richard – how would the BTP filing for write-in status test the Secretary of State’s consistency?
I should have added, and didn’t, that the write-in deadline in Texas is also August 26.
I have just posted a blog item at Ballot Access News about how the Boston Tea Party plans to file for write-in status in Texas, to test the justice and consistency of the Texas Secretary of State.
There can be no doubt that the two major parties missed the deadline. The deadline doesn’t relate to stand-ins. It relates to knowing the final nominees of the parties. The law was passed in 2005 to make it possible for Texas to get started printing its ballot by the end of August so as to mail military foreign absentee ballots early.
Damn, Mike beat me to it, too.
Exactly what I was going to say, Mike.
Milnes,
It’s not the strategy that elicits giggles, it’s the inability you have to see that your candidacy, under any circumstances, is anything BUT “viable”.
What is the prevailing ‘evidence’ that they did not submit ? So far just a website and a vague confirmation from some lower level bureaucrat.
Of course both heavies will claim that they did in fact submit and corroborating paperwork will appear. Subsequently, an amended filing will be considered legitimate. Unless someone from the inside comes forward or contradictory information surfaces, it’s doubtful anything meaningful will emerge from this.
If, however, there is a legitimate cause or standing from the Barr campaign, it might prove to be the most fruitful and disrupting aspect of the campaign. One would think that if the prospect of denying ballot access to major parties in a mjor state were actually possible, it could easily be forgotten (at least by those with standing in a possible case) if entrance to said debates were suddenly ‘negotiable’ . . .
Spence, Funny that you use the word “viable” here. When I use it to describe how the Progressive Alliance Strategy makes the LP & GP viable, it usually gets giggles.
Clearly, the only two “viable” parties must be on the ballot somehow, come hell or high water.