West Virginia Libertarian petition reportedly fails

According to a field report by one of the Libertarian petitioners on the ground in West Virginia, as of tonight’s final turn-in of signatures by petitioners to the campaign, the LP gathered only around 12,000 raw signatures, falling short of the 15,118 required by state law. While additional signatures would be required to survive a challenge, the bare minimum required by law would have been enough if there was no challenge.

Richard Winger reports in Ballot Access News, “No other state is like Illinois, where even a petition with a number of signatures below the legal minimum is sufficient if no one challenges”.

If this field report is accurate, it would mean that Bob Barr can be on the ballot in at most 48 states, unless he wins his lawsuit in Oklahoma.

The Nader and Constitution Party petitions appear to have enough signatures, and the Green Party is on the ballot through its affiliate, the Mountain Party.

In another post at BAN, Richard Winger writes:

West Virginia and North Carolina are tied for having the nation’s second-highest presidential petition requirements (each requires a petition of 2% of the last vote in a presidential election year). Only Oklahoma is worse, at 3% of the last presidential vote.

Both the Libertarian and Constitution Parties are making a massive effort to finish their West Virginia petitions, which are due August 1. This newspaper story about the Libertarian petition says 40 to 50 circulators are working in the state. The story doesn’t feature the Constitution Party, but it also has many circulators in the state this week.

West Virginia was one of 4 states in which Ron Paul didn’t get on the ballot in 1988, when he was the Libertarian nominee. The Constitution Party has never been on the West Virginia ballot for president, but the party has more organizational strength now than it has ever had. In 2000, its presidential nominee, Howard Phillips, was only credited with 23 write-ins in West Virginia, but its 2004 presidential candidate, Michael Peroutka, was credited with 82 write-ins in West Virginia.

Nader did his West Virginia 2008 petition earlier in the year, collecting 30,000 signatures, double the requirement. The Green Party’s affiliate in West Virginia, the Mountain Party, has been ballot-qualified starting in 2000.

92 thoughts on “West Virginia Libertarian petition reportedly fails

  1. richardwinger

    If the Barr petition is short, the campaign will continue collecting, and sue for more time.

  2. paulie cannoli Post author

    What would be the basis of the lawsuit? It’s past the deadline in many states. Would it be a combination of deadline and difficulty?

    As for keeping collecting, the petitioner I am referring to is already being asked to go to a different state, which also has a deadline coming up soon.

  3. Mike Gillis

    Maybe the basis of the lawsuit would be the high signature threshold combined with the deadline.

  4. paulie cannoli Post author

    Richard answers at BAN

    Are August 1 Petition Deadlines for President Vulnerable to Legal Challenge?
    August 1st, 2008

    Both Pennsylvania and West Virginia require minor party and independent presidential petitions to be submitted on August 1. In both states, one or another minor party is struggling with that deadline.

    The Pennsylvania deadline seems very vulnerable to challenge. The legislature has never passed any law saying the deadline is August 1. Instead, in 1984, both the Libertarian Party and the Communist Party sued Pennsylvania over the May deadline. The state gave in and signed a consent decree, promising to accept petitions up until August 1.

    But the July 17,2008 court order in Libertarian Party of Ohio v Brunner says that only state legislatures may create ballot access barriers, for president. In the Ohio case, the Secretary of State had created a ballot access barrier, but the Court interpreted Article II, section 1, to mean that only legislatures can do this. That part of the U.S. Constitution says “Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” Applying the same logic to Pennsylvania, the August 1 deadline is void.

    No similar argument can be made against the West Virginia deadline of August 1, since it was passed by the legislature. But one can argue that it is too early, because the U.S. Supreme Court said in Anderson v Celebrezze that states may not discriminate against independent and minor party presidential candidates in the matter of timing. The major parties have not chosen their vice-presidential nominees, not even informally, and they won’t formally choose their presidential candidates until August 24-28 (Democrats) and September 1-4 (Republicans). There are two court precedents finding early August deadlines to be unconstitutionally early, one from Rhode Island in 1976 and one giving injunctive relief in Alaska in 1992.

  5. paulie cannoli Post author

    There are two court precedents finding early August deadlines to be unconstitutionally early, one from Rhode Island in 1976 and one giving injunctive relief in Alaska in 1992.

    But haven’t there been more recent cases that even earlier deadlines are OK?

  6. paulie cannoli Post author

    According to WSAZ.com in West Virginia:

    Organizers for the Bob Barr campaign for president plan to turn in petitions to the West Virginia Secretary of State Friday. The signatures are expected to surpass the 15,000 needed to gain ballot access in West Virginia.

    Organizers have been collecting signatures for the past couple weeks to get the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate on the ballot.

    The Libertarian Party is expected to hold a press conference today after turning in the required signatures.

  7. paulie cannoli Post author

    Discussion at Turd Potty Watch:

    # Jonathan Says:
    August 1st, 2008 at 9:46 am

    From this web site that trashes Barr, the owner is a purist reports:

    West Virginia Libertarian petition reportedly fails

    August 1st, 2008 · 4 Comments
    According to a field report by one of the Libertarian petitioners on the ground in West Virginia, as of tonight’s final turn-in of signatures by petitioners to the campaign, the LP gathered only around 12,000 raw signatures, falling short of the 15,118 required by state law. While additional signatures would be required to survive a challenge, the bare minimum required by law would have been enough if there was no challenge.

    # Joey Dauben Says:
    August 1st, 2008 at 10:39 am

    And those guys had the nerve to attack me for supporting Wayne Allyn Root (because they always linked me to Dondero lol) and posting other news items on this site …Independent Political Report is a sham if they keep this “reporting” up.

    # Ed Li Says:
    August 1st, 2008 at 11:30 am

    The report clearly states “According to a field report by one of the Libertarian petitioners on the ground in West Virginia” – it does not state it as an absolutely known fact. It leaves open the possibility the petitioner was wrong, and that significant batches of signatures are still coming in this morning, for example.

    Likewise, the story here says “The signatures are expected to surpass the 15,000 needed to gain ballot access in West Virginia.” That also leaves open the possibility that results did not meet expectations.

    Neither Third Party Watch nor Independent Political Report posted anything inaccurate in this case.

  8. Sivarticus

    Sad, if true, but I guess we’ll see in a little while what the real story is.

  9. Steve LaBianca

    I wouldn’t be the least bit saddened by Barr/LP missing getting on the WV ballot. The fewer states Barr appears on, the less “BAD” coverage the LP will get for nominating a non-libertarian.

  10. svf

    I wouldn’t be the least bit saddened by Barr/LP missing getting on the WV ballot.

    Support Barr or not, but hoping he doesn’t make the ballot in WV (or any other state) displays NO CLASS.

    Libertarians, Greens, and all third party advocates should be supporting each other in these efforts and celebrating our ballot access victories together.

    While I know there are many LPers not rallying behind Barr 2008, I thought we were at least united in fighting for ballot access.

    Steve, I sincerely hope you’re the only one who feels differently.

  11. Steve LaBianca

    By what standard are you evaluating “class” svf?

    The class act that Barr is, with his sympathies for racists, drug warrior activity, supporting new taxes, among other non-libertarian disrespect for individual rights? How about the flip-flopping “class” that W.A.R. exemplifies? Or the”class” of W.A.R. in smearing Mary Ruwart, and then giving her the big hug on stage in Denver?

    BTW svf, there are MANY libertarians who hope and pray that Barr’s campaign is not only not the best ever, but that it fails miserably. Maybe I am the only person who has the ba*ls to say that I believe that by nominating a non-libertarian, the LP will lose support and meaningful activism as a result, but there are likely to be thousands of others who agree, if not saying so explicitly.

    The LP will be better off in the long run if its members understand the nature of the party and that nominating “real” libertarians is the only way to move forward. Barr/W.A.R. is a major step backward for libertarian politics, regardless
    of how many votes are achieved.

  12. Steve LaBianca

    How about the “class” of Barr changing his mind on medicinal marijuana, but never apologizing for jailing such marijuana users and depriving them of the only medicine which works for their medical condition?

    Yeah . . . that’s class alright.

  13. Steve LaBianca

    svf // Aug 1, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Support Barr or not, but hoping he doesn’t make the ballot in WV (or any other state) displays NO CLASS.

    BTW svf, I never said I hoped for this. I believe however, that the less the exposure to the general voting public Barr/W.A.R. gets, the less damage control the LP will have to do in righting the ship and sailing once again in libertarian waters, instead of floundering about in the murky waters of conservatism.

  14. svf

    the less the exposure to the general voting public Barr/W.A.R. gets

    You know very well that not getting on the ballot in WV will have no net effect on the campaign’s “exposure to the general voting public.”

    All it means is that those misguided sould who may have appreciated the option to vote for Barr/Root in WV won’t be able to do so.

    Why you’d be in favor of LESS choice on the ballot, even if you wanted someone else to get the LP nomination, I cannot understand.

    It’s like Hillary supporters saying that Obama shouldn’t be on the ballot as the Dem nominee, so that people don’t even have the option of voting for the Democratic party.

    Pure bitter, spiteful nonsense.

  15. darolew

    “The fewer states Barr appears on, the less “BAD” coverage the LP will get for nominating a non-libertarian.”

    You’re assuming normal people can tell the difference between Bob Barr’s positions and “pure” libertarianism. I’d say that’s unlikely. It seems likely Barr’s message will, to most people, leave an impression that’s generally libertarian. Most people aren’t hypercritical like libertarians. They aren’t going to care about his ambiguous position on the Fed, his limited support for legalized drugs, or his past career as a CIA employee. In all likelihood, most people won’t even find out about those things. I don’t think exposure to Bob Barr will particularly hurt the LP.

  16. darolew

    On topic, Barr’s blog says “[i]t will take some time for the Secretary of State’s office to review the petitions to determine if we have enough signatures”. I think that implies the number of turned in signatures is on the fence of being legal.

  17. Steve LaBianca

    svf // Aug 1, 2008 at 2:54 pm

    You know very well that not getting on the ballot in WV will have no net effect on the campaign’s “exposure to the general voting public.”

    All it means is that those misguided sould who may have appreciated the option to vote for Barr/Root in WV won’t be able to do so.

    Why you’d be in favor of LESS choice on the ballot, even if you wanted someone else to get the LP nomination, I cannot understand.

    First of all, give me support for the “no net effect” argument I allegedly “know very well”.

    Second, it is not up to me as a Libertarian nor the LP, to provide a forum for “misguided souls” to vote for a non-libertarian.

    Whether or not Barr/W.A.R. missing from any ballot provides “LESS choice” is also not my, nor the LP’s problem. Should the LP support and/or fund the Reform, Green, Constitution, Socialist, Workers World, Prohibition, heck even the Boston Tea Party, so there is “MORE choice” on the ballot? I think not.

    Then, to top it off you have to resort to name calling in the form of slander characterizing my opinions as “Pure bitter, spiteful nonsense.”

    Contrary to what you may believe svf (whom I have no idea is . . . though I put my name out there, and stand by my reputation and character as a no apologies libertarian . . . will you svf???)
    my non-support for Barr/W.A.R. is WAY more than disappointment that a”REAL” libertarian wasn’t nominated, it is the firmly held belief that the LP is on the completely wrong track by putting the name recognition of Barr, ahead of libertarian principles and solutions.

    If you want to call that “Pure bitter, spiteful nonsense”, fine but you have yet to back it up with a single meaningful argument. All you have said so far are innuendos and slanders.

  18. Steve LaBianca

    darolew // Aug 1, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    You’re assuming normal people can tell the difference between Bob Barr’s positions and “pure” libertarianism. . . . Most people aren’t hypercritical like libertarians.

    Those “normal” people aren’t ready for libertarianism anyway, and in the next election, are just as likely to vote Republican or Democrat as Libertarian anyway.

    It is in fact, the knowledgeable voters whom we need to impress upon, because once convinced, are MUCH more likely to stay with voting Libertarian

    Sorry, libertarianism is still in its infancy as far as electoral politics is concerned, and by simply making the goal to garner more votes, without knowing what the “quality” of those votes are (i.e. will be consistently voting Libertarian over time) is purely and simply, putting the cart before the horse.

    I find it funny how libertarians think that the education system has dumbed us down (I agree), yet it is for many libertarians, of no consequence, whether or not the voters are committed to libertarianism and candidates who espouse it through being educated, and making educated voting decisions.

    This is no more evident than words like this: “They aren’t going to care about his ambiguous position on the Fed, his limited support for legalized drugs . . .”.

    So, it is OK to espouse overhauling education by taking it out of the hands of government, but it also OK to put votes ahead of principle, regardless of whether or not the voters who cast those votes are persuaded of libertarian principles and consequences.

  19. svf

    anyway… back to the “reporting”…

    is Barr on or ain’t he? wasn’t the press conference supposed to be an hour ago or so?

  20. Steve LaBianca

    svf // Aug 1, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    anyway… back to the “reporting”…

    Well, svf, you felt compelled to slander me, while hiding behind the pseudo-name svf.

    Wimp.

  21. Trent Hill

    Im hearing reports from the ground in WV that the CP petition is over the legal limit–so if it goes unchallenged,we’ll make the ballot.

  22. svf

    hiding behind the pseudo-name svf.

    Wimp.

    Now, now… them’s fightin’ words, bud!

    If you’re REALLY interested…

    Here are my lame-ass blogs:

    http://serenadeingreen.blogspot.com/
    http://exhumedephemera.blogspot.com/

    Here are the newsletters I edited while in the LP – Boulder, CO during from Feb – Dec, 2000:

    http://lpboulder.com/newsletters/index.html

    Here’s some crappy music I recorded many years ago (FREE downloads!):

    http://www.ilike.com/artist/Stephen+V+Funk

    Here’s my MySpace page (68 friends… that’s a lot, isn’t it?)

    http://www.myspace.com/serenadeingreen

    Here’s my Amazon Wishlist (please buy me some stuff!)

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wishlist/BXB8OO7CPWJA

    Anything else you wanna know?

  23. richardwinger

    I believe the Constitution Party has 19,000 signatures in West Virginia. But West Virginia is a state in which the government checks the signatures. So it is tenuous. The legal requirement is 15,118.

  24. Trent Hill

    Making the ballot in Pennsylvania and West Virgnia would virtually assure 40 states, I think.

  25. Mike Theodore

    I’m taking svf’s side here.
    I support a voters ability to make their own decision, not the government to make it for them by not putting someone on the ballot. But y’all don’t like Barr, so no voter in that state would have voted for him anyway?
    I always thought Libertarians would be the ones for open and free ballots, but it does seem kind of spiteful. No, that’s not “slander”.

  26. Trent Hill

    Mike,

    Any third-party members or independent-thinking voter should be more than happy to see ANYONE get on the ballot in West Virginia–even the Nazi’s candidate. Voters should be able to chose for themselves.

  27. TheOriginalAndy

    “15,118 required by state law. While additional signatures would be required to survive a challenge, the bare minimum required by law would have been enough if there was no challenge.”

    As far as I know, West Virginia is not a challenge state, which means that the state elections officials automatically check the signatures.

    For those of you who don’t know, a challenge state for ballot access means a state where the elections officials only check the validity of the signatures if another party or candidate challenges the validity of the signatures. If nobody challenges the signatures then the party or candidate who submitted the signatures is placed on the ballot as long as their signatures meet the minimum signature total required by the state (although in Illinois – which is a challenge state – you don’t even have to have the minimum number required by the state if nobody challenges the signatures).

    In states that are not challenge states, the election officials automatically check the signatures, which means that you can’t “skate by” with bad validity unless you turn in WAY over the minimum number of signatures.

    Signatures can be disqualified for a variety of reasons, such as a signer not really being a registered voter, a signer having hand writing which is not legible, a signer not putting their proper address on the petition, a signer not signing the right page (in many states the pages must be seperated by county or city or district), a signer not filling out the petition correctly, etc…

  28. Mike Theodore

    Trent,
    Exactly, but some people just are bitter over Barr winning, so they are pleased at his defeats. In the end, those are defeats to the party, but who cares about that anymore?

  29. G.E.

    Why should I care who’s on the ballot, other than the candidate(s) I want to win/do well, in West Virginia? I don’t care who’s on the ballot in China. I live in Michigan. And that said, the fewer candidates on the ballot, the less ink and paper expended, the smaller the government! 🙂

  30. G.E.

    I used to think private ballots were a kooky idea, but now I see they are the way to go. Third parties had a lot more success before government-printed ballots, which, I think, are a tool of major-party oppression.

  31. svf

    closest thing to an update I’ve seen on Barr ballot access in WV…

    http://www.herald-dispatch.com/homepage/x1356143777/3rd-parties-hit-deadline-to-seek-ballot-slots

    Libertarian White House hopeful Bob Barr delivered around 800 pages of signatures to state election officials. Barr’s tally of valid names stood at 865, out of 2,822 reviewed, before the former Georgia congressman’s campaign dropped off the additional petitions Friday.

    “We’re very hopeful,” said Mike Ferguson, a Barr spokesman. “We’ll wait until the secretary of state goes through them.”

    So how many sigs per page on a WV petition?

  32. libertycrusader

    I could have collected 3,118 signatures during that time frame, but the Sean Haugh/Scott Kohlhaas/Shane Cory axis actually preferred to intentionally fail.

    I don’t get it.

  33. Brandon H.

    The more candidates on ballots, the better. Even though I would never vote for them, I’m glad to see the socialist parties on the ballot. I even wouldn’t mind seeing Keyes getting on any ballots as long as it doesn’t come at the expense of someone else.

  34. jobberman

    Back on topic (though i agree we should be happy with all canidates making a ballot) At 3:04 of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5H4AiF4X8g
    They show where someone is signing the petition. It looks like there is room for 25 signatures per column with two columns per page which would be 800*50=40,000 signatures. If you want to be real conservative, lets say they got 25,000 sigs.

  35. TheOriginalAndy

    “They show where someone is signing the petition. It looks like there is room for 25 signatures per column with two columns per page which would be 800*50=40,000 signatures. If you want to be real conservative, lets say they got 25,000 sigs.”

    This assumes that all of the petition signature sheets are full, which is not likely.

  36. TheOriginalAndy

    “Libertarian White House hopeful Bob Barr delivered around 800 pages of signatures to state election officials. Barr’s tally of valid names stood at 865, out of 2,822 reviewed, before the former Georgia congressman’s campaign dropped off the additional petitions Friday.”

    Only 865 valid signatures out of 2,282 raw signatures! Damn, that is bad validity.

  37. Steve LaBianca

    Mike Theodore // Aug 1, 2008 at 6:05 pm

    Allow me to take these one at a time:

    I support a voters ability to make their own decision, not the government to make it for them by not putting someone on the ballot.

    I personally am neutral about choices on the ballot. Those who want collectivists to be on the ballot can do the work to get them there, however minimal or cumbersome the amount of work needed. No, I do not support government barriers to ballot access. I just don’t have a dog in the fight for collectivist candidates on the ballot.

    But y’all don’t like Barr, so no voter in that state would have voted for him anyway?

    I don’t like Barr as the LP candidate . . . he isn’t a libertarian, and I have no particular feeling about Bob Barr the person. However, the LP should be running a libertarian as the main attribute for its candidate. Then, whomever is most likely to get the message out the most effectively ought to be the winner (my opinion, yes)

    I always thought Libertarians would be the ones for open and free ballots, but it does seem kind of spiteful.

    Again, open and free ballots is a matter involving the state, not the candidates themselves. I’m for minimal if not zero requirements for ballot access. My beef is with Barr as the LP candidate . . . I believe he hurts the libertarian cause by perverting, or distorting the perception of libertarianism, what with “federalism” and other substitutions for the concepts of liberty. I am not being “spiteful” . . . I simply want the libertarian message, not a conservative one for the LP.

    No, that’s not “slander”.

    The “slander” part is calling my motivations and/or beliefs, “Pure bitter, spiteful nonsense”.

  38. G.E.

    Let’s make another thing clear here, too: No one has a “right” to be on the ballot. Rights cannot confer obligations on other. If 300 million people were on the ballot, then imagine the costs of printing.

    The only real solution is to allow individuals to print their own ballots, or use pre-printed ones by private companies, political parties, etc. Get the state, which only exists to aggrandize itself and protect its proxies (the Ds and Rs), out of it.

  39. TheOriginalAndy

    TheOriginalAndy // Aug 1, 2008 at 8:31 pm

    “Libertarian White House hopeful Bob Barr delivered around 800 pages of signatures to state election officials. Barr’s tally of valid names stood at 865, out of 2,822 reviewed, before the former Georgia congressman’s campaign dropped off the additional petitions Friday.”

    “Only 865 valid signatures out of 2,282 raw signatures! Damn, that is bad validity.”

    Opps, I meant only 865 valid signatures out of 2,288 raw signatures.

    That is still really bad validity.

  40. G.E.

    Steve – There need not be a conflict between federalism and libertarianism. One can say the states have the constitutional authority to ban drugs — but it’s a bad idea! Or one can take Bob Barr’s path. Both are federalist, but only the former is libertarian. After all, it would be very unlibertarian for the federal government to send storm troopers into Mississippi if the state legislature passed a misguided law against crack cocaine.

  41. Steve LaBianca

    G.E., I didn’t say, nor do I believe that there is conflict between “federalism” and libertarianism. Barr, a self avowed federalist (though he falls short on several counts IMO) isn’t a libertarian as well. One can be for “federalism” and liberty, and one can be for “federalism” and against liberty, just not at the federal level! Barr is in the latter camp.

  42. johncjackson

    What happened to the 22,000 sigs someone was claiming? Dont remember where I read it- couldve been IPR, LFV, TPW, LP, or a LP/BB email, but I know I read that they were expecting to turn in 22,000.

  43. jobberman

    Hey G.E. we do have a ass backwards crack cocaine law. You recieve the the same sentence weather you have an ounce of crack or a kilo of coke.

  44. Steve LaBianca

    If 22,00 is ballpark correct, and the validation rate of 865 out of 2,288 holds up, that would amount to about 8,300 valid signatures. An overall valid signature rate of about 69% would be needed. Marginally, the 14,153 additional (over the 865 certified as valid) signatures need out of the 19,712 left (out of the estimated 22,000) would mean a validation rate of 71.8%.

    Them’s not good odds, seeing as the initial validation rate on the first 2,288 sigs is 37.8%. We shall see, though.

    BTW, this is assuming that the info provided here is correct, or reasonably so.

  45. G.E.

    G.E., I didn’t say, nor do I believe that there is conflict between “federalism” and libertarianism. Barr, a self avowed federalist (though he falls short on several counts IMO) isn’t a libertarian as well. One can be for “federalism” and liberty, and one can be for “federalism” and against liberty, just not at the federal level! Barr is in the latter camp.

    Yeah, that’s what I said. 🙂

  46. G.E.

    jobberman – I think you should receive the same sentence for having an ounce of crack or a kilo of coke: GET OUT OF JAIL FREE.

  47. G.E.

    Steve – Yes, I felt the need to clarify this point because there are a lot of “libertarians” who think you’re a “Dixiecrat” if you don’t advocate the federal government dropping bombs on Alabama if it passes a restrictive anti-abortion law. I can think of one common nemesis who has this view whose initials are the same as Bowel Movement.

  48. Trent Hill

    Steve LaBianca breaks down the Bob Barr petition numbers pretty well. Although the Barr campaign likely collected a few thousand more signatures–their validity rate is pretty abysmal so far.

  49. Steve LaBianca

    svf // Aug 1, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    I said . . .
    Wimp.

    You said Now, now… them’s fightin’ words, bud!

    Can a libertarian initiate a “fight” by being called a “wimp”, and still be a libertarian? I highly doubt it! I know I wouldn’t.

  50. Steve LaBianca

    Thanks Trent.

    The overall theme I meant to point out ( that I failed to do!) is that the validity rate of the “to be” reviewed signatures needs to be nearly double that of the first 2,288 signatures reviewed!

  51. Trent Hill

    Steve,

    I know what you were trying to point out.

    In fact, even if Barr’s petitions numbered 40,000 signatures–He’d still be cutting it close.

  52. Trent Hill

    Of course,if the validity of the WV petitions is a mere 37%,the LP has bigger problems.

    Richard Winger is reporting the CP turned in JUST over 20k signatures and he expects them to make the ballot.

  53. G.E.

    The LP does have bigger problems: It has been infiltrated by a gang of thieves, writ large. The purpose is to dole out donor cash to lackeys and underlings and NOT to good workers like Andy J., Gary Fincher, etc. It is a spoils system.

    You know, the LP leadership is a LOT like the post-Civil War Republicans, in terms of their politics, their ethics, and their practices.

  54. G.E.

    Steve – I said “fuck you” to a guy at the LP convention (heat of the moment when Root endorsed Barr) and he stormed me, and told me to “get the fuck out of (his) face” or he would punch me, and I told him that I would not move, and that he was not a libertarian if he would initiate force against me based on an insult I hurled at him. He said that saying “fuck you” amounted to an initiation of force on my part. I told him that by threatening to hit me, he was in fact initiating force, and I would be justified in knocking him out.

    No blows were thrown.

  55. Steve LaBianca

    So, the CP is “expected” to have a validity rate of about 75%, and the LP has a 37.8% rate on the first 2,300 sigs?

    If this pans out as such, why such a difference?

  56. Steve LaBianca

    G.E., I really wonder how there are people who call themselves “libertarian”, yet would initiate violence over cutting words.

    I guess the answer is that there are a lot of non-libertarian “libertarians out there!

  57. Trent Hill

    Steve,

    The CP is not “expected” to have such a validity rate. Nor is the LP “expected” to. According to that report by the Herald Dispatch–they DID have that sort of validity rate at that moment.

  58. G.E.

    Oh yeah, I forgot to mention what prompted the F you. I shouted “neocon!” when Root endorsed Barr. The guy turned around and told me to “shut the fuck up.” So he was the one who let the first F bomb fly at me.

    THESE are the type of people Barr has “brought” to the “party.”

  59. Steve LaBianca

    Mike Theodore // Aug 2, 2008 at 12:24 am

    “I guess the answer is that there are a lot of non-libertarian “libertarians out there!”

    PURGE PURGE PURGE!!!!

    It’s a shame that aggressive people who call themselves libertarians can’t be called on it without the ridiculous calls that that this is “purging”.

    But then, M.T. IS only 16 y.o (that’s what he says). So I’ll cut him some slack.

  60. svf

    Can a libertarian initiate a “fight” by being called a “wimp”, and still be a libertarian? I highly doubt it! I know I wouldn’t.

    Is it a prerequisite of libertarianism to take everything so goddamn seriously all the time?

    If so, consider me purged.

  61. svf

    something resembling a credible update on this topic…

    http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/200808010904?page=1&build=cache

    Third-party presidential candidates who want their names on the November ballot in West Virginia had to submit petitions by Friday to the Secretary of State’s Office. Those petitions had to include the valid signatures of 15,118 West Virginians registered to vote – 2 percent of the state’s residents who voted in the last presidential election.

    The secretary of state forwards those signatures to the 55 county clerks to verify.

    Libertarians, working to get former Georgia congressman Bob Barr on the ballot, said Friday that it would be a close call.

    “We’re going to rely on the secretary of state’s numbers,” said Mike Ferguson, national field representative for the campaign.

    The campaign submitted 1,145 pages of signatures, said Sarah Bailey, secretary of state’s spokeswoman, which should be more than 17,000 signatures, she said. The campaign already had 865 validated signatures.

    Ferguson said it was a rush to the deadline. Some volunteers across the state gave their petitions to him as late as 2:30 a.m. Friday.

    Getting petitions from the state’s Eastern Panhandle was even tougher. “Actually, we had them Fed-Exed in,” Ferguson said.

    He believes the campaign will reach the magic number, but said he was “being really cautious.”

    “I think we got over 21,000,” said Jeff Becker, representing the Constitution Party and its candidate, televangelist Chuck Baldwin.

    His group submitted 971 pages of signatures just prior to 5 p.m., the final deadline. That should be about 15,536 signatures, according to the secretary of state’s estimation.

    The party had already submitted 7,442 valid signatures, Bailey said, with another 1,750 still being processed.

    Nader, running this time under the Independent Party banner, already had 14,036 validated signatures Friday morning. Supporters had submitted 24,377 signatures and had 4,400 still being reviewed.

    The Green Party’s presidential candidate, former Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, will automatically appear on the ballot. Her name will be listed under the Mountain Party, a recognized statewide party that has affiliated with the national Green Party.

    If Nader, Barr and Baldwin reach the 15,118 mark, the six candidates would make the largest West Virginia presidential ballot ever, state officials believe.

  62. Mike Theodore

    “Is it a prerequisite of libertarianism to take everything so goddamn seriously all the time?

    If so, consider me purged.”

    Cheers. You can’t sneeze in front of a libertarian without getting a mouthful.

  63. Steve LaBianca

    Thank you svf for the updated link.

    This is interesting (from the report):

    “The campaign submitted 1,145 pages of signatures, said Sarah Bailey, secretary of state’s spokeswoman, which should be more than 17,000 signatures, she said. The campaign already had 865 validated signatures.”

    Even if there were 18,000 signatures submitted, to get on the W.V. ballot would take an 84+% validation rate.

    Marginally, the non-reviewed signature validation rate will have to be nearly 91%, if 18,000 signatures were submitted. This is “going to be close”? The initial validation rate of 37.8% would need to be improved by nearly 2 1/2 times to achieve success. Hmmmm.

  64. svf

    What I’m unclear about from the earlier report is this…

    Barr’s tally of valid names stood at 865, out of 2,822 reviewed, before the former Georgia congressman’s campaign dropped off the additional petitions Friday.

    Does that mean that only 865 out of 2,822 were valid, or that SO FAR 865 of the 2,822 were valid but they were still checking…

    I don’t know a lot about this stuff, but 865/2,822 seems like a really shitty validation rate by any standard.

    We shall see soon enough, I guess. I am assuming they are going into this with diminished expectations or we would have expected some kind of triumphant-sounding official word from Barr2008 by now…?

  65. svf

    New BarrBlog post quotes the above article and adds…

    Here is what happens at this point…the campaign will keep collecting signatures while petitions are being verified. We will file a lawsuit seeking more time to petition if we don’t reach the required number, which is 15,118 verified signatures.

    Something tells me they don’t think they’re gonna make it…….

  66. Trent Hill

    Check this out.

    The newspaper article cited a few comments above says of the Constitution Party:

    *”His group submitted 971 pages of signatures just prior to 5 p.m., the final deadline. That should be about 15,536 signatures, according to the secretary of state’s estimation.”*

    My article, written yesterday, claimed:
    *”My source claims over 20,000 signatures have been turned in for West Virginia. If the validity rate holds, approximately 15,560 signatures are valid with only 15,118 required.”*

    My estimation: 15,560
    SoS’s estimation: 15,536

    How awesome am I?

  67. darolew

    I never understood the whole signature validation thing. What makes signatures invalid? To messy, illegible? Invalid address or something? (It might be clear I’ve never gathered signatures, so I really am quite ignorant of the process.)

  68. Steven R Linnabary

    It really depends on what State you are in. Every place has different rules and regulations.

    Theoretically, an invalid signature is a signature of somebody who is not a registered voter.

    Surprisingly, many people don’t know where they are registered. Usually students and low income folks that move a lot. These are people most likely to sign a petition.

    Here in Ohio, as of ’04 and the Nader campaign, a signature must be legible AND precisely as signed in the Board of Elections. Doctors can no longer sign petitions. A signature that uses a middle initial at the BOE must use the middle initial on the petition. Also, the petition gatherers must not live in a “Residence Inn” type of apartment, no matter how long they have lived there. These are not considered permanent addresses.

    Most petition forms have a space for the date. A petition signer must use the correct date. Again, many people don’t know what day it is. A date out of sequence will have an entire petition page thrown out.

    Extraneous marks. An extraneous mark is a squiggle in the margin of a petition to get the ink of a pen running. Again, this will throw out the entire petition page.

    Many times, petition checkers at the BOE will contact signers to find out if they “really” signed a petition. A very subtle form of intimidation.

    Collecting signatures at a festival or gun show seem to be the easy way to go. But whoever asks for the signature MUST be the person to sign at the bottom as the circulator. This can get real confusing when you have a group of people circulating at a festival and every county must be on a separate petition form.

    Some States, such as West Virginia, used to require petitions must be collected by “Magisterial District”, rather than by Congressional District or by county. Magisterial Districts don’t follow county lines or Congressional lines. And nobody seemingly knew where the boundaries were.

    There is more, but this is what comes to mind right now.

    PEACE
    Steve

  69. darolew

    Thanks for answer my question, Steve.

    Very draconian requirements, as one would expect…

  70. Steve LaBianca

    svf // Aug 2, 2008 at 1:04 pm

    Something tells me they don’t think they’re gonna make it…….

    Unless they can get an extension, they aren’t. This is what I meant by my mathematical analysis above. Of the remaining signatures unchecked, the Barr campaign will need almost a 92% valid signature to total signature submitted rate to get on the ballot (assuming about 18,000 signatures were submitted by the “deadline”). 92% valid rate is most unlikely to happen.

  71. paulie cannoli Post author

    Check this out.

    The newspaper article cited a few comments above says of the Constitution Party:

    *”His group submitted 971 pages of signatures just prior to 5 p.m., the final deadline. That should be about 15,536 signatures, according to the secretary of state’s estimation.”*

    My article, written yesterday, claimed:
    *”My source claims over 20,000 signatures have been turned in for West Virginia. If the validity rate holds, approximately 15,560 signatures are valid with only 15,118 required.”*

    My estimation: 15,560
    SoS’s estimation: 15,536

    How awesome am I?

    Not very awesome, judged by this.

    What the SOS was referring to was 15,536 raw signatures on the latest turn-in.

    What you are referring to is an estimated validity of 15,560 valid signatures out of all turn-ins combined, assuming the validity on the final turn-in is the same as on the previous one(s), which may be the case – or not.

    Two entirely different things.

  72. Trent Hill

    Oops. You appear to be right Paulie–although that means the CP turned in 26k signatures.

  73. paulie cannoli Post author

    BAN:

    The West Virginia Constitution Party submitted 20,610 signatures to be on the 2008 ballot for president. Some of them had been turned in previously and have an 80% validity rate. Unfortunately the petition only counts for president. In order to count for Governor, all the signatures would have been due in May. So although all the petitions have the gubernatorial candidate listed, the petitions will only be useful for putting Chuck Baldwin on the ballot.

  74. paulie cannoli Post author

    Story continues

    The West Virginia Libertarian presidential petition probably doesn’t have enough valid signatures. The campaign is continuing to obtain more, and will submit them soon. If the first batch is insufficient, a particular experienced attorney will file a lawsuit against the deadline. The basis for the lawsuit will be Anderson v Celebrezze.

    The Pennsylvania Constitution Party will probably also collect more signatures and turn them in, and bring a lawsuit against Pennsylvania’s August 1 deadline. The party was short approximately 2,500 signatures on the August 1 deadline. The Pennsylvania Green Party will probably join in with this lawsuit, or file a similar lawsuit, if it can collect another 12,000 signatures in Pennsylvania in the next few weeks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *