Barr 0-2 in lawsuit news: Loses first round in Texas, has Pennsylvania victory appealed

via
Last Free Voice

From Russ Verney email:

Late last night, I returned from Texas where we had just filed for an emergency legal stay to prevent the Secretary of State from mailing ballots until our case is resolved.

Before I could even unpack, I received word that our emergency stay had been rejected.

While I am disappointed, I am more alarmed by the opposition brief submitted by Texas’ Attorney General. Rather than address this issue on its legal merit, the Texas AG is politicizing this issue under the guise of protecting troops stationed overseas.

Can you believe this, the opening paragraph of their brief?

“Undeniably the Constitution of the United States protects the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” In that spirit, the State of Texas opposes any threat to the rights of military service members to receive, case, and return ballots from abroad. The Motion for Emergency Stay filed by Relators Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root, and the Libertarian Party of Texas presents precisely this threat, in asking this Court to stop the mailing of ballots to our men and women in uniform around the globe. This Court should deny the Motion and protect the constitutional rights of military voters.

Meanwhile, Ballot Access News
reports

Republicans in Pennsylvania have decided to appeal a judge’s decision last week that permitted Barr to remain on the ballot in that state.

16 thoughts on “Barr 0-2 in lawsuit news: Loses first round in Texas, has Pennsylvania victory appealed

  1. BlueCarp

    Paulie, I know you are no fan of Barr, but having your opponent appeal from a ruling you won hardly qualifies as a “loss.”

  2. paulie cannoli Post author

    I did not say it was a loss. I said that he lost the first round in Texas, and (separately) had a victory appealed.

    While the second is not a loss, it is a setback. The alternative would have been no appeal. Since there has been an appeal, there is now the possibility that it will become a loss, and/or that it will cost the campaign additional money that could have been put to better uses.

    As for my views on Barr, I’m still open to the possibility of voting for him. Although I don’t know him well, on those occasions when we met,
    there was no enmity. I’m friends with some of his campaign staff, and acquaintances with others. I have published some of his press releases verbatim. I take no pleasure in those instances where in my opinion he diverges from libertarian
    views and/or embarrasses the party which nominated him, of which I am a life member.

    Although I did not vote for Bob Barr on any ballot in Denver, I did publicly welcome him to the LP. I certainly hope he wins the lawsuit in Pennsylvania, and that whatever comes out of the lawsuit in Texas will aid the cause of ballot access.

    I am not reflexively anti-Barr despite what anyone might think.

  3. TheOriginalAndy

    I’m not a Barr supporter either but I think that these are two law suits which he deserves to win.

  4. pdsa

    I am not a Barr supporter, and think he should be on the ballot in Pennsylvania, but his Texas lawsuit is appalling.

    I cannot believe that a LP candidate is actually fighting a court battle to limit ballot access. What kind of libertarianism is this? For three decades the LP has fought to open up elections for all comers. The LP’s membership has spent an inordinate amount of time and money to get the party on ballots in states across The Nation.

    Now some whiny hypocrite comes along, and files a lawsuit using the very same arcane laws the LP has opposed all these years in a cheap and tawdry attempt to limit other parties’ ball0t access? The LP is shedding its principles for glass-pipe dreams of mainstream, dancing down the road to perdition.

  5. G.E.

    I have to say, I’m not a Barr supporter but I think his Texas lawsuit is a good thing.

    On one hand, he’s “disenfranchising” the voters who want Obama or McCain. Okay. But these are looters who are trying to steal from me. Barr is acting in my defensive interests to keep them off the ballot. And besides, no one has a “right” to vote for the candidate they want and have it counted — if they did, then I could vote for Ron Paul (or at least Charles Jay).

    Barr should be commended for his efforts in Texas. I never fail to give Barr credit when it’s due.

  6. markyannone

    Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party are insisting on enforcement of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amentment.

    On the other hand, the Republican Party, the Democrat Party, the Texas Attorney General, the old media, and a few other government school attendees are insisting that they are above their stinking law.

    But one of the most beautiful things about “equal protection” is that the sons of bitches who write and impose bad law are made to suffer equally for their misdeeds in government. They have a duty to bleed equally for the evil they have imposed on everyone.

    The LP is not being hypocritical, nor are their members giving up their principles. They are defending them. Learn to recognize the difference.

  7. Coming Back to the LP

    to pdsa:

    The Barr lawsuit in Texas is the correct thing to do from a Libertarian standpoint.

    Since we are being ruled against our wills, we seek to limit the power of the King. Now the King holds elections which we are allowed to enter if we follow the King’s rules. The King claims that if we win the elections, we will be allowed to take over and eliminate those rules we think are unfair, wrong, unLibertarian etc.

    There are those, of course, who think we are wrong to play the King’s game at all. This seems fine, in principle, but it leaves us little hope of becoming truly free. Maybe, if we all withdraw from the system, the state will fall on its own … seems unlikely. Maybe, we could hold a second American revolution … unlikely to begin, unlikely to succeed. So, we play the King’s game and follow the rules.

    Now, the King’s “two party system” that is designed to fool the people and keep the King in power, needs to break its own rules from time to time. This happens when those parties working in opposition to the King start to become successful, learn to organize and actually are able to get past the King’s rules.

    When this happens, it is not unLibertarian to hold the King in check under the same rules that we oppose. We are working to REDUCE the King’s power. If we can prevent the King from exercising power ABOVE his own laws, we will have succeeded in putting a cap on the King’s power.

    And that, I believe, is part of what we need to do. Increase the rights and liberties of the Individual, and reduce or limit the power of the State.

    This lawsuit is a good idea, no matter what the outcome.

  8. pdsa

    GE – but mom, Billy did it first is you rationale? You would disenfranchise others, because the powers have disenfranchised you? There is no liberty down this path

    markyannone – so you support equal application of tyranny?

    Coming Back to the LP – you will to be king?

    The LP is now officially on record supporting the denial of ballot access. You cannot just gloss this act, and call it an attack on the two-party system,because it is an attempt to disenfranchise a majority of Texas citizens, few of whom, have done libertarians any harm. The LP seeks to strip away innocents’ rights, and is applauded for this. <a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pen4dMAv7zY”Selling out the LP’s soul in a march into mainstream.

  9. Coming Back to the LP

    If you do not require the King to play by the same rules as the rest, then the King will ALWAYS cheat rather than lose.

    If you do NOT sue to keep the Democrats and Republicans off the ballot, if you do NOT force them to abide by the same rules as everyone else, then you are supporting the POWER of the Democrats and Republicans to smash the innocent and rule forever.

    To smash statism we must first eliminate the power of the state to ignore its own rules. We must force the government and the government parties to follow the law and the Constitution.

    This lawsuit is a pure Libertarian activity.

  10. G.E.

    paulie – “Enfranchisement” is not a right. You are aggrandizing the system of organized theft too much. The right to steal is not a right. The evil state makes up laws to qualify for your name to be printed on the taxpayer-funded ballot. If you want to criticize something, criticize the existence of those rules, the existence of those ballots, and the existence of the “democratic” system at all. But Barr is not initiating force or denying anyone their “rights” by pursuing this lawsuit.

  11. G.E.

    You talkin’ to me?

    I didn’t say you were saying anything. I’m pointing out the reasons why I support the suit. He’s not initiating force or violating any rights. When you enter the evil game of politics, you should still abide by those rules (i.e. not acceptance of taxpayer funds), but this does not violate them, and therefore, it’s all good.

  12. BlueCarp

    Paulie said: “I did not say it was a loss. I said that he lost the first round in Texas, and (separately) had a victory appealed. ”

    You are correct, but the headline says “Barr 0-2 in lawsuit news.” In sports terminology, that means he has zero wins and two losses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.