Louisiana ballot access lawsuit: Barr wins, Socialist candidate Brian Moore loses

Ballot Access News carries the news that

On September 23, U.S. District Court Judge James Brady ruled that Bob Barr should be on the Louisiana ballot, but that co-plaintiff Brian Moore (Socialist Party nominee) should not be on. The case is Libertarian Party et al v Dardenne, 08-cv-582.

Judge Brady differentiated between Barr and Moore by noting that the Libertarian Party is a ballot-qualified party, whereas the Socialist Party is not. He said the law gives a qualified party a three-day grace period, but that the law does not extend that to unqualified parties. The written decision is not available yet; the judge spoke orally. The written opinion should be available by 5 p.m. central time.

This brings Barr up to 46 states, the same number as Ralph Nader this year and Ron Paul in 1988, with
Connecticut, Maine and Oklahoma still to be determined.

BAN also reports that

The effort to show that the Connecticut Libertarian statewide petition has at least 7,500 valid signatures is making good headway. The state had initially said there were only 6,999 valid signatures, but it turns out that the state made an addition error. The correct sum should have been, and is now acknowledged to be, 7,279 signatures. In addition to that, it appears that 116 petition sheets were lost while they were in the custody of either the towns, or the state. Unfortunately the Barr campaign did not make photocopies of all the sheets. In addition to all that, the Libertarian activists who are still re-validating signatures are finding signatures that are valid, but which had been improperly invalidated. That work continues.

Brian Moore is on the ballot in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin, and in court in Mississippi. Besides Moore and Barr, the only candidate listed by BAN as still having ballot lines up in the air is Ted Weill of the Reform Party, in Louisiana. Weill is currently on the ballot only in Mississippi.

Barr is 2-1 in lawsuit news in the last two days, with victories in Louisiana and Massachusetts and a loss in Texas.

65 thoughts on “Louisiana ballot access lawsuit: Barr wins, Socialist candidate Brian Moore loses

  1. WinstonSmith

    I’m happy that Barr got on, but I don’t understand the difference between the two candidates. Both should have gained access to the ballot.

  2. WinstonSmith

    Trent,

    You are about as far off as you can get. Most Barr supporters will not vote for Baldwin. How could you go from voting for Liberty to voting for theocracy?

    If one persons opinion (Paul) can sway your vote that much you don’t deserve the right to vote.

  3. Steve LaBianca

    I will restate my thoughts on this . . . Barr is a crybaby and a hypocrite regarding ballot access, but I also believe that ballot access barriers are deplorable.

    If there is any sort of justice in the political world, the Socialist (UGH!) candidate ought to be on the ballot as well.

    Three day grace period my a*s!

  4. Michael Seebeck

    Yeah, but the TX loss outweighs the other two. LA was about as expected, and MA was a ho-hum, simply because everyone was on the same side.

  5. AnthonyD

    Paul is a crybaby for endorsing the theocrat-fascist Baldwin because Barr didn’t show up at his precious press conference.

  6. Steve LaBianca

    Barr is a crybaby because Ron Paul is the mover and shaker in the greater freedom movement, and Barr is a lesser hanger on who tried to assert his independence . . . guess what Barr, you screwed yourself thinking your britches were bigger than Ron Paul’s!

    Barr is also a crybaby when he fails to get petitions in on time, and a hypocrite because he complains that the government allows the major parties on the ballot when THEY are late!

  7. WinstonSmith

    Steve,

    Clearly Barr is trying to assert independence. If the LP isto be taken seriously as a real political party we don’t need to ride the coattails of Paul. The other 3 didn’t figure that out. Barr is a professional politician. He knows how to work it.

    And your claim that he is crying when he is late is false. He sued in West Virginia because the other two parties didn’t have to file paperwork until a month after the LP did. He was suing on the grounds that it was unfair.

    Keep spreading the propaganda though.

  8. Trent Hill

    “You are about as far off as you can get. Most Barr supporters will not vote for Baldwin. How could you go from voting for Liberty to voting for theocracy?

    If one persons opinion (Paul) can sway your vote that much you don’t deserve the right to vote.”

    Really? Are you on the ground in Louisiana? Im talking specifically here in this state. The Libertarian ExComm in Louisiana is fractured–I understand many of them were halfheartedly hoping Barr WOULDNT win this suit. I’v recieved word that the State Chairman of the LALP either HAS quit, WILL quit, or is CONSIDERING quitting (depending on the source). I have not seen ONE Barr sign or one Barr meeting of any sort. I’v recieved emails from (literally) hundreds of former Paul activists who will be voting Paul/Goldwater or for Chuck Baldwin.

    As for my opinion—I was already going to vote for Baldwin, but then I helped put Paul on the ballot. =)

  9. Trent Hill

    “Clearly Barr is trying to assert independence. If the LP isto be taken seriously as a real political party we don’t need to ride the coattails of Paul. The other 3 didn’t figure that out. Barr is a professional politician. He knows how to work it.”

    “Riding the coattails of Barr” was the best shot you guys had at a million votes. Now, you might nab half a million. Baldwin, for his part, is going to break previous CP totals–i’d guess around 200-225 thousand.

  10. VTV

    Independance….

    The only thing I like about how this happened is I don’t have to continue my crusade to inform Paul supporters that Bob Barr is not compatible with the movement.

    The thing I don’t like is that as a Libertarian candidate I have to do all kinds of damage control when people ask me “Your not like that Bob Barr guy are you?”

  11. WinstonSmith

    Trent,

    The LP will still easily get a million votes. Barr will be close to two.

    Just because Paul supports Baldwin doesn’t mean he is going to lose votes. I’d say Palin hurt the LP more than Paul’s endorsement.

    Still, votes don’t really matter. Who cares if we get 1 or 2 million votes. The most important thing for the LP is having a candidate who can spread the message of Liberty and Barr did just that. He is on tv a few times a week getting more media coverage than any candidate in history. He is putting out a message that Americans can relate to without thinking he is a whackjob. That was the most important thing that could come from this election. Not a number of votes which doesn’t matter in the end.

  12. Steve LaBianca

    Barr only assertion of independence is being free from encumbering himself from libertarian ideas.

    Ron Paul is THE mover and shaker in the freedom movement. Barr attempting to derail himself from it is political suicide.

    Yup, professional politician, alright. Huh, it used to be that “professional politician” was a bad word in libertarian circles. It still is, but in the phony libertarian circles, it is held in high esteem, and the people who fit this description dear to their heart.

  13. RedPhillips

    Theocrat … blah, blah, blah, … theocrat … blah, blah, blah, … theocrat.

    As I said on another site, y’all wouldn’t know a theocrat if he bit you on the rear. Everything that is not militantly secularist is not theocratic. What Baldwin is is a conservative. He values and wants to conserve our country’s Christian heritage. Funny how that is since he happens to be one. It is mindless to simply repeat boogie words, nor is it much of an argument to say “I as a libertarian ideologue don’t like Baldwin because he is not … well … a libertarian ideologue just like me.”

  14. AnthonyD

    ‘“Riding the coattails of Barr” was the best shot you guys had at a million votes’

    For the reformers, “riding the coattails of Paul,” no matter what sort of contridictory, ill-conceived stunt he tries to pull, just to break a million votes is an unprincipled position better suited for purists.

  15. WinstonSmith

    Steve,

    If you would prefer to participate in a debating society please leave the LP and do so. The LP is a political party. The purpose of a political party is to win. This is why it has largely been unsuccessful for 30 years. If you want to maintain the purist ideals and never make any real change in this country go ahead. The rest of us will push for a LP candidate to gain power so we can actually make a difference.

    Most people who don’t support Barr are politically ignorant. Again, this is why the LP has been a failure for 30 years. Most of Americans are Libertarian and so you will have to compromise somewhat on the message you put out there. You can’t put out purist ideals and expect to be taken seriously. You will never attract attention to your movement.

  16. Steve LaBianca

    The pseudonym Winston Smith is doing the “1984” character a grave injustice. The person who posts here under the name is delusional about everything, from # of votes Barr will get, to “a candidate who can spread the message of Liberty and Barr did just that”.

    Barr is spreading the conservative message, not the libertarian message.

    But then, “Winston Smith” probably thinks that libertarianism is a subset of conservatism anyway. WRONG.

  17. paulie cannoli Post author

    I’m happy that Barr got on, but I don’t understand the difference between the two candidates.

    The LP was already recognized as a party by the state, so it was treated differently.

  18. Steve LaBianca

    Oh here we go again with the tired old “debating society” crap again.

    You might as well say that as long as we hang the label “libertarian” around the candidate, and he/she gets votes, that is success, without ever considering the SUBSTANCE of what the candidate is campaigning on. Pathetic.

  19. WinstonSmith

    Steve,

    Please point out what anti-Liberty positions Barr holds. We understand that most purists don’t live in reality so they don’t have to submit to the ideas of the real world. But please go ahead and tell me what un-Libertarian message Barr is promoting.

  20. paulie cannoli Post author

    Yeah, but the TX loss outweighs the other two. LA was about as expected, and MA was a ho-hum, simply because everyone was on the same side.

    Actually, all three went as expected, especially Texas.

  21. WinstonSmith

    Steve,

    Again, you are helping the Republicrats stay in power by your tired debates that someone isn’t Libertarian “enough.” We need a candidate who knows what type of message can attract normal Americans. He doesn’t have to be purist to do this.

    You are doing the movement nor the country any good by continuing to think someone must be straight line purist to be a good Libertarian.

  22. WinstonSmith

    Paulie,

    Thanks for answering the question. I didn’t know why Barr would gain access but the Socialist Party wouldn’t.

  23. Steve LaBianca

    Like I said, “Winston Smith” is totally deluded.

    More proof of it:

    “Most of Americans are Libertarian and so you will have to compromise somewhat on the message you put out there. You can’t put out purist ideals and expect to be taken seriously. You will never attract attention to your movement.”

    Most Americans are Libertarians, so compromise your message? WTF is that. If most Americans are Libertarians, then put libertarianism out there in its purest form!

    However, seeing as the LP isn’t going to win anyway, it ought to be put out there purely anyway . . anything less is not only false advertising, but it confuses people as to what libertarianism is. Barr is doing a great job of confusing the voters about libertarianism, as Barr is a conservative.

  24. paulie cannoli Post author

    The LP will still easily get a million votes. Barr will be close to two.

    That’s not nice. Now my sides hurt. Is he going to raise 30-40 million, too?

  25. Steve LaBianca

    WinstonSmith // Sep 23, 2008 at 5:31 pm

    Steve,

    Again, you are helping the Republicrats stay in power by your tired debates that someone isn’t Libertarian “enough.”

    Barr isn’t libertarian, not just libertarian enough.

  26. WinstonSmith

    Steve,

    Clearly from the above post you could tell what I meant. I mistype when I said most Americans “are” Libertarians. Obviously I meant most Americans “aren’t” Libertarian.

    Barr is definitely libetarian, and you have still yet to put out what un-Libertarian message he is promoting. I guess its easier to deal with generalizations than facts though.

    Barr isn’t confusing anyone about Libertarianism. Purists such as Ruwart would have been laughed at by the American public and Barr is on tv a few times a week. He lives in reality. You keep living in your utopia though.

  27. Steve LaBianca

    Barr effectively lost the lion’s share of at least 1.2 million primary voters (for Ron Paul) by snubbing him. There are likely a few hundred thousand or more who didn’t or couldn’t vote in the Republican primary for Ron Paul (but would have), so I’d say that Barr easily snubbed 1.5 million voters, by snubbing Ron Paul.

  28. paulie cannoli Post author

    Thanks for answering the question. I didn’t know why Barr would gain access but the Socialist Party wouldn’t.

    You’re welcome. BTW, it was already in the article.

  29. WinstonSmith

    Paulie,

    You are kidding yourself if you don’t think Palin’s nomination hurt Barr. True conservatives wanted nothing to do with McCain so he brought in a lifetime NRA member who is rumored to have Libertarian ties. That definitely hurt Barr.

    And all this about Barr being a conservative isn’t really that bad.

    I guess some of you are ignorant to the LP’s history. The fact that David Nolan basically founded the LP out of Goldwater’s conservative principles.

  30. Steve LaBianca

    “Winston Smith”,

    I’ve posted about 20 times at IPR and LFV, the positions Barr takes which disqualifies him as a libertarian, which are many. Sorry, I’m taking G.E.’s advice . . . I’m done doing that for Barr apologists like yourself, whoever you are.

  31. Steve LaBianca

    Goldwater was a libertarian. When he wrote “The Conscience of a Conservative”, the libertarian word wasn’t used, except by Leonard Read, and maybe Murray Rothbard.

  32. WinstonSmith

    Steve,

    You probably posted purist ideals that you didn’t agree with him on.

    Nobody is saying Barr is a perfect politician. That does not exist. But he was by far the best Libertarian candidate we had to choose from. He was the best to actually receive attention and spread the message.

    But clearly, to purists that doesn’t matter. I guess unless someone supports a kids right to have sex with an adult, look at kiddie porn, and personal secession they aren’t libertarian enough.

  33. paulie cannoli Post author

    You are kidding yourself if you don’t think Palin’s nomination hurt Barr.

    Absolutely, it hurt Barr. So did snubgate. Hence, 1-2 punch. Although at least Palin was outside his control. Snubgate was a major case of shooting himself in the foot. And I say this as someone who might still vote for Barr, despite everything.

  34. paulie cannoli Post author

    I guess some of you are ignorant to the LP’s history. The fact that David Nolan basically founded the LP out of Goldwater’s conservative principles.

    Several hundred people founded the LP, and many of them had significant ties to the New Left and the 60s counterculture.

  35. WinstonSmith

    Steve,

    A troll doesn’t post thought out responses. And backing out of the argument is usually a sign you have nothing left to respond with.

    Paulie,

    Ron Paul is not exempt from criticism. Just because Barr disagreed with him doesn’t matter. That shouldn’t sway a decision but for the Paul lemmings it does. Paul lemmings have proven to be worse than Obama lemmings.

  36. paulie cannoli Post author

    Ron Paul is not exempt from criticism.

    Of course not. I’ve criticized him plenty.


    Just because Barr disagreed with him doesn’t matter.

    What did they disagree on?

  37. Jeremy Young

    Barr isn’t libertarian, not just libertarian enough.

    There are ways in which I’m more libertarian than Barr. For instance, I do not support the drug war or the death penalty. Considering that I’m an avowed liberal statist, that’s saying something.

  38. Mike Gillis

    The pseudonym Winston Smith is doing the “1984″ character a grave injustice.

    Paulie: “Did you make it to the end of the book?”

    Man, that’s a wonderful comeback. I actually laughed out loud. 🙂

  39. Ross Levin

    Just to add fuel to the fire: I don’t see it as completely unrealistic that Barr would get a million votes. Personally, I expect him to do about as well as any other LP candidate, but the name recognition might get him a bit farther. Snubgate isn’t huge news beyond the libertarian blogosphere as far as I can tell, so that would only affect a certain percentage of the vote. The real hurt could come from the Baldwin endorsement (but how many people would actually switch their vote based on Ron Paul’s advice? 200,000 at the very, very, very most? And some of them hadn’t vote before now, would have voted Rep or Dem, etc.) and the Palin pick, which some libertarians must view as a good thing. Of course, no one of these things will affect all libertarians, but added together you get some pluses for Barr and some minuses.

    As for Baldwin, that guy’s just having a great week.

  40. Hugh Jass

    Ross,

    Given that Barr isn’t likely to do better than Michael Badnarik, that 200,000 could make the difference.

  41. Hugh Jass

    Why does anyone feed the troll (Winston Smith)? Stop replying to his absurd remarks and he’ll go away.

  42. Hugh Jass

    As for the election, I say that Paul will get third in Louisiana, just behind McCain and Obama. After that, its Nader, McKinney, Baldwin, Barr, La Riva, and Harris, respectively.

  43. Hugh Jass

    paulie,

    If you’re going to feed the trolls, as least take advantage of it. Offer them a $100,000 wager that Barr doesn’t break 1 million, much less two. Then you can either taunt them for not putting their money where their mouth is or make a decent amount of money.

  44. Mike Gillis

    Oh, I have an idea. Bet them that Barr/Root’s percentage of the vote will be lower than Root’s GPA.

  45. paulie cannoli Post author

    If you’re going to feed the trolls, as least take advantage of it. Offer them a $100,000 wager that Barr doesn’t break 1 million, much less two. Then you can either taunt them for not putting their money where their mouth is or make a decent amount of money.

    I make it a point not to make bets I can’t cover, even if I find the chances of losing to be very low (about as low as any expectation of actually collecting the 100k if I were to make the bet and win). I also have a problem with gambling, so I should be cautious here. But I’ll bet five bucks to make it interesting.

    Oh, I have an idea. Bet them that Barr/Root’s percentage of the vote will be lower than Root’s GPA.

    What was Root’s GPA? If it allowed him to graduate, they would have to be pretty dumb to bet against me on that, as each percentage point is now well over a million votes.

  46. HumbleTravis

    A choice between Paul/Goldwater or Barr/Root would be the easiest choice I’ve ever made in my life! And I’ll give you a hint – I don’t support the FairTax!

  47. JimDavidson

    WinstonSmith: “If one persons opinion (Paul) can sway your vote that much you don’t deserve the right to vote.”

    It is well that Winston does not get to determine who gets to vote and who does not.

  48. Coming Back to the LP

    Steve LaBianca // Sep 23, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    “Barr effectively lost the lion’s share of at least 1.2 million primary voters (for Ron Paul) by snubbing him. There are likely a few hundred thousand or more who didn’t or couldn’t vote in the Republican primary for Ron Paul (but would have), so I’d say that Barr easily snubbed 1.5 million voters, by snubbing Ron Paul.”

    Here we have the heart of the situation:

    During Ron Paul’s 2007 Presidential run, the excitement mounted, expectations grew, money poured in, nearly 200,000 people separate individuals donated money to his campaign.

    But, in early January of 2008, it dropped off. The money only trickled in, even while the early votes were still underway. Why? The newsletters.

    But, the loyal supporters and those who had already come aboard joined with others who were politically homeless in the various primaries and 1.2 million still voted for Ron Paul.

    But, the movement had already moved away from Dr. Paul. By spring, in addition to the newsletters, you could see that his age, fatigue and the beginnings of senility were gaining on the good doctor. He probably knew that his wife was ill as well, so he dropped out.

    But, as Dr. Paul always stated, he never expected to do so well. This means he never expected to have so many supporters, raise so much money or probably to even be included in the debates. He’d been excluded from so many events before.

    So, why did Dr. Paul run? He ran to spread the message of liberty as he currently sees it and to add names to his personal fortune building mailing list machine.

    Up to 1988, Ron Paul was mostly a Libertarian. No purest, but not bad on the issues. He cozied up to Libertarianism a bit more during the LP campaign.

    In 2007 and 2008, Ron Paul was more conservative than libertarian, he said constitutionalist, partially true, and now he’s added theocrat to his list of adjectives in advance of the word Republican.

    His fortune building at the expense of the movement for Liberty has always been paramount. Dr. Paul sucked hundreds of thousands of dollars and mailing lists with hundreds of thousands of names out of struggling new organizations in the battle for liberty. He used these names to build a personal fortune in the millions of dollars, and gave nothing back.

    So, where did these millions of voters and donors go? 1.2 million and 1.5 million don’t just vanish into thin air, do they?

    Well, it seems they have. His campaign for liberty has barely cracked 100,000, and membership is free. One person can sign up their whole family and Donald Duck without any cost. So, where are the other 1.4 million?

    Faced ith a 90% loss of followers over a period of a few weeks in late December and the first few months of 2008, Dr. Paul needed a way to save face on election day. There would be at most a scattering of write in votes, and that would be an embarrassing reminder of his loss. So, what to do?

    The answer: The now infamous Ron Paul news conference. He could invite the “big 4” 3rd party candidates and on election day, he could claim all of their votes as his own, and thereby save face. And, as a side benefit, it would help the personal money making machine.

  49. Coming Back to the LP

    continued:

    Bob Barr was smart enough to see what was happening.

    Allowing Dr. Paul to lump all the alternative candidates with all their differences into one package to benefit the “Paul Machine” would NOT help the Fight for Liberty and it would hurt both the LP and the Liberty movement forever in the future.

    So, the Barr campaign made the correct but painful decision not to attend. Instead, they took one last chance on Dr. Paul, asking him to join the LP on the ticket and asking Dr. Paul to get serious and join the fight for Liberty.

    No one would have really expected Ron Paul to do so. His motivation now is personal glory and personal financial gain.

    Ron Paul is now lost to the Freedom movement. Perhaps he should become a Las Vegas odds maker. That would be a step up at this point.

    So, Dr. Paul decided to join the fight for his money machine instead. Now he could no longer count on the 3rd party vote being declared his in November. He could no longer count Barr’s LP votes as his. This meant that Paul would look foolish counting Nader and Green Party votes as his, so he had nothing left to do but endorse a theocrat, his buddy Baldwin.

    Paul’s strategy of cozying-up to everyone from the 9/11 truthers to the various groups of theocrats and racists that dot the political wilderness has long been about money. Paul needed to save his money machine.

    Now Paul has some wiggle room. At least he’ll have some votes to show that he has some influence, and he’ll keep some people loyal, so that his direct mail marketing empire can keep selling newsletters and coins and keep sucking in millions of dollars for his family.

    So, the question is, how many votes can he swing?

    He has the campaign for Liberty. That’s a good clue, but it’s only got 100,000 members. That’s already a loss from his 1.2 million votes and nearly 200,000 donors.

    Many of those people like Dr. Paul, but they’ll still vote for McCain over Obama, the usual conservative argument for why.

    Others are loyal Constitution Party voters already.

    Others are loyal LP voters and will stay that way.

    Others are a mix of Nader, Green, “Truthers,” and nonvoters.

    In short, there are very few votes left for Ron Paul to swing.

    So, what are the embarrassment levels?

    For Barr: too many unrealistic high expectations at the outset: less than 1 million votes will be somwhat of an embarrassment for him. Major embarrassment would be falling below Ron Paul’s 1988 vote total or finishing after Baldwin.

    For the LP: 4th after Nader and highest vote total ever other than the Clark campaign will be enough to brag about.

    For Baldwin: he has no track record and is not given to bragging. He only has to beat Millness.

    For the CP: They need to beat their highest ever vote total, given that they have the great cult god backing them.

    But, for Ron Paul, the stakes are high. If Bob Barr breaks 1 million votes, Paul will look foolish. If Bob Barr gets more votes than Baldwin and more than Paul in 1988, Paul will look foolish. If Baldwin gets less than 250,000 votes or a lower percentage than Barr, Paul will look foolish.

    Ron Paul has painted himself into a corner.

    He could have kept himself out of this fracas by actually trying to contribute something to the Fight for Liberty.

    He could have used his C4L and some of his personal millions to sponsor real 6 way debates on nationwide television: 3 for president and 1 for VP. By making them large and nationwide, and especially with the McCain attempt at hiding, he could have gotten them all there.

    But, Ron Paul would never put Liberty above making money.

    He could never join our founding fathers who pledged:

    “to sacrifice our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. …”

    Ron Paul abandoned liberty for personal gain.

    Shame on Ron Paul.

  50. Coming Back to the LP

    So, how many votes did Barr lose by not joining in the “Ron Paul press conference to maintain the Ron Paul machine?”

    The number is so low that no one will be able to notice or prove any difference in the outcome.

Leave a Reply

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