Lone Star State, Lone Presidential Candidate?

On Wednesday, Ballot Access News reported that BOTH the Republicans and Democrats had missed the filing deadline for their candidates, John McCain (presumptive) and Barack Obama (official), in the state of Texas. Late in the afternoon, after many third party watch groups and blogs reported the story and the Bob Barr campaign sent out a press release to all of his supporters, Fort Worth’s Star-Telegram political blog, PoliTex, reported that “[b]oth parties filed before the deadline. We expect their amended filings after both parties finish their nominating process at the conventions,” according to the Texas Secretary of State’s spokesperson, Ashley Burton. The website for the Secretary of State’s General Election candidates also displays a blank where one would anticipate seeing John McCain and Barack Obama, along with their respective running mates.

As of the publication of this article, that website still does not list either ticket from the status quo parties. This story has yet to be picked up by anyone in the mainstream media, since they are all in Denver awaiting a picturesque oratory from Barack “The Chosen One” Obama. I fully expect that it will be swept under the rug without a full-court press by the third parties and bloggers who are sympathetic to their ballot access woes.

What does this inaction mean for voters in Texas, as well as the other 49 states?

1. If the deadline was actually missed AND is unchallenged, Bob Barr/Wayne Allyn Root ticket would be the only one qualified to be pre-printed on the ballot in the state, along with the option to write-in one of the six candidates who qualified and filed on time. This would effectively eliminate 34 electoral votes from the scenarios both campaigns are looking at to determine their strategies to achieve the 270 needed to secure the election. Specifically for John McCain, this would eliminate a traditionally Republican state from his plans, especially with the outgoing president having been the governor there prior to his eight years in the White House. 270 electoral votes would be much harder to achieve without these 34. Barack Obama can stick to his original plan, as I am sure Texas was not a part of it.
2. If the deadline was actually missed, and either or both of the status quo parties acknowledge the state law, there may be a legal battle. That legal battle will bring into question the validity of such a deadline in qualifying candidates for ballot access. Should a court find this deadline arbitrary and invalid, that decision would help many third party candidates in their quests for ballot access. Specifically, several states in this general election have lawsuits before them arguing this point on behalf of the Libertarian Party. Russell Verney, the Barr/Root campaign manager, was quoted as saying “We know all about deadlines. We are up against them constantly in our fight to get on the ballot across the nation. When we miss deadlines, we get no second chances. This is a great example of how unreasonable deadlines chill democracy. Republicans and Democrats make certain that third party candidates are held to ballot access laws, no matter how absurd or unreasonable. Therefore, Republicans and Democrats should be held to the same standards.” Unfortunately, holding the Republicans and Democrats to this deadline would mean sacrificing positions in lawsuits in other states.
3. The most likely of scenarios is that this “mistake” will be forgiven without any acknowledgement by either party or the mainstream media. As we have seen in the update by the Star-Telegram, the Secretary of State’s office backtracked yesterday afternoon. This shows me that someone alerted the duopoly, and either one of both of the parties flexed their muscles to make such a quick dismissal. Quelling this story before it gains ground makes it easier for both parties to ignore the mistake and move past it. My advice is for the Texas Libertarian Party to file suit to close the door, rather than allowing a repeat of 1988’s mistake with Indiana, where the suit was “filed too late” to keep the candidates off the ballot. They should also publicly request the proof of receipt by both status quo parties to show the actual date of filing.

The real question here is whether the double standard for the political duopoly to have its cake in Texas, while being able to eat it in states like West Virginia, will be able to stand. That two-party stranglehold on American government relies on their ability to play the game by a different set of rules than everyone else. For the 2008 general election, Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, Socialists, and anyone else organized enough to petition for ballot access, must each provide 867,134 unique signatures nation-wide endorsing their candidate, while Republicans and Democrats do not need to turn in any signatures to secure ballot access.

So, how many Presidential candidates do you think will be on the Texas ballot in November?

Barr Responds to PA Lawsuit

In response to the lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania courts to have Bob Barr’s name removed from the ballot, the Barr campaign has recorded and loaded onto their YouTube channel a video hitting McCain for his hypocrisy.  In fact, Bob uses McCain’s own words against him in response to the ballot access issue.

My First Blogger Call with Bob Barr – UPDATED

This afternoon, I had the pleasure of attending a teleconference with many fellow bloggers and the Libertarian candidate for President, Bob Barr.  We covered a wide range of topics, and I genuinely enjoyed the experience talking with many of the folks that I read daily, as well as my preference in the November election. I had quite a list of questions, but due to time constraints, I was only able to ask two of them.  For the future calls, I will give you a head’s up and an opportunity to add questions that you would like to ask Bob by proxy.

The highly criticized topic of global warming/climate change was the first one brought up, as many of us sought further clarification of the position that was discussed in a press release last week.  Bob discussed the need to further investigate definitively whether there is a clear link between carbon dioxide emissions and changes in climate.  There is certainly no reason to have government intervene when market-based solutions are not going to stifle the economy as we search for an answer for ridding ourselves of petroleum.  Bob praised the efforts of T. Boone Pickens and his plan to harness the power of wind as an alternate energy source.

The instability and uncertain future of Social Security was covered as well.  Bob discussed reforming a soon to be bankrupt program by reconnecting the link between the money an individual pays in to what he or she withdraws upon retirement.  In the short-term, the suggestion to raise the minimum retirement age to maintain paying out without raising taxes to keep it solvent.  The rationale is simple, as the original program was built around a shorter life expectancy and a shorter work lifespan.  The return to a system of personal accounts, where the contributions are paid out directly to the person who made them initially.

I asked Bob what the first issue he would tackle entering office, given the plethora of issues our nation currently faces.  As expected, government spending was his answer, and he further explained that THIS was actually the change America is ready and hopeful for.  He detailed the meeting he would take immediately following inaugeration with both houses of Congress, and the ground rules he would lay for all appropriations bills.  He detailed that there would be a well-designed budget without deficits, and that he would not sign into law any “emergency spending” that was not actually an emergency.

To many, Libertarians are isolationist pacifists.  And while the pacifist part may be true, Bob’s plan for foreign policy is one of reducing our presence on the international scene.  I wholeheartedly agree with his plan to reduce our foreign aid to other nations, and I would like to see our withdrawal from the United Nations.  At this time, that is not entirely possible, but our involvement can be greatly diminished, and that is something that Bob covered in the call.  He also mentioned scaling back our foreign bases, specifically those in Korea, Japan, and Germany.  This was not described as a full-scale shutdown as many big spending Republicans might have you believe.  He spoke of maintaining a strong military for the purpose of defense, but not to pursue the occupation of other sovereign nations, like Iraq.  He mentioned maintaining strategic partnerships with our allies for flyovers, landing rights, and the like, which sounds exactly like what we need to keep for our protection without being the world’s police.

In what seems to be a recurring theme, the viability of his campaign was a subject briefly as we discussed the likelihood of his inclusion in the debates, as well as the ballot access issue.  He discussed that they plan to be included in the debates, and he noted that they are on track with their goals of ballot access in forty-nine states, but he could not provide definitive numbers.  He promised to have them for us on the next call.  The struggle of ballot access continues for him, as it does for all candidates that are not the status quo.  Currently, the campaign is working to secure access in West Virginia, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.  Also, he has written the media outlets scheduled to host the debates, as well as Senators Obama and McCain, discussing his eagerness to debate them on the issues facing our nation.

In the last year, the immigration topic has died down as economic woes have surpassed it on most citizens’ list of importance.  His plan is a simple one.  He wants to transform the bureaucracy down to three simple requirements: entrance through legitimate checkpoints, submission to a background check (to reduce the risk of adding dangerous people to our citizenry), and submission to a basic health check (to reduce the risk of disease).  For those who are already present here, he would require that they leave the country to return using the previously described method of entry and penalize those who remain here illegally.

In the final question of the call, I asked what steps are to be taken to reverse the stripping of our liberties in the 20th and 21st centuries.  He noted that the change in attitude toward our liberties must be changed from the top.  The President must follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, without secret documents, procedures and meetings to circumvent them.  One of his first liberty-preserving actions would be to seek the abolishment of the recently renewed FISA Act, keeping the government from spying without warrant on its citizens.  He would also return the office of the Attorney General to one that also follows the Constitution and Bill of Rights, rather than one that attempts to find ways around those documents in limiting the civil liberties of America’s citizens.

I have quite a few questions to ask in the next call, but I welcome any that are keeping you from supporting his candidacy, or that you need clarification on.  Please leave these in the comments, and I will include them for future calls.

UPDATE: For those of you deeply interested with about 45 minutes to spare, click below to hear an .mp3 of the call.

Audio of the Blogger Call

Ballot Access 2008

The efforts of the Libertarian Party and their volunteers has resulted in ballot access for the national campaign, Barr/Root ’08, in thirty states and counting.  With an anticipated 48 total states slated for Barr/Root ’08, the progress thus far has been vast to fight the uphill battle of gaining access to the two-party dance.  Drunk with power, the two parties have made it difficult and, in the cases of West Virginia and Oklahoma, nearly impossible to run a candidate in those states.  Oklahoma even goes so far as to ban write-in candidates from their ballots.  I plan to discuss the details of the ballot access struggle for the parties and candidates who are not the status quo in the future, but I wanted to update interested parties with the news I just recieved.