Skip to main content

Something stinks in Texas: and it smells like Democrats and Republicans

The filing deadline to certify a Presidential candidate on the November ballot in Texas was August 25, 2008.

The Democratic Party, according to the copies obtained under a FOIA request by the Bob Barr campaign, sent in its filing materials on August 27, following an email on August 26.

The Republican Party sent in a letter dated August 26, and a second letter on August 29 claiming in essence that their original letter had been sent in before the August 25 deadline:

This filing is meant to amend our previous filing under this section which was timely filed on August 25, 2008. In the event you or a court of competent jurisdiction deem this amendment to be untimely, I intend that the previous filing be effective.


The problem, of course, is that there was no August 25 filing. Or was there?

There are two copies of the same August 26 filing referenced above in the Texas Secretary of State's files. Both bear handwritten annotations.

On August 26 filing (1), the note says:

Received 8/25/08
Replacement from original filed


On August 26 filing (2), the note says:

Old
Melinda
8/[the date here is a 26 with a 5 written in over the 6]/08
replaced today


You really should go examine the PDF images of these documents.

The upshot is that there is no question that the Democratic Party missed the filing date, and no document for the GOP in the files with any date older than August 26, despite later protestations and hand-written annotations that their letter was actually received the day before it was written.

The GOP is obviously quite aware, given the snippet posted above, that their filing could be contested in court; I suspect the DNC doesn't care that much, as Barack Obama is not likely to win Texas anyway. If both parties got thrown off the ballot, as Pandora noted here about a week ago, it would dramatically advantage Obama (because John McCain could not even run as a write-in candidate; that deadline is also August 25.)

Will Obama and McCain appear on the ballot in Texas in November?

You can bet the mortgage payment on it, the law and their failure to follow it notwithstanding.

But it sure makes the point about the double standard of ballot access in this country: two parties get on the ballot regardless of the law, and then use every technicality of law to keep anybody else off.

Comments

The Last Ephor said…
So on November 7th, when the retread of the 2000 election begins I'm going to blame you when they start filing motions in Texas.

How on Earth either party couldn't manage to file on time in the state with the second largest number of electoral votes is beyond me.
Anonymous said…
Pretty sad that they can't manage to file on time, but one of them will run the country...

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...