Minority (Party) Discrimination
Jim Babka on Sep 7th 2008
Do you think you live in a nation of laws? That all are created equal and even the powerful must abide by the law?
Think again. I’d be willing to bet someone** that we’re about to see a special exemption to the law made for the Republican Party and Democratic Party.
Those who participate in minority party politics (a/k/a, “third parties”) learn first hand about segregation and discrimination. They must do a great deal more, in most states, to qualify for a place on the ballot — a ballot that is printed and counted at taxpayer expense. No equal access here.
And if these minority parties make a mistake on their infinitely more difficult filing process, no matter how minute and technical, they lose their ballot line. They can challenge it in court, they can even appeal the initial decision — which usually goes against them — but by the time they might win that appeal, the election is over.
Then comes this shocking (and if true, huge) news from the Bob Barr, Libertarian Presidential campaign . . .
Obama, McCain Fail to Qualify for Texas Ballot — Barr Met Deadline, Demands Law Be Enforced
Atlanta, GA - The Bob Barr presidential campaign has stated “serious legal consequences” will occur should Senators Barack Obama and John McCain be allowed on the Texas general election ballot after they knowingly missed the state’s deadline to file.
According to documents obtained by the Barr campaign, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama complied with Texas Election Code § 192.031, which requires that filings must be submitted “before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential Election Day,” listing the “names of the party’s nominees for president and vice-president.”
“The Election Code of the State of Texas imposes requirements on a political party, which must be met if its candidates for president and vice-presidents are to appear on the general election ballot,” Russell Verney, Bob Barr’s campaign manager stated in a letter sent to the Texas Secretary of State’s office. “The Democratic Party and Mr. Obama, and the Republican Party and Mr. McCain, blatantly ignored the Texas statutory deadline.”
The deadline, which was set at 5 p.m. on August 26, passed before Sen. Obama was nominated and before Sen. McCain had even selected his running mate.
“The law is clear, and it was clearly not followed,” says Verney. “The Texas Supreme Court was emphatic when it stated that the law ‘does not allow political parties or candidates to ignore statutory deadlines . . .’ Senators Obama and McCain did not file by the deadline; therefore, Texas should abide by the laws it created. No political party or candidate is above the law.”
Barr and Verney are right — and they are consistent. Libertarians have long objected to these laws. But if these tiny, under-funded minor parties must follow the rules, then so too must the big boys. If Texas wants to change the law for future elections, making things more flexible for everyone, I’m certain the minority parties would welcome it. But McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden should be denied a spot on the ballot.
And why isn’t this being discussed on the 24-hour, all-politics, all-the-time channels. Palin’s daughter, Obama’s charisma, and Mrs. McCain’s dress are more important? No, even the mainstream media expects Texas to ignore the law and so this is a non-story.
If the rule of law was upheld… R’s and D’s could choose to mount write-in campaigns. They’d still probably beat Barr! But being denied the ballot-line could cost John McCain the election. Texas was a sure thing for the GOP, and part of the way he countered Obama’s hold on New York and California. At this point, it would be hard to see how he could win without Texas.
But don’t worry Republicans. In America, some parties are more equal than others. My $20** says that both campaigns get a special dispensation of some kind and they appear on the Texas ballot.
Anyone Pollyanna enough to bet I’m wrong?
Hardball delenda est.
**- Of course, I can’t solicit a bet online. But if I did, I’d have to stay within my limited means ;-)
Filed in The Bureau
I don’t understand how such things happen in this country. Really. I’ve never understood (whoa, effin awesome preview functionality) how blatantly “American” principles are flouted all the time. Things like this, farm subsidies, and the impending bailout of FRE and FNM.
I used to be so optimistic; ignorance was bliss.
I thought I read somewhere that they missed the deadline to file as write-ins, too. (Yes, in Texas you have to file as a write-in. Go figure.)
Okay, just for laughs let’s pretend there’s a snowball’s chance in Houston in August that the courts could rule that neither Obama nor McCain are to be on the Texas ballot. Does anyone think Texas is in play this year? If not, should Obama’s supporters file an Amicus Curiae brief supporting Barr’s position?
DAR,
I was thinking along the same lines as you. It would be fascinating for the Democrats to file an amicus motion saying, “Yes, both our candidate and the Republican candidate must be denied a line on the ballot.” Clearly Texas is not in play. And yet I’d bet my $20 (the maximum that wouldn’t tick off my wife, if I was soliciting a bet online) that the Dems will support the Republicans and try to get their own candidate on the ballot as well.
Of course I imagine it would be easier in Texas to get out the write-in vote for a Republican than for a Democrat, so I would expect McCain to get the electoral votes anyway. That is, unless Mr. Anderson is correct.
But I’m with also with Jim on this. I can’t even imagine an outcome that denies the major parties their spot on the ballot, even if the law is crystal clear. According to Wikipedia, the justices of the Texas Supreme Court are elected in partisan elections, and vacancies are filled by the governor. Not surprisingly, they’re all Republicans. What are the chances 5 of the 9 would have the courage to buck their party when they have to run for re-election?
Of course I imagine it would be easier in Texas to get out the write-in vote for a Republican than for a Democrat, so I would expect McCain to get the electoral votes anyway.
Yeah, but it would be costlier, too, and would drain McCain’s resources.
Jim, can we expect future updates on this from you? My righteous indignation tank has been a few gallons low recently. This would be just the ticket.
It turns out that the Texas Secretary of State allowed both parties to…um…amend their filings. Unfortunately, while amended filings are allowed in certain states, Texas isn’t one of them.
AMW, I may well have more to report about this. I know that Barr is really pushing this issue, as he should. But if Ontario Emperor is right (and it wouldn’t surprise me at all), then there won’t be much to report, except — “See, I told you so.”
This is just another of these weird things that I just don’t get about your country. Why would filing procedures be so complicated? Your Name, Running Mate name, Party Name (if any), maybe a disclosure statement. What else do you need?
Of course, from another perspective it makes perfect sense. The whole D-R contest looks just like an oligopoly that’s competing “soft”, a classical sign of high barriers to entry. It is therefore unsurprising that these soft competitors would collude to preserve those barriers.
Here’s what there is to get. From the 1880s to the 1990s political king-makers have tried to rig the rules to create an oligopoly where the two sides were tightly controlled. Poll taxes and literacy tests were eventually ruled un-Constitutional or rendered illegal by civil rights legislation.
But onerous ballot access laws, particularly after George Wallace’s 1968 campaign, and incumbent protecting campaign finance laws, falling on the heels of Watergate, were still legal tools of discrimination, designed to keep challengers — especially third parties — tied up and at a real disadvantage.
This is like any other pursuit of power. The powerful will cheat to win if they think they can get away with it. Nearly everyone thinks the ballot laws are unfair, when they’re informed of what those laws are. But even then, they don’t care enough to compel the politicians to change.
Equal access should mean ANYONE should be able to get on the ballot the same way the incumbent does. Yet there is one standard for Republicans and Democrats, and a completely different, far more onerous standard for independent and minority party candidates.
Ah, so it is just a softly-competing duopoly then, thanks for clearing that up.
I agree strongly about equal access, barriers to entry must be minimised to the greatest extent possible. IMO, its important enough to warrant a constitutional amendment, like that’ll ever happen.
I’m a Texan who’s already leaning heavily towards Barr, but, regardless, I would love to see the two major parties get screwed in this.
One question I hope someone can answer: Does a party pay for the state to perform its primary? If not, how does the state legally subsidize this?
[...] mean, it’s not like McCain and Obama are from minority political parties, right? Ballot access laws are for Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Greens, or even the Female Circumcision [...]