This year in Texas, both the Obama and McCain campaigns might have failed to file the correct paperwork on time, meaning that there's a possibility they will be excluded from the November ballot. The only candidate to qualify for the ballot, in that case, is Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party.
What would this mean for Texas, and for the nation as a whole? Would it affect the outcome of the race? What do you think about it?
I found out about this story because I write for the news site Independent Political Report, which is the most popular third party and independent news site on the web. Before you come at my throat, know that I'm not a Barr supporter, or any other minor party/indy candidate for president. I got sucked into the world of independent politics this year when my favorite Democratic presidential contender, Mike Gravel, switched to the Libertarian Party. Since then, I've realized the merits that third parties have to offer, and the injustices of the electoral process (I'm talking laws and mechanics here, not the media) and ballot access. But this diary isn't about that, it's about Barr and Texas.
This story began with a press release from the Barr campaign, reading:
Bob Barr is slated to be the only presidential candidate on the ballot in Texas after Republicans and Democrats missed the Aug. 26 deadline to file in the state.
"Unless the state of Texas violates their own election laws, Congressman Barr will be the only presidential candidate on the ballot," says Russell Verney, campaign manager for the Barr Campaign and the former campaign manager for Ross Perot. "Texas law makes no exceptions for missing deadlines."
The Texas Secretary of State Web site shows only Bob Barr as the official candidate for president in Texas.
"We know all about deadlines," says Verney. "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," says Verney. "Therefore, Republicans and Democrats should be held to the same standards."
From there, it slowly developed. A bureaucrat working under the Texas Secretary of State "found" the papers that weren't there before. The Secretary of State expected the parties to file "amended filings" (is that even legal? shouldn't filings just be final?). I wrote a summary of the developing story at Independent Political Report:
We reported earlier that Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr would be the sole presidential candidate on the Texas general election ballot. His campaign was the only one to turn the necessary paperwork in on time. However, the situation has become more complicated.
While neither major party candidate had their papers turned in on time, and that is the determining factor of ballot access in Texas, there seems to be a chance that they will still be a choice in November. According to Angela Burton, a spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State, the candidates will submit something referred to as an "amended filing." How this differs from simply submitting the paperwork late has yet to be explained.
Burton also added that "previous case law has provided for this occurrence." According to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News, her statement is true. This was posted on his website,
"The cases are Davis v Taylor, 930 SW 2d 581, and Bird v Rothstein, 930 SW 2d 586. The first case put a Republican nominee for State Court of Appeals Justice on the November ballot; the second one put a Democratic nominee for state house on the November ballot."
Ballot Access News also stated that Ralph Nader filed his petitions two weeks late in Texas in 2004. The independent candidate for president knew that there was a later deadline for independents at the time. However, he was still denied ballot access. What, if anything, will occur from the realization of that apparent double standard is unknown.
The reaction from the Barr campaign, however, is clear. Russ Verney, the campaign’s manager, said,
"In Texas, we have a clear deadline that was not met by the Republicans and Democrats, but it is all but certain that some way, some how, the establishment candidates will find a way on the ballot. Some people are just above the law."
As of right now, it is unclear what will happen in the Lone Star state. The Barr campaign might sue to get McCain and Obama off of the ballot, but no decisive action has been taken, as far as I can tell.
And just so you know - Texans can't write in Obama or McCain. Candidates have to qualify as a write-in candidate in Texas by handing in separate paperwork. Another sidenote to this story is that the Libertarian Party is already very strong in Texas. I'm not sure what that means
But let's say Barr is alone on the ballot down there - what will that mean? In my eyes, it would be a great victory not only for Barr, but for Obama and America as a whole.
If all three are on the ballot, McCain would most likely win. That's 34 electoral votes his way. If only Barr is there, that's 34 electoral votes for him, and that's probably all he'll get. Obama, on the other hand, will stay just as he was in the electoral vote count, and McCain will be severely hurting.
This situation would not only make an Obama victory much more likely, but it would propel the causes of fair ballot access and independent politics forward. It could be one of the most successful elections for third partisans ever. Something like this would make third parties more legitimate in the eyes of the average American, not to mention qualify the Libertarian Party for better ballot access in Texas and possibly around the nation.
More third parties in politics is a good thing. It increases the dialogue on issues important to the American people (remember Ross Perot's push for balancing the budget? Remember the Women's Suffrage Party? Remember when the Equal Rights Party ran Frederick Douglass and Victoria Woodhull, before women could even vote?), rather than focusing on wedge issues like drilling in ANWR. Also, it gives people more choices, and that means they are more realistically represented. A variety of candidates will offer people more candidates that are closer to their views. Not only this, but independents (separate from third partisans) are the people that the Founding Fathers intended to run our government. George Washington and John Adams, among others, both had strong feelings that cohesive parties, especially if there were only two, forming in politics would be a terrible thing. It would mean corruption, abuse of power, and focusing on things like ideology and furthering the party rather than focusing on furthering important issues.
And let me just say, I actually really dislike Barr. He's McCain lite. But a Barr victory in Texas would mean some very good things, like I just mentioned.
So what do you think?
Ross