Libertarians file suit over W.Va. ballot law

August 14, 2008

Libertarians file suit over W.Va. ballot law

By The Associated Press

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The Libertarian Party's candidate for president has filed a lawsuit in federal court charging that West Virginia's ballot access law is unconstitutional.

West Virginia University law professor Bob Bastress Jr. filed the suit on behalf of former Georgia congressman Bob Barr, along with the Libertarians' candidate for vice president, Wayne Root, and two West Virginia residents.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Charleston on Wednesday, contends the state's requirement that the Libertarians submit more than 15,000 signatures by Aug. 1 to gain ballot access is unfair.

"The deadline for turning in petition signatures in West Virginia is pretty much arbitrary,'' said Andrew Davis, spokesman for the national Libertarian Party. "There's no compelling reason to keep that deadline.''

State law requires petitioning candidates to submit signatures by the equivalent of two percent of the vote cast for president in the last election -- in this case, 15,118.

The Libertarians gathered 13,171 signatures by the deadline, according to the suit, and they anticipate getting the required 15,118 by Aug. 18.

The lawsuit points out that the Democratic and Republican candidates for president won't be formally chosen until, respectively, Aug. 28 and Sept. 4, during those parties' national conventions.

The Libertarians argue that creates a double standard for minor political parties which violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.

The party wants the court to block Secretary of State Betty Ireland from enforcing the ballot access law, and to accept signatures from petitioning candidates up through Sept. 4. The lawsuit also wants the court to strike down West Virginia's law.

Sarah Bailey, spokeswoman for Ireland, said the secretary of state's office was still reviewing the lawsuit, and did not have an immediate reaction.

A call to Bastress, who ran unsuccessfully as a Democratic candidate in the state Supreme Court primary earlier this year, was not immediately returned today.

http://www.wvgazette.com/latest/200808140287

If this law is unconstitutional then let a court strike it down. As it is, Betty Ireland must enforce the current law.

August 1st may or may not be too early. I think the state law would have to either be worded with a hard date, or at the very least, stipulate no later then the latest ‘major party convention’.

What I don’t have a problem with is requiring the 2% signatures.

I do wonder though what the first day volunteers can start collecting and submitting signatures.

If this law is unconstitutional then let a court strike it down. As it is, Betty Ireland must enforce the current law.

But nothing requires her to defend the law against an action such as the Libertarian Party lawsuit. She could simply offer no defense- making it more likely that the Court would agree with the Libertarian Party and rule accordingly.

For decades West Virginia Secretarys of State have been pulling their hair trying to work with all the conflicting election laws in Chapter 3 of WV Code. They have appeared before the WV legislature and begged it for clarifying statutes re: WV election laws.

And more often than not, the WV SOS agrees with the people who are suing him or her. But she is sworn to follow the laws- even in their inconsistent and conflicting language.

The state legisltaure is interested in keeping the new kids on the block- competing "third parties" and independent candidates- off the ballot whenever possible. It continues to thumb its nose at both the SOS and the Courts.

Seems to me the Libertarians should get just as long as the Republicans to nominate a candidate...

What court decisions Frank?

What court decisions Frank?

Browne v. Hechler, for starters.

WEST VIRGINIA VICTORY
On August 22, (1996) the State Supreme Court issued an order, telling the Secretary of State to accept Harry Browne's filing fee. The Secretary of State had argued that presidential candidates of previously unqualified parties, must pay a $2,000 filing fee on or before July 2. The Libertarian Party had failed to pay this fee by the deadline. But the State Supreme Court said that the actual deadline for the fee for presidential candidates is August 1, not July 2, and that the party may now pay the fee. State ex rel Browne v Hechler, no. 23637. The party had argued that the filing fee is unconstitutional, but the Court didn't reach this issue.

The Court also suggested that even August 1 may be too early; and it added that the state's ballot access laws are very badly written and that the legislature should re-write them.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020127042724/http://www.ballot-access.org/1996/0909.html#02

I predict the Court will side with Barr and give him till the same day the Republicans nominate their candidate.

shermangeneral wrote:I predict the Court will side with Barr and give him till the same day the Republicans nominate their candidate.

I suspect it will extend the time- as it suggested but did not actually rule in Browne v, Hechler- but maybe not that far out.

There can be made a legitimate claim that the law requires the petitions submitted to the SOS to be sorted by county and sent to the County Clerks for verification as bonafide registered voters. But since the WV SOS has- as required by federal law- the entire voter registration roles of all 55 counties in its electronic database, updated daily, one wonders why the law shouldn't be changed to allow the WV SOS to verify the signatures with that single database.

Well that will give "true" Conservatives a choice a little closer to their own than McCain offers.

And us lefties will have two alternatives.

Nader and McKinney.

So everybody should be happy.

Bob Barr is more conservative than McCain? His Congressional record isn't all that conservative or libertarian.

Well OC I admit I did not research Barr that much.

I just thot he was Conservative, I guess.

Over on the other thread, sherman, I posted a reference to Barr's Wikipedia bio which contains a synopsis of his Congressional record. He's been strong on the 2nd Amendment and lower taxes. He criticized Bush on the assault on personal freedoms after 9/11. But he voted for the Patriot Act and the War. He's listed as a warrior in the War on Drugs. Conservative? Maybe. Libertarian. I think not.

Well isn't he also against abortion?

Seems like I remember the lefties going after him about taking his ex-wife to get one while he was on his soap box playing to the gullible anti-abortion crowd.

Also isnt Ron Paul opposed to abortion?

Contrary to Libertarian ideals?

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

http://www.lp.org/platform

Shouldn't you reference libertarian positions before you state them? But that's what I mean. Most libertarians find his Congressional record to be authoritarian.

I believe Bob Barr is having such a hard time gaining ballot access in WV because WV Libertarian Party members don't support him. Barr's campaign has had to hire outsiders and bring in volunteers from other areas of the country just to get the ballot access process rolling for him here in WV.

I don't support Barr but I have become well acquainted with the leaders of WVLP because so many of them worked so hard for Ron Paul, even disaffiliating from the LP to affiliate with the GOP so they could participate in the Februrary convention. So when Barr was announced as the LP nominee I contacted the current and immediate past chairs of the WVLP asking if they wanted any help getting Barr on the ballot in WV out of friendship. While they remain in contact with me, they never responded to my offer.

Members of the WVCP have also defected to the GOP to support Ron Paul. While most of the leadership of both parties have returned to their "party home", a number of former members have remained and continue to work for the Campaign for Liberty.

In any event, I'm not voting for Barr or Baldwin or McCain and disagree with the contention that Barr and Baldwin offer genuine alternatives to John McCain for real conservatives. I'd say the field offered up by the conservative parties is about as abysmal as the field being offered up by the liberal parties.

Maybe Belize isn't off the table after all.

Well that is great if you have a link.

But on a forum like this I believe it is ok to just spout off or voice your opinion too.

Lots of times someone else will have the info you want and you don't need to go searching for it.

I know. You have a dial-up. I got to tune you up a little. What? You think you're going to get away with something?

Well OC it just wouldnt be fair if you guys didnt have an advantage.....

But I am doing just fine with just an old 26K dialup and you guys with your fancy connections.

Cause I have truth, justice, and the American way on my side.

And Jesus.

Jesus picks sides in political debates?

And then there's always delusion...

I guess the WVSP didn't test for mind altering drugs back in the day. I've heard hits can last a life time.

Huh, think about how I feel. I'm on a crappy dial-up connection and I don't have Jesus on my side.

I have to settle for truth, justice, and the Constitution.

I wonder if Sri Krisna is busy these days....

Well Aaron I just like to gouge you guys on the right sometimes and remind you that I won't let you hijack Jesus to the republican side ok.

(Not that you personally do but some do)

I was just kidding but also making a subtle point.

I'm not on the right Sherm, I'm right of you. As you're about as liberal as they come, that's a pretty big group and includes most of the democrats. I honestly don't know why you don't admit you're values are not represented by the mainstream democratic party (especially in WV) and join something like Frank's Mountain party.

I've also never tried to hijack Jesus and I really don't get you guys that try and politicize religion. Why do you do that?