Fifth Circuit removes Barr from Louisiana Ballot

Ballot Access News

On September 26, the 5th Circuit removed Bob Barr from the Louisiana ballot. The three judges were Carolyn King (a Carter appointee from Texas), James Dennis (a Clinton appointee from Louisiana), and Priscilla Owen (a Bush Jr. appointee from Texas). The action was taken without any hearing. The case is Libertarian Party et al v Dardenne, 08-30922. Technically, the ruling only stays the decision of the U.S. District Court, and a ruling on declaratory relief will be held after the election.

The five-page order says that the state will suffer irreparable injury if the stay is not granted. That irreparable injury is that “absentee voters in the military and overseas will receive two ballots with different candidates, with a resulting likelihood of confusion and duplicate voting.” The ruling also says, “We recognize that the stay will inflict harm on the Libertarian Party, but we believe that the harm may well be of their own making.” The party has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the stay.

13 Responses to “Fifth Circuit removes Barr from Louisiana Ballot”

  1. Jake Says:

    Ashame, but the campaign missed a few opportunities to be on more state ballots. Given the number of parties on the La. ballot, the LP could have also succeeded in this one.

    But, the LP, for having a few misses, is still top notch for getting on ballots, and I’m sure they’ve learned the lesson here.

  2. Stefan Says:

    Libertarians in LA has the opportunity to vote for Paul-Goldwater, though. I bet they do not feel bitter at Trent Hill, and must be greatful now.

  3. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Nice spin, Jake.

    So LA gets harmed. So what?

    The absentee and military overseas vote excuse has been used twice now. These guys most likely didn’t even read the Circuit Court’s ruling.

    Animal Farm Rules, people.

  4. Jonathan Says:

    Michael says ” So LA gets harmed So what?”

    why even bother coming to these sites if you don’t see how it harms Louisiana

  5. Richard G. Says:

    Just another bi-partisan excuse to demolish anything left to fair voting laws. The Communists are alive and well. Giving us token candidates.

  6. Scott Lieberman Says:

    What do you think is the best way to prevent future court rulings like this?

    a. run idelogically-pure campaigns for unwinnable offices?

    b. run campaigns for winnable offices designed to maximize vote totals, and then have those elected Libertarians move public policy as much as possible towards the 100/100 point on the Diamond Chart?

    In states where judges are not directly elected by the voters, only elected officials can appoint judges. Wouldn’t it be better to have Libertarians appointing judges, instead of just Democrats and Republicans?

  7. Dee Says:

    Scott that’s the beuaty of louisiana; voting on judges.

    The LP could and should start running for other political positions. What better way to get noticed, even if it’s a loss. Not to metion, no D or R would ever appoint a third party for judgeship, so the only secure way would be to run for that position.
    It would make for a good foundation for any third party to start selecting states that do vote on many positions and offices.

  8. Jonathan Says:

    http://www.nolanchart.com/article5004.html

  9. Stefan Says:

    Libertarian judges sound like a good idea. They could be the ideal compromising candidates for the D’s and R’s and once in this position, also provide fail ballot-access rules and verdicts.

    The LP need to identify in which areas it is strong in November, and then work towards and concentrate mostly/only on districts where it can win a congressional district, in a three or four party race. This would be better than focussing on many
    districts as possible. If it has some candidates with experience in state house or senate positions or major, police chef etc., it would be all the better, or otherwise a well known dynamic, honest and intelligent person in the community.
    The same goes for other third parties.

  10. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Jonathan, you’re an idiot shill. Reread what I wrote. Then go read the appeal brief that was filed.

    If a state is harmed by not following their own laws, then they get what they deserve. If they followed their own rules then no harm is done.

    Or are you actually AGREEING with your boy Barr being tossed off the ballot?

  11. Glaivester Says:

    “We recognize that the stay will inflict harm on the Libertarian Party, but we believe that the harm may well be of their own making.”

    The harm inflicted on the state was of their own making, as they shipped out ballots knowing that Barr was taking legal action, with the express purpose of making this argument against him.

  12. Clark Says:

    ....hopefully someday my ‘favorite party’s ‘leaders’ (although i’m becoming ashamed to admit it) will realize that ‘playing in THIS REPUBLICRAT ‘BOX’ and/or ‘beating ‘them’ at the ballot box,’ IS A FUCKING FOOL’S ERRAND!

    ...hopefully someday a majority of LP party’ers will $pend MUCH LESS on fighting this republicrat election fraud in fraudulent, fucking republicrat courts of law…

    ...and use resource$ to create some dynamite ‘libertarian’ ‘media outlets’ whereby ‘the court of honest, informed, public opinion’ might finally prevail..

    (sadly, i suspect, even then, many of these LP ‘leaders’/stooooops would probably give us the fucking republicrat “bob barr show” etceterot)

    ...but have a good day!..

  13. disinter Says:

    Good for the 3 judges. I will be sending them a very kind thank-you note. The last thing we need is another neocon on the ballot.

Leave a Reply