I agree. I just think that any rule that gives “recognized” parties advantages over “unrecognized” ones should be interpreted as narrowly as possible.

As you and I have both pointed out, there is ample basis in this case for extending the deadline far enough into the future to accommodate both the Libertarians and the Socialists without resorting to the “three-day grace period” argument.

I agree with your conclusion that the justice would’ve been better-served if the lower court’s ruling had been more even-handed. It’s really hard, though, to argue the point about how “The statute does not say that a new grace period has to be granted if qualifying is reopened” when the statute also doesn’t discuss what should happen if any sort of situation like this crops up. This is one of those situations where common sense takes over, and I don’t really see how the Secretary of State’s office was using common sense by opening its doors and setting a new deadline for later that same day. This seems like it was done more for the sake of creating the paper-thin appearance of good faith than for the actual extension of good faith. One question that could be posed in light of Governor Jindal’s Executive Order, even if the order itself isn’t judged to be legally binding to this particular situation, is why the Governor felt September 12th was an appropriate date for deadlines in many forms of official state business to resume and why the Secretary of State felt September 8th was a more appropriate date.

It is not accurate to say that a three-day grace period is required by law, except for the very specific one that is mentioned in the statute. That grace period did run and it expired on Sept. 5 at 5:00 p.m.

The statute does not say that a new grace period has to be granted if qualifying is reopened. (A DEADLINE might have to be extended if it were truly impossible to meet because of the closure of an office, but a GRACE PERIOD is another matter. A grace period is intended to allow people more time to get their affairs in order. The office does not have to be open for that to happen.)

It was possible to deliver documents to the Sec. of State’s office during the week of the hurricane. Any documents delivered during that time were either counted as filed on the day they were delivered or on Sept. 8 (the day that the Sec. of State fully re-opened). In effect, all parties received a grace period of several days. Although delivering paperwork on the 2nd of September would have been very difficult, given the state of things in Baton Rouge, delivering paperwork on the 4th, 5th, or especially the 8th would not have been too much of a challenge, if that paperwork had already been completed.

Further, as I alluded to above, whether the Sec. of State’s office was opened or closed only matters if someone was trying to file something with them on one of the days that the office was closed. The gathering of elector candidates and the completetion of their paperwork requires little, if any, assistance from the Sec. of State. Once the forms and the page of simple instructions have been acquired, the slate does not really need to deal with the Sec. of State again until the filing is made.

The Libertarians’ problems would have likely existed even if the office had been opened throughout that week.

As I said before, I don’t think the Libertarians or the Socialists should be kept off the ballot due to the problems they faced because of the hurricane. However, the proper solution is to extend qualifying so that both parties can be put on the ballot.

The problem here was that the judge re-wrote the law by saying that the grace period must run from the last day of qualifying, even if that last day is not the one set by statute. That would not be such a problem if the grace period were a non-discriminatory one.

Instead, he should have just ruled that the confusion and displacement that happened in Louisiana in the several days just before and just after the hurricane required the deadline to be moved to Sept. 11.

He should have based his ruling on simple fairness, rather than a highly questionable use of a discriminatory part of the statute.

I’ll admit, at first glance, it appears to be a stretch to apply it to this sort of situation. I glossed over “proceedings” on my first reading, but even then certain definitions of that word could allow it to be extended to this situation. I just thought I’d mention it since nobody else had. It was mentioned in the brief we’re discussing, and may have an impact on the case.

Can you give a citation for the Executive Order that you mentioned?

The only Executive Order I know of that says anything like that is Executive Order No. BJ 08 – 92:

http://www.gov.state.la.us/assets/docs/OfficialDocuments/09092008EOHGEmergencySuspensionofDeadlinesinLegalProceedings.pdf

However, that Executive Order seems to only apply to deadlines for court proceedings and the like, not to all state deadlines.

I do admit that it is worded vaguely enough that it appears that it could be applied MUCH more broadly, but I don’t think that is how it was intended nor do I think any court would allow it to be applied much more broadly.

Also, it does not appear that the District Court, which ruled in favor of the Libertarian Party, thought that the Executive Order extended the deadline for qualifying for the presidential ballot.

The three-day grace period is NOT automatically added to a re-opened qualifying period.

Here is the text of the statute that grants the three-day grace period after the normal deadline:

“If the nominees for the offices of president and vice president nominated by a national convention of a recognized political party, together with a slate of candidates for the offices of presidential electors to support such nominees, are not properly certified to the secretary of state by the state central committee of that party prior to 5:00 p.m. on the first Tuesday in September of each year in which a presidential election is to be held, the national chairman of the political party, after notifying the chairman of the state central committee of that political party, shall certify a slate of electors to support such nominees within seventy-two hours thereafter. Such certificate filed with the secretary of state shall be accompanied by the notarized affidavit of each candidate for elector signifying that the certificate constitutes his acceptance of the nomination.” La. RS 18:1253(E)

Source: http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=81262

As you can see, there is nothing in that statute that says that a new three-day grace period is automatically granted if the end of qualifying is postponed till after 5:00 p.m. on the first Tuesday in September.

I agree that election laws are not fair and equal. However, the unfairness and the inequality which have been written into the election laws by partisan legislators should not be added to by judges. The district judge in this case took it upon himself to reopen the qualifying period AND tack on a three-day grace period for the Libertarians.

I approve of the reopening of the qualifying period (whether done by the Sec. of State or by the judge), because that action was taken in the interest of fairness and openness in the electoral process. However, there is no basis in the statute nor in equity for the revival of the three-day grace period. That was an act of negative discrimination, not of leniency.

If the judge was willing to disregard the statute in order to accommodate parties affected by the hurricane, he should have simply extended the qualifying period through September 11. Then, both the Libertarians and the Socialists would be allowed onto the ballot.

An extension of that length is reasonable, given that normal life in Louisiana had been disrupted for at least three days prior to the September 2 deadline.

Also, there would be no greater harm to the state, since the cost of reprinting ballots would (I would think) be the same whether the state had to add one or two slates.

The irony, of course, is that despite only a two-hour notice, Brian Moore and the Socialists did submit the filing fee and the necessary paperwork for at least seven, and possibly eight, of their presidential electors by the new and arbitrary deadline of September 8, while Bob Barr and the Libertarians neglected to file even a single document related to their filing until September 10th.