Barr Loses Connecticut Ballot Access Case
October 23rd, 2008On October 23, U.S. District Court Judge Janet Hall said that Connecticut need not reprint its ballots to include Bob Barr. The key factor in the decision was the state’s testimony that it would be almost impossible to reprint the ballots. There will be no appeal of the denial of injunctive relief. However, the Libertarian Party will keep the case alive, with the goal of getting the signature-checking process declared unconstitutional. The “Help America Vote Act” of 2002 mandated that each state have its own centralized list of registered voters. Therefore, the New England tradition that town clerks must check ballot access petitions seems not only cumbersome and faulty, but no longer necessary.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
un
f***ing
believable.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
what a crock of shiit. Expected, but its amazing how these courts really don’t need a reason at all anymore to take the easy way out.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Third parties don’t count. If a D or R leaves a race because of a corruption charge, no problem. Just pay for reprinting the ballots (Torricelli, Lautenberg: Democratic US NJ Senate race).
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Well, that makes me disenfranchised a Connecticut voter. Obama and McCain scare the heck out of me, and I don’t much care for any of the other alternatives.
Was the problem caused by the Secretary of State’s office, or by specific town clerks. And if it was town clerks, which towns?
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
This is a case where the state of Connecticut having been wrong should be made to pay the Barr campaigned all costs associated with petitioning, re-checking the states rejected petitions and all legal fees.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
More than 4,000 United States military personnel have been killed in Iraq … allegedly in the name of “democracy.”
But we certainly do not have democracy here.
State after state manages to find some way to disenfranchise voter after voter.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
In the wake of this Election where Barr was kept off the Ballot in 3 States where he qualified (ME, CT, and LA) and that McBama were on in a State (TX) where they did not qualify, we need to keep pressing this in the Courts after the election on the Grounds of Discrimination, and Denial of Voting Rights.
There is one more thing we need to do in the Courts — Develop a basis of Monetary Damage.
Barr may do well enough that we can argue that if he made the Ballot in the 5 States he was kept off (Using the TX case as governing precedent Barr made WV, and the OK signature requirement should be overruled by the Courts) and or McBama were off the TX Ballot Barr had a real chance to qualify for Federal Campaign Financing. The LP should sue those 6 states and the FEC for that $160 Million. Interestingly, for the LP it is much better to win the money as a Judgement for Voter Rights Violations, because we won’t have to deal internally with the issue of accepting Public Campaign Financing when we oppose the practice.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:56 pm
This sucks
Looks like I will end up voting for Nader this year.
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
can Barr at least still be a “qualified” write-in candidate at this point in CT or is that a lost cause as well…?
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Judge Janet Hall -
Impeach the bitch.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:26 pm
The Connecticut Libertarian Party was told that the deadline to file as a write-in was 10 days before the election. They tried to file and were then told that really the deadline was 14 days (in other words, the day before they filed). The attorney for the Libertarian Party asked the Secretary of State’s attorneys during a break in court today how they would react if he raised asking for write-in status. They told him they would emphatically fight him on that, so he didn’t try. Anyway, the write-in matter wasn’t in the original complaint.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
We need afederal law that any time someone is kept off the ballot and it is later determined by a Federal agency that is was done unjustly, the state has to pay several million dollars in restitution.
That would stop these injustices.
Those attorneys who insisted htat they would fight on write-in access should be disbarred.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
The Connecticut Libertarian Party was told that the deadline to file as a write-in was 10 days before the election. They tried to file and were then told that really the deadline was 14 days (in other words, the day before they filed).
“adding insult to injury”… or something…
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Who testified that it would be almost impossible to reprint the ballots? Think of how much money the state of CT would save if we just let him pick a candidate on behalf of all of us.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Impeach Janet Hall!
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I preached to everyone how I was gonna vote for who I WANT, and I would proudly vote for BOB BARR!
But they’ve disenfranchised me!!!!
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
This just goes to show how desperately we need a “party of principle” in office. Our current politicians (and judges) clearly have none.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Winger neglects to mention the Party affiliation of Judge Hall – DEMOCRAT.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Baldwin is a registered write-in in CT. I am voting for Baldwin. It is a travesty that Barr is being kept off the ballot. It is also a travesty that he is the nominee.
How long would it take to make a million to a million and a half photo copies?
November 1st, 2008 at 5:03 am
It’s the Barr campaign’s own fault – the laws regarding inclusion as a registered candidate or write-in cadidate are very clear as to whats needed – and the requirements are VERY simple – just some signatures and the proper form filed by a clearly stated date.
In any account, a candidate for President in Connecticut need not be on the actual ballot in order for you to be able to vote for them – they too, just need to have some signatures and the proper form filed by a specific date; the deadline for registering a write-in candidate in Connecticut was 21 OCT 2008.
These are the candidates for President who will actually appear on the Ballot in Connecticut: http://www.statementofvote-sots.ct.gov/StatementOfVote/WebModules/ReportsLink/CandListNWPresView.aspx?Parameter=11/04/2008-General
These are the candidates in Connecticut who have registered with the CT Secretary of State who are eligible to be written-in on the ballot: http://www.statementofvote-sots.ct.gov/StatementOfVote/WebModules/ReportsLink/CLWPresView.aspx?Parameter=11/04/2008-General
As a former Ron Paul supporter, I will be writing in Chuck Baldwin’s name.