IGX

Libertarians Sue to Have Romney Kicked Off Washington Ballot
Posted by Goldy on Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:09 PM

As I first reported some weeks back, the Washington State Republican Party's failure to nominate a candidate for US Senate in 2010 appears to have cost them "major party" status under the letter of RCW 29A.04.086. This failure should in turn have required Mitt Romney to qualify for Washington's presidential ballot under rules and deadlines applied to "minor parties," a deadline that has long since passed.

Today the Libertarian Party of Washington State filed suit (PDF) to have Romney's name removed from the November ballot:

The suit seeks an order declaring that the Washington State Republican Party is “minor party” for purposes of the 2012 general election and directing the Secretary of State to issue ballots for the November election that do not contain the printed name of any Republican Party nominee.

Secretary of State Sam Reed's office responds that the Republicans retain major party status under WAC 434-208-130:

(1) For purposes of RCW 29A.04.086, "major political party" means a political party whose nominees for president and vice-president received at least five percent of the total votes cast for that office at the last preceding presidential election. A political party that qualifies as a major political party retains such status until the next presidential election at which the presidential and vice-presidential nominees of that party do not receive at least five percent of the votes cast.

Okay. Clear enough. But that's not what RCW 29A.04.086 actually says:

"Major political party" means a political party of which at least one nominee for president, vice president, United States senator, or a statewide office received at least five percent of the total vote cast at the last preceding state general election in an even-numbered year. A political party qualifying as a major political party under this section retains such status until the next even-year election at which a candidate of that party does not achieve at least five percent of the vote for one of the previously specified offices.

US Senate was the only applicable race in 2010, the preceding even-numbered year election, and for internal political reasons (both Dino Rossi and Clint Didier were afraid they would lose the state convention vote) the Republicans declined to officially nominate a candidate. In their suit, the Libertarian's accuse Reed of attempting to give the Republicans a "free pass," arguing that under established precedent "a WAC regulation cannot modify or alter a statute by interpretation." The Secretary of State's office requested legislation in the previous session to amend the RCW to match the WAC's redefinition of party status, but that bill failed. Thus concludes the Libertarian suit:

The subject WAC regulation purporting to redefine “major” and “minor” parties is therefor unlawful. A WAC regulation cannot change the definitions for “major” and “minor” political parties set out in the statute. The Republican Party is a “minor” political party for the 2012 election cycle, and has failed to qualify any presidential nominee for the 2012 general election ballot.

I'm not a lawyer, but the letter of the law is clear. Under the definition of "major" and "minor" parties in the RCW, Romney has not qualified for the ballot. Not that I expect a court to have the balls to kick him off, but technically, the law is on the Libertarian's side.

protobuilder wrote:what is the upside for them if they win their lawsuit? They have Romney taken off the ballot, 50% of the state hates them for it, and Obama wins their State. What's the point? If they succeed in doing this, they will not have one single friend in the Republican party EVER.

Turdacious wrote:It's kind of hard to take the legal opinions of a non-lawyer calling himself Goldy seriously.

During the spring of 2010 there was speculation that Rossi might enter the 2010 Senate race to challenge incumbent Patty Murray. Rossi entered the race on May 26, 2010.[5] On August 17, 2010 Rossi defeated his Republican primary challengers, but lost to incumbent Senator Patty Murray (a Democrat) in the November 2 general election 47% to 52%.[6]

Turdacious wrote:

During the spring of 2010 there was speculation that Rossi might enter the 2010 Senate race to challenge incumbent Patty Murray. Rossi entered the race on May 26, 2010.[5] On August 17, 2010 Rossi defeated his Republican primary challengers, but lost to incumbent Senator Patty Murray (a Democrat) in the November 2 general election 47% to 52%.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dino_Rossi
http://www.spokesman.com/elections/2010 ... n/results/

Not sure what I'm missing here.

US Senate was the only applicable race in 2010, the preceding even-numbered year election, and for internal political reasons (both Dino Rossi and Clint Didier were afraid they would lose the state convention vote) the Republicans declined to officially nominate a candidate.

Turdacious wrote:I'm no lawyer, but that seems pretty thin for 'I'm not a lawyer but...'

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:I'm no lawyer, but that seems pretty thin for 'I'm not a lawyer but...'

Luckily, it doesn't matter that you are not a lawyer, because there are lawyers working on your behalf who can, like, read and stuff and also file lawsuits to prevent election fraud like allowing unqualified parties top billing on the ballot.

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:I'm no lawyer, but that seems pretty thin for 'I'm not a lawyer but...'

Luckily, it doesn't matter that you are not a lawyer, because there are lawyers working on your behalf who can, like, read and stuff and also file lawsuits to prevent election fraud like allowing unqualified parties top billing on the ballot.

Since when do lawyers and laws follow common sense?

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:I'm no lawyer, but that seems pretty thin for 'I'm not a lawyer but...'

Luckily, it doesn't matter that you are not a lawyer, because there are lawyers working on your behalf who can, like, read and stuff and also file lawsuits to prevent election fraud like allowing unqualified parties top billing on the ballot.

Since when do lawyers and laws follow common sense?

I know..So confusing parsing that legislative intent...poor repugs..who knew you had to read the law?

Blaidd Drwg wrote:True, everywhere but Court.

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:True, everywhere but Court.

That's why they have their own courts.

For years, the E.P.A. has invoked its authority under the Clean Water Act to issue so-called compliance orders declaring a site to be a wetland and requiring owners to stop construction or to restore the land. Property owners could not seek judicial review of these orders without taking other administrative steps like applying for permission from the Army Corps of Engineers to build on a wetland.

Wetlands have been accorded federal protection because of their role as natural incubators and as water-cleansing filters within larger ecosystems. The agency argued that compliance orders are crucial to its ability to step in and guard such areas from illegal development, and that immediate judicial review of these administrative actions would undermine the Clean Water Act.

But the couple bringing the case, Michael and Chantell Sackett, argued that they should be able to ask a court to rule immediately on an agency order that carries with it the threat of fines of $75,000 a day.

The Sacketts had sought a hearing with the E.P.A. but were denied one. They then sued for judicial review of the wetlands determination.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said, “There is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into ‘voluntary compliance’ without the opportunity for judicial review.”

Turdacious wrote:

For years, the E.P.A. has invoked its authority under the Clean Water Act to issue so-called compliance orders declaring a site to be a wetland and requiring owners to stop construction or to restore the land. Property owners could not seek judicial review of these orders without taking other administrative steps like applying for permission from the Army Corps of Engineers to build on a wetland.

Wetlands have been accorded federal protection because of their role as natural incubators and as water-cleansing filters within larger ecosystems. The agency argued that compliance orders are crucial to its ability to step in and guard such areas from illegal development, and that immediate judicial review of these administrative actions would undermine the Clean Water Act.

But the couple bringing the case, Michael and Chantell Sackett, argued that they should be able to ask a court to rule immediately on an agency order that carries with it the threat of fines of $75,000 a day.

The Sacketts had sought a hearing with the E.P.A. but were denied one. They then sued for judicial review of the wetlands determination.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said, “There is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into ‘voluntary compliance’ without the opportunity for judicial review.”

Nothing there discriminates against those without ridiculously deep pockets. Silly me.