SocraticGadfly: Certain Texas Greens could get back on ballot (AND ARE)

September 06, 2020

Certain Texas Greens could get back on ballot (AND ARE)

A few weeks ago, the Texas Democratic Party got a state appeals court to throw off the ballot three Greens who had refused to pay the extortionate new HB 2504 filing fees. But now, per two updates below, the first an anticipatory and explanatory one, and the second with the actual facts, the Texas Supreme Court has put them back on.

Well, that may have changed, with the Texas Supreme Court ruling against Texas Republicans who made a similar effort against Texas Libertarians, but after the deadline for ballot filings. The ruling was per curiam, with two justices recusing themselves because they have Libertarian opponents Nov. 3.

Contra Kuff, at the end of this piece:
I will say, unless the Libertarians win one of their lawsuits challenging the new statute that mandates a filing fee, which was the basis for all of this legal wrangling, both Rs and Ds will be sure to do this again in 2022, since it is clear that they can knock Libertarians and Greens who don’t pay that fee off the ballot.
Not only are Texas Libertarians in general on the ballot, but Texas Greens who refused to pay filing fees and were cock-blocked by Dems could be back on there themselves, per footnote one in the ruling, which Ballot Access News had referred to, without (weirdly) referencing the actual ruling. I told Kuff this in a comment, including quoting the footnote.
1 This is not to suggest that the court of appeals’ decision to remove the Green Party candidates from the ballot is necessarily beyond review. On September 4, the Attorney General submitted an amicus letter supporting neither party. The Court considered that submission prior to issuing this decision. In its amicus letter, the Attorney General, on behalf of the Secretary of State, represents that “there is still time . . . for the Secretary of State to amend her certification” of the general election ballot. Letter at 8. Thus, there remains the possibility that a party could seek expedited relief in this Court from the court of appeals’ decision to remove Green Party candidates from the ballot.
We'll see if he edits the piece. He probably won't.

I get Kuff being a straight-line party guy, and even a fair bit of a ConservaDem within that. I refuse to accept his past bendings of the truth on some issues, whether by omission or commission.

That said, the Texas Supremes also leave open the idea that in the Dikeman suit, on the main issue, they could rule against the group of Libertarians, like select Greens, who refused to pay the fees. Stay tuned for the appeals court ruling on Dikeman and the inevitable appeal of it.

UPDATE, Sept. 13: Speaking of, the 14th Court of Appeals largely upheld the district court's grant of a TRO in the Dikeman case. Given Footnote 1 from the Supremes above, and the fact that David Bruce Collins et al had indicated that their refusal to pay the fees was based on the district court's Dikeman ruling, as I see it, he, Gruene and Wakely have a good chance of getting back on the ballot. I apparently explained myself to him less than clearly, because he remained doubtful. We'll see if my latest comment shed more light.

And, sadly, as I've said before, the broader federal suit against HB2504 and larger issues won't be heard until next year
UPDATE, Sept. 15: As I predicted, so the state Supremes have ruled! David Bruce Collins, Kat Gruene and Tom Wakely are back on the ballot.

NOTE: Mainly for the many Greens outside of Texas, but also any inside Tex-ass who think this is a magic button. No. It's ONLY a 2020 ruling. I think. (And, for whatever reason, Richard Winger at Ballot Access News has consistently gotten this wrong from the original state Supremes ruling on, and I'm not the only person to note that he's gotten it wrong.) Well, no, it's an "up to election day every election ruling," per the new update.

UPDATE, Sept. 21: The Supremes' ruling itself is up. Basically, it agrees with what I've said that the Supremes think the law is valid, but, the seven justices go Gov. Strangeabbott in their Jesuitical ruling. They say that Drew Springer didn't say WHEN the fees had to be paid, and THAT is why Greens (and Libertarians, in the earlier ruling) have to be kept on the ballot. It ALSO explains the 14th Appeals Court, in the Dikeman case, removing the "at any time" from the district court's TRO. That, then gets back to the final paragraph in the Supremes' ruling against the Texas GOP, where the high court brings back the "at any time" in another sense, reserving the right to toss any non-fees-paying candidates "at any time."

So, in short, per the Texas Supreme Court? Collins, Gruene and Wakely are "pretend candidates." If any of you all, or Dikeman et al won, Hecht et al would entertain GOP and/or Democratic suits to prevent you from taking office.

That said, it is kind o fun to see Drew Springer getting spanked for not having a date-payable in his bill.
Speaking of Springer?

Meanwhile, Chuckles Kuffner has officially confirmed himself to be an idiot, from his piece on the ruling.

I had not understood the distinction between mandating that all candidates who compete for the nomination must pay the fee and just mandating that the candidates who actually receive the nomination must pay it.

Uhh, NOMINEES not candidates appears clearly in the first grafs of Springer's bill, HB 2504.

(I)f SCOTX is going to appeal to higher principles in cases like this, which just happen to also align with the desires of the Republican Party, then I’d like to see some evidence that they will err on the side of the voters in a case that doesn’t align with the GOP.

Uhh, the 14th Appeals ruling was in favor of Libertarians and against the GOP. It was partially based on "filed by the GOP too late," but, even if the GOP had filed on time, Hecht et al would have given them the same relief.


Try again. Or don't. But, this is all wrong.

NOTE 2: As for that federal suit? While I think the plaintiffs have a puncher's chance on some things, I think they have a snowball's chance in hell on the filing fees.

No comments: