Bob Barr looking to make some history?

[Startraveler]

Looks like Bob Barr is trying to make this race a good old-fashioned hootennany:

Bob Barr sues to remove Obama, McCain from Texas ballot

Libertarian presidential candidate wants to remove both John McCain and Barack Obama from the ballot in Texas and has filed suit to eliminate the major-party candidates from consideration by Texas voters.

His argument is that the Democratic and Republican parties technically violated state election law by failing to deliver written certification of their nominations by 5 p.m. 70 days before the Nov. 4 election.

"The seriousness of this issue is self-evident," the lawsuit states. "The hubris of the major parties has risen to such a level that they do not believe that the election laws of the State of Texas apply to them."

The former Georgia congressman's campaign manager -- a former top aide to Ross Perot -- accused American courts of displaying a double standard on ballot access issues.

"The facts of the case are not in dispute," said Russell Verney. "Republicans and Democrats missed the deadline, but were still allowed on the ballot. Third parties are not allowed on the ballot for missing deadlines, as was the case for our campaign in West Virginia, yet the Texas secretary of state's office believes Republicans and Democrats to be above the law."

Barr has scheduled a press conference outside the Texas Supreme Court on Thursday morning to press his case -- to reporters, at least.

This link includes a few extra details.

Supposing he were successful we might well have a situation on our hands in which neither candidate gets 270 electoral votes (if we assume for the moment that McCain would otherwise have won but now loses Texas). One of the most interesting sites out there, electoral-vote.com took a look a little while ago at how such a scenario would play out.

If no candidate for President receives 270 electoral votes (either due to a 269-269 tie or a third-party candidate has won a few electoral votes), the newly elected House chooses the President, with each state having one vote. Some people have asked what the House is likely to look like in January 2009. Lets start with the House as it is right now.

The blue states have Democratic majorities. The red ones have Republican majorities. Arizona and Kansas are split evenly. Click on the map for an interactive version.

Currently the Democrats control 27 state delegations and the Republicans control 21. Arizona and Kansas are evenly split and would probably be unable to decide how to vote. This assumes all representatives vote the party line. Any Democrat voting for John McCain would no doubt be punished swiftly and vigorously by Nancy Pelosi, which is probably worse than potential punishment from the voters in 2 years, by which time other issues may dominate the news.

Of course, it is the new House that gets to vote, not the old one. What changes are likely? Let's look alphabetically. Alaska only one congressman, currently Don Young ®, but he is facing a tough primary and the winner of the primary will face a difficult race against Ethan Berkowitz (D). If Young wins the primary, Berkowitz has a decent shot at beating him in the general election. Arizona is current split 4-4. If the Democrats hold their four seats and pick up the open seat in AZ-01 being vacated by Rick Renzi ®, they would control Arizona. It would certainly be embarrassing to have Arizona to vote against McCain for President, but there is a good chance this could happen. Thus we have two states that might go Democratic and we haven't even gotten to "B" yet.

Kansas is also split, 2-2, and there is a very competitive race in KS-02, with Rep. Nancy Boyda (D) facing state treasurer Lynn Jenkins ®. Jenkins could win this one, which would make Kansas go Republican. In Michigan, two Republican incumbents are facing very tough battles, Tim Walberg in MI-07 and Joe Knollenberg in MI-09. If the Democrats win both of these they will control the Michigan delegation. Mississippi is currently Democratic, but Travis Childers (D) is in a rematch with Greg Davis in MS-01. Childers already beat him twice this year in special elections, but the turnout will be heavier in the general election. If Davis wins, Mississippi, the state splits 2-2. In Missouri, Sam Graves in MO-06 has the fight of his life this year against former Kansas City mayor, Kay Barnes. If Barnes wins, the Democrats will control Missouri.

Nevada could also change. Jon Porter ® in NV-03 has a real battle against state senator Dina Titus (D). If Titus wins, Nevada flips to the Democrats. New Mexico is another state where changing one seat flips the delegation. The race to watch here is NM-01, a D+2 open seat vacated by Heather Wilson in her abortive run for the Senate nomination. Initial polling here puts Martin Heinrich (D) ahead of Darren White ® here, which means the state could flip.

Ohio currently has 11 Republicans and 7 Democrats in the House. Two of them, Steve Chabot ® in OH-01 and Jean Schmidt ® in OH-02 are facing very strong challengers and could lose. Two more seats, OH-15 (Pryce) and OH-16 (Regula) are open and the Democrats are fielding very strong candidates. Winning two of the four is a realistic possibility, in which case Ohio would not be able to vote. There is one Democratic-held seat in Ohio (OH-18) which is theoretically at risk, but incumbent Zack Space (D) lucked out when the Republicans failed to come up with a first tier candidate. The Republican, Fred Dailey, has never run for elective office before, so despite the R+6 rating, Space is favored.

So in the best case for Obama, Boyda and Childers hang on and the Democrats pick up Alaska, Arizona, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, and New Mexico, while neutralizing Ohio. This would give them control of 33 state delegations. What's the best case scenario for McCain? Boyda and Childers could lose and one of the freshmen in Arizona (Giffords or Mitchell could lose). This brings it to 26 Democrats and 24 Republicans. Still enough for a narrow Obama win.

However, all this assumes that all representatives vote the party line. But consider Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) and Earl Pomeroy (D-ND). The Republicans carried both states by over 20 points in 2004 and 2000 and probably will again. What will they do? Pomeroy is 56 and his been in Congress for 8 terms, so he qualifies as a senior guy who won't be pushed around easily. Herseth Sandlin is only 37 and this is only her second term. Furthermore, she knows very well that she got her job because many voters fondly remember that her grandfather was once governor. There will be immense pressure on the poor woman to vote the way her state did. If both of them vote for McCain, he becomes President. If they split and it becomes 25-25, then the House will unable to elect a President. In that case the Vice President elected by the Senate (with each state having two votes, one per senator) acts as President. The Democrats are likely to hold a minimum of 55 seats in the new Senate, so in that case Joe Biden would become acting President. This scenario would also mean that if Pomeroy votes for McCain, then Herseth Sandlin could make McCain President or Biden President depending on her vote. Ditto Pomeroy if Herseth Sandlin votes for McCain. And by the way, Rep. Mike Castle ® is the sole representative from heavily Democratic Delaware, a fact Joe Biden will surely bring up if it gets this far. The whole thing could make 2000 look like a clean-cut victory.

With a close presidential election, half a dozen House races could ultimately determine who becomes (acting) President. For a discussion of about 60 key House races, click on the Hot House races link on the menu.

Fascinating.

[Incorrigible1]

Bob Barr on the issues:

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/

[BlindMessiah]

Well, if they broke the rules they broke the rules. It'd be some ironic justice after the two parties went through so much effort to keep the third parties down.

As for how the president would be decided, wouldn't that be a wild conclusion to the most fascinating election yet?

[Startraveler]

As for how the president would be decided, wouldn't that be a wild conclusion to the most fascinating election yet?

It would be absolutely unreal. You couldn't write an outcome like that.

Though I suspect Mr. Barr won't be successful in his efforts. And even if he is, I tend to think Obama will make it to 270 and Texas' electoral votes will be irrelevant. On top of that, it's unlikely a third party would win that state even if Obama and McCain weren't on the ballot.

Still, interesting to think about.

Edited September 17, 2008 by Startraveler

[BlindMessiah]

It would be absolutely unreal. You couldn't write an outcome like that.

Though I suspect Mr. Barr won't be successful in his efforts. And even if he is, I tend to think Obama will make it to 270 and Texas' electoral votes will be irrelevant.

I agree on both aspects. Although I don't know that Obama is going to win the election. One point though, if Barr does succeed, chances are Obama or McCain will still win Texas just off write ins.

[AROCES]

If Obama does not win Texas then we can definitely see a challenge to it that the media will be covering 24 hours a day for being late.

Right now it's only Bob Barr.....

[IrishAidan07]

I don't mind Bob Barr so much. I used to despise him when he was a Repuke, but he earned my respect when he came out against Bush and his unconstitutional decisions.

[Cradle of Fish]

Pfft, like the law has ever stopped the Republicans or Democrats before.

[BlindMessiah]

Pfft, like the law has ever stopped the Republicans or Democrats before.

Does it work that way in Australia as well?