BALLOT ENTITLEMENT LAWS should DISQUALIFY PRESIDENT OBAMA in TEXAS

CRITICAL UPDATE 04.18.12, 17:59 EDT

at bottom of post

(CORRECTED 06.25.12)

©2012 jbjd

Under Texas law, by failing to file with Texas Secretary of State Hope Andrade the rules adopted by the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) to determine that the party’s nominees for President and Vice President are federally qualified for the job; Attorney Boyd Richie, Chair of the TDP, has forfeited the entitlement of the party to have the name of its nominees for those federal offices appear on the 2012 TX ballot. In fact, by failing to provide the candidate qualification rules of the Republican Party of Texas (“RPT”), Attorney Steve Munisteri, Chair of the RPT, has similarly forfeited the entitlement of his party’s nominees for President and Vice President to appear on the 2012 ballot, too.

It’s true; look at the law.

In TX, who determines whether the names of the nominees chosen by a political party, for President and Vice-President of the United States appear on the ballot?

A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for President and Vice President of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law. §192.031 PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT

But who determines whether the nominee for President is Constitutionally eligible for the job?

The state chair of each political party holding a Presidential primary election shall certify the name of each Presidential candidate who qualifies for a place on the Presidential primary election ballot and deliver the certification to the Secretary of State. §191.003 NOTICE OF CANDIDATES TO SECRETARY OF STATE

How does the state chair determine whether the candidate has satisfied federal eligibility?

The state executive committee of each political party holding a Presidential primary election shall adopt the rules necessary to implement these laws. §191.008 IMPLEMENTATION BY PARTY

How does the SoS know that the party has adopted these rules necessary to verify the federal qualification of the  Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates submitted to that office?

For a political party to be entitled to have its nominees for President and Vice President of the United States placed on the general election ballot in an election year in which the party is holding a presidential primary election, the rules adopted under this section or the rules already in existence must be filed with the secretary of state not later than January 5 of the Presidential election year. Id.

Now, look at the facts.

In 2008, the SoS received from Mr. Richie the list of candidates the TDP wanted the state to print on the TX primary ballot. Here is Mr. Richie’s cover letter, and only the first page of that candidate submission.

(These 2008 records were obtained from the SoS in 2012 during a series of requests for public information, which was delayed due to court redistricting issues that in turn pushed back the date of the primary to May 29 and, therefore, the deadline for party submissions). (The mandatory retention schedule for such records is 2 years unless the records have been the subject of some kind of challenge. We have no idea why the SoS maintained these records for 4 years, but we are glad she did.)

In the cover letter, Mr. Richie explains he is sending this information to the SoS “in compliance with §172.028(a) of the Texas Election Code.” That section, STATE CHAIR’S CERTIFICATION OF NAMES FOR PLACEMENT ON GENERAL PRIMARY BALLOT, is found under TITLE 10, POLITICAL PARTIES, SUBTITLE B. PARTIES NOMINATING BY PRIMARY ELECTION, CHAPTER 172. PRIMARY ELECTIONS. Then, as you can see; in the page that followed, he listed together both the Presidential candidates and the down-ticket candidates, like U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative.

He shouldn’t have.

Title 10 only applies to party candidates chosen via a primary election. And even though the names of both the Presidential hopefuls and these down-ticket offices appear on the same primary ballot; the party nominees for U.S. Senate and U.S. Representative are chosen directly as the result of the primary contest, whereas the nominees for President and Vice President are not. Rather, these are chosen at the party’s Presidential nominating convention. (This is covered in Title 11, in §191.003.) This means, votes cast for the Presidential candidate during the party primary only count for the purpose of the assignment of pledged delegates who will then vote for that candidate at the party’s national convention.

So, is listing the Presidential candidates, covered under 191.003, on the same form as candidates covered by 172.028(a), as cited in Mr. Richie’s letter, just a legal technicality, in other words, a distinction without a difference? Hardly. Here is the text of 172.028(a): “Except as provided…the state chair shall certify in writing for placement on the general primary election ballot the name of each candidate who files with the chair an application…” In other words, to get on the ballot under this section, a candidate need only submit an application. And no law requires the party to adopt rules to carry out the laws in this section. On the other hand, 191.003, printed above, requires the chair to submit only the names of candidates federally qualified for the job. And 191.008 requires the party to adopt rules to ensure the section’s implementation.

Naturally, just because Mr. Richie wrote down the wrong law didn’t mean, he hadn’t carried out the mandate of the right law by verifying the candidates he submitted to the SoS for the 2008 Presidential preference primary ballot were federally qualified for the job. But we know he didn’t verify whether the Presidential nominee wannabes were federally qualified for the job. We also know that Mr. Munisteri, his counterpart in the RPT, didn’t verify Republican Presidential candidates were federally qualified for the job, too. Because we looked it up. That is, we searched the internal rules of the respective parties for references to 191.003.

TDP Rules, 2006-2008: http://txdems.3cdn.net/b365cb3e72bc521333_pom6vdrl3.pdf

TDP Rules, 2012: http://www.txdemocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/2010-2012-TDP-Rules.pdf

RPT Rules, 2008: http://www.1888932-2946.ws/TexasGOP/E-ContentStrategy/userfiles/2008_General_Rules.pdf

RPT Rules, 2011 (Amended for 2012): http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2011RPTRules_Amended.pdf

Lo and behold, we found no such rules. For either party. For the years 2008 – 2012. This means, neither party could possibly have submitted the rules required under 191.003 to the SoS. And, under 192.031, this means neither party is entitled to have the names of its Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees on the general election ballot. It’s as simple as that.

Of course, just because both the TDP and the RPT have lost entitlement to have the names of their nominees for President and Vice President on the general election ballot doesn’t mean that SoS Andrade cannot exercise her discretion to place those names on that ballot or, on the primary ballot, anyway. But she should not. And here’s why.

Notwithstanding neither party promulgated rules as required by law to preserve entitlement for the names of their Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to appear on the ballot; this does not mean, they didn’t somehow verify their candidates had satisfied federal qualifications for the job. So we submitted a request for the production of documents which were the basis for their ballot certification; to the Chairs of both parties, under the TX Public Information Act.

You might recall we attempted to retrieve documents from Mr. Richie and the TDP in 2010. But notwithstanding under the law the documents requested were pubic records; and the parties, as holders of these records, were public officials; those 2010 requests were ignored. TEXAS TWO-STEP. Maybe it was because we hadn’t spelled out in our request the legal framework which supported our rights to the documents requested. In other words, we hadn’t let him know, we know the law. So, this time, we did. (Citizens shouldn’t have to be lawyers to get their public officials to do their jobs, whether these are unelected officers of a private political club merely fulfilling a public function. Especially when those officials are lawyers, too. Id.) 1) §191.003.  NOTICE OF CANDIDATES TO SECRETARY OF STATE. This law established the Chair had a duty to certify the names of the party candidates to the SoS. 2) §192.031.  PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT. This restricts entitlement to be on the ballot to only those Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates meeting federal qualifications for the job. 3) §141.035.  APPLICATION AS PUBLIC INFORMATION. This establishes a candidate’s application for a place on the ballot is a public record on filing. 4) §161.004.  PARTY DOCUMENT AS PUBLIC INFORMATION. This states that any document required to be filed by the party is public information. 5. §161.009.  PARTY OFFICER SUBJECT TO MANDAMUS.  This spells out that when a party officer has a duty to act under the election code; the performance of that duty is enforceable by writ of mandamus in the same manner as if the party officer were a public officer.

Here is the Public Information request letter sent to the RPT.
How did the RPT respond to the request? Attorney Munisteri ignored it. (Kelly has already filed a complaint with AG Abbott.)

Presumably, the esteemed Chair of the RPT knows when it comes to submitting names to the TX ballot; he is a public official, required to respond to this request for public information. Because his brother in the law, Attorney Richie, Chair of the TDP, knows. When we sent this letter to him –

he gave us everything we wanted – (CORRECTION 06.24.12: He only appeared to give us what we wanted. Because as Kelly pointed out; this application was missing any language establishing the candidate was Constitutionally eligible for the job; and she had asked for documents which were the basis for his finding the candidates whose names he submitted to the SoS to appear on the ballot were “federally qualified.”) (See WILL TX AG ABBOTT PROSECUTE the TDP for VIOLATING the TX PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT?)

which consisted of nothing more than Mr. Obama’s ballot application. (Under §1.012, PUBLIC INSPECTION OF ELECTION RECORDS, you can view this public record by visiting the offices of the TDP.)

In other words, Mr. Richie put the name of Barack Obama on the TX ballot just because he asked him to. As if he was a down-ticket candidate under 172.028(a).

Wherefore, SoS Andrade should exercise her discretionary authority to keep the RPT candidates for President and Vice President off the ballot; not just because they ignored the law requiring rules adopted for candidate eligibility to be filed with her office but also because they ignored the law requiring production of records used for public elections. She should exercise her discretion to keep the TDP candidates off the ballot because they ignored the law on rules and then swore to the SoS, having filed an application to get on the ballot, the candidate was thereby federally qualified for the job

When it comes to exercising her discretion as to whether to allow the Presidential candidates of either of these parties, Republican or Democrat, to appear on the TX ballot; SoS Andrade should come down on the side of the citizens of Texas, and not the political parties.

(H/T to “jbjd” patron kjcanon for her Herculean assistance researching, editing, and thinking out loud.)

CRITICAL UPDATE 04.18.12, 17:59 EDT: I have just been informed of a change of status with regard to the documents requested from the RPT. The post which will print shortly will explain everything. jbjd

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Freedom costs.

Advertisements

52 Responses to BALLOT ENTITLEMENT LAWS should DISQUALIFY PRESIDENT OBAMA in TEXAS

  1. Ray says:

    Thank you jbjd, you are my new hero (heroine).

    I really do not expect our SoS here in Texas to do the right thing. I would be happy with her not accepting either candidate.

    I hope to be able to thank you properly, one day.

    All the Very Best.

    • jbjd says:

      Ray: If the citizens of TX want their SoS to do the right thing; they have to tell her. I will be posting a letter to the SoS, for use by those citizens. (Hopefully, they have read up on the issues and are well versed on the points raised in the petition.) Bottom line, Mr. Richie chose to admit he swore to Mr. Obama’s eligibility without checking rather than to falsely claim, he based his certification on an image which was part of a political advertising campaign. Either way, looks like ballot fraud to me. Mr. Munisteri places himself both above the law and above the people. Hopefully, AG Abbott will exercise his discretion to press Kelly’s complaint, Munisteri violated the TX Public Information Act. ADMINISTRATOR

      P.S. Under the law, the SoS can exercise her discretion to extend the time by which the parties must submit to her office, the rules adopted to govern how they establish the Presidential candidates’ whose names they submit to the state to place on the ballot, have met federal qualifications. Perhaps citizens can propose to the SoS that she allow the parties time to come up with these verification rules, well in advance of the general election so as to allow citizens the time to scrutinize the supporting evidence of verification.

      P.P.S. The RPT did send the documents. Please see GOOD THING the REPUBLICAN PARTY of TEXAS READS the “jbjd” BLOG.

  2. dawngaye says:

    Hi jbjd & all – I am reading with baited breath (?) and ran into a snag at the second link – it’s dead & has an error message.

    http://http//www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.191.htm#191.003

    • jbjd says:

      dawngaye: OMG, hello! (jbjd bows head, waves) I am so happy you got here. (Thank you for pointing out the broken link; all fixed.) Wait till you “see” what’s next! ADMINISTRATOR

  3. dawngaye says:

    Thank you for the welcome back, jbjd:)

    This is brilliant! You, Kelley & your tribe in Texas are doing yeoman’s work. Yes… altho I have not moved & settled yet, I have dropped one activity that takes up much time so I can devote some energy to what needs to be done in SC:) Can’t wait for “what’s next”!

    ps I also had trouble with this one:
    http://http//s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2011RPTRules_Amended.pdf

    • jbjd says:

      dawngaye: Yes; I thought this strategy was brilliant, too. Simply brilliant, that is. As you know, I have been telling people from the beginning, challenging the people who affirmed President Obama’s Constitutional eligibility can resolve the eligibility dilemma. After all, if you cannot find documentary evidence of eligibility in the public domain; how did party officials? It was so simple, too few people believed me.

      Thanks for pointing out the errant link; all fixed. ADMINISTRATOR

      • ksdb says:

        Try not to hurt yourself from patting yourself on the back. Nothing has been accomplished yet, nor is there really much reason to expect this strategy to be any more successful than the other attempts. The time to celebrate is AFTER something like this has actually been shown to be successful.

        • jbjd says:

          ksdb: Do you understand what was meant by the use of the term “simply brilliant”? It means, the solution to securing our electoral process is so simple that after all of the hype for the past 4 years, on both sides, the resolution is brilliant by contrast. My goal has been to educate people as to how our electoral system works so that those with a better understanding could no longer take advantage of that superior knowledge to subvert the process.

          That people like you continue to equate raising the knowledge base of our electoral system with ‘winning’ some unstated but ‘obvious’ goal of exposing a specific candidate is not who he purports to be; measuring “success” by outing his status and not by understanding how he got to where he is; signals there is still much work to be done.

          Whatever the status of any candidate you fail to support; that millions of people voted for him means, your fellow citizens overruled you. That’s the way our political system works. ADMINISTRATOR

          • ksdb says:

            Wow, that’s quite a few words without actually saying anything. In the end, you don’t actually disagree with what I wrote. Thanks.

  4. william says:

    darn, if you follow this logic the Republican candidates can’t appear on the ballot either…oh, I forget, the same rules don’t apply to them.

    • jbjd says:

      william: No; just because both parties forfeited entitlement to appear on the ballot does not mean, the SoS cannot exercise her discretion to allow their names on the ballot, anyway. We are about to propose just that, under specific conditions consistent with existing election law.

      Hurling these snide missives at anyone questioning the dog and pony show put on by the D’s to market the Obama brand to anyone who doesn’t know the difference between a real identification document and a paid campaign ad; doesn’t discredit those of us who are only following the law. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Native Texan says:

    jbjd,

    Thank you for your diligent work. As we discussed, I am now going to hit the road and get on the telephone to mobilize the thousands stirred up by the hints of action I have been letting slip. It is a shame Mr. Munisteri did not listen closely when we talked last month. You are a great patriot.

    B

    • jbjd says:

      Native Texan: You are welcome. kjcanon did a yeowoman’s job, too, pulling this all together and acting as a sounding board for my sometimes frenetic preoccupation with adhering to the steps I had laid out to create our ‘case.’

      You said, you have been letting news of this project ‘slip.’ I know; when I received word Mr. Richie had produced the document I had predicted would be the lone source for federal verification, I wanted to ‘scream.’ Hopefully at this point you see that keeping the secret was necessary so as to ensure ‘others’ didn’t commandeer for themselves the informed process we undertook of establishing a valid ballot challenge.

      Now, to perfect the complaint to the SoS, proposing ways to fix this ballot mess in time for the general election; and another to the AG to report ballot fraud. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. kjcanon says:

    jbjd, I inadvertently posted this on the previous article, so I am re-posting it here… but before I do, I’d like to say something directly to “ksdb”: Speaking of patting one’s self on the back, exactly what have YOU been doing all this while? Just sitting there, reading the interweb, and bashing people? You have no idea (obviously) what has been accomplished so far! Now stop [acting like] a jerk, do us all a favor, and keep your completely WORTHLESS comments to yourself. Come back when you actually have something to contribute to this effort.

    Ok, now go to my original comment:
    ———————————————-
    Here’s what I keep going back to, knowing NOW that “no documents existed” in 2008, which kind of brings it all home for me: If Obama didn’t launch his ad campaign “fight the smears” (which included the bogus “image” of a Hawaiian COLB) until JUNE of 2008, then what, pray-tell, did Boyd Richie have in JANUARY of 2008 that he could have used to determine the eligibility of this candidate? Nothing. Nada. Zip. But good ol’ Mr Richie certified Obama anyway for the primary election that year, and then again for the General election! Hello! ELECTION FRAUD. Pure and simple. And NOW we know that all Mr Richie used as the “basis for his certification” in 2012 was just an ‘application for candidacy’! Nothing else! I find this to be a very troubling turn of events. I don’t know about anyone in any other state, but here in Texas, is where the “BUCK STOPS”! To put this in more of a Texas accented flare – There ain’t NOTHIN’ worse than an angry Texan! Our country has been duped, and it’s time to show them who is really in charge! WE THE PEOPLE. God Bless the Lone Star State! GREAT WORK, jbjd! The Eyes of Texas are definitely upon you!

    • jbjd says:

      kjcanon: Thank you for re-posting on this thread. I had responded before I realized it was the wrong article; and I wanted my comments to be read by people here. Let me go get it… (Also, I edited your appended remarks; no name calling, here.)
      **************************************************************************************************************

      kjcanon: I know; readers are still focusing just on TX but, you called it: people in other states, especially those ballot eligibility states, need to consider the implications of what we have found here! And not just how these events impact individual state ballots; but rather, how the national political party manipulated this whole thing so as to mask the problem with Barack Obama’s vital documents, whatever that problem is, whether just an issue with an unpleasant personal detail or, a problem with his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS!

      And, in the hierarchy of wrongs; ignoring a citizen request for documents pales in comparison to perpetrating election fraud so as to put into the WH a President who has admitted to doubts whether he is Constitutionally eligible for the job!

      I hope that after reading this article, people at last will stop claiming, any of those supposed birth documents produced by the Obama campaign means anything (except they ran an effective political ad campaign). ADMINISTRATOR

    • dawngaye says:

      Hey Kelly! OMgosh, yes! What you said! 🙂 JUST LIKE in SC when Kathy Helmsley cavalierly whipped out her pen and…. do you know this story? If not, you are in for a TREAT.

      • jbjd says:

        dawngaye: I still chuckle every time I think of that image in the offices of the SC Election Commission. ‘Ah, Ms. Hensley, we cannot accept Chairwoman Fowler’s list of candidates for the SC Presidential preference primary ballot because she omitted the certification required under SC law that the candidates are qualified for the job.’ And Ms. Hensley reaches into her purse; pulls out a pen and writes out the words required by law. IF it LOOKS like a DUCK ADMINISTRATOR

        • dawngaye says:

          I know:) I laugh, I cry, I get SO angry.
          So, are you saying it’s ok now to get this info out to as many Texans I can rustle up?

          • jbjd says:

            dawngaye: Yes; that’s what we are trying to do, reach as many Texans as possible. And, as you will see, as soon as we did, someone tried to steal the work and make money off it! ADMINISTRATOR

    • ksdb says:

      Sorry for being a realist, but NOTHING has been accomplished short of jbjd praising herself and finding a couple of cheerleaders. Prove me wrong instead of whining about me. I’m not the one claiming that I’ve done something that was “simply brilliant.” Egad.

      • dawngaye says:

        Why would anyone spend their time trying to do what this ksdb is doing? Get them off here; they are wasting space. Egad.

        • jbjd says:

          dawngaye: Maybe s/he gets paid to disinform. Who cares? Now, people (including contributors at fogbow (formerly politijab)) know, in TX, the chair of the state political party is a public figure for the purpose of complying with public records laws, when s/he performs a public act like, certifying names for the ballot. Citizens in other states can now emulate this law. ADMINISTRATOR

          • ksdb says:

            jbjd, how exactly have I “disinformed” anyone with what I’ve posted?? Be specific.

  7. jbjd says:

    Dear Readers,

    As many of you may already know, I have been banned from posting on FreeRepublic, even though I enjoyed much support and lively interaction when my articles appeared there.

    So many of the readers there would benefit from the latest series of articles on my blog. There were the 4 articles discussing President Obama’s long form birth certificate as merely another paid campaign ad. And then there’s this latest article, revealing for the first time anywhere in the country, the lone document that a Democrat responsible for certifying the candidate’s federal eligibility to get on the ballot, used as the basis of that certification. It happened in TX, where I predicted it would (although the implications are, of course,
    nationwide). I know a lot of Texans are Freepers.

    Could you please post this article over there? I am about to post the
    ‘ballot complaint’ that accompanies this latest article. But the success of these efforts to shore up the electoral process will depend on the numbers.

    Thanks,
    jbjd

  8. kjcanon says:

    jbjd,
    What a day! In an attempt to round up a few Texans, I (innocently) went to the “obamaballotchallenge” website, and posted my announcement of our work, linked our website and jbjd’s blog, as well. Mere MINUTES later, this triggered a mass-email that was sent to all of their subscribers, and wouldn’t you know it – the announcement I originally posted took on the appearance of looking as if all of this work was THEIR doing (the website organizers). Not only that, but they had their little paypal button immediately underneath my text. I was really shocked for two reasons. #1: What we are doing is something any private citizen in Texas can do WITHOUT the need for filing a lawsuit (like all of the other challenges they are instigating), so why would any money even be needed for this? And #2: They circulated my post so quickly, knowing that this would bring people to their site and eventually coerce money from those same people who think that THEIR site was the originating source for this effort! Unbelievable! I immediately wrote them and demanded they remove the post. Thank heavens they did that! My genuine intentions of gaining the interest of Texans was almost hijacked for their own ill-gotten gains! It was like throwing a piece of fresh meat to a bunch of vultures! Lesson learned,,,

    As for freerepublic, I will try to post something on their site, if I can ever figure out how it’s done. (not the easiest task, unfortunately!)

    Now, to directly address “ksdb”: You said, “but NOTHING has been accomplished…” Excuse me?!? What a flat out lie that is! Didn’t your momma raise you to never tell fibs? You have absolutely NO IDEA what all HAS been accomplished, yet you come on here and spew your *OPINION* as if it were fact, and you couldn’t be further from the truth if you tried. (I hope they’re paying you well for this.) But to be honest, I’m actually glad that jbjd has exercised her discretion in keeping your ridiculous comments up on her blog for all to see, as she has every right to decline them! It’s HER blog. By keeping your comments on here, you are becoming the laughing stock for all of us who have been hard at work to fix the many problems that got us here in the first place. I also have to commend her on a couple of other things: #1. If it hadn’t been for jbjd’s excellent teachings of how our government really works, and how to take the necessary steps to get problems fixed in the “system” we live with, none of the accomplishments we have made so far would have ever been possible! Check out our “progress” page on the Texas Ballot Challenge website: http://txbc.homestead.com/Progress.html #2: By looking at this “progress” page, you will quickly notice exactly WHAT we have accomplished, and what truly reflects HOURS/DAYS/WEEKS/MONTHS of tireless painstaking attention to detail throughout the strict procedural path we followed – all at the guidance of jbjd. So yes, I take great offense at anyone who claims “we haven’t accomplished anything”. As we say here in Texas, “THAT DOG DON’T HUNT!” Nice try, though, ksdb… we all need a good laugh from time to time.

    • jbjd says:

      kjcanon: There are a million ‘ksdb”s out there. When you think of what ‘we’ – and I mean that in the sense of the collective ‘we’ – have accomplished, it’s difficult to list outcomes by ‘seniority,’ in order of significance. Nah, I know what comes first: none of the images, whether electronic or hard copy, of what I have been telling you for years are paid political ads was used as documentary evidence of Chairman Richie’s certification to SoS Andrade that Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job. That means, when it comes to their value with respect to establishing place of birth; they are worthless.

      In other words, if all of my articles didn’t sink in, that the COLB / long form birth certificate were only advertising during (Obama’s) political campaigning; and all those admonitions didn’t take, that you were wasting your time examining pixels from a computer screen; and all those predictions didn’t ring true, that none of those people who certified Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for office in ballot eligibility states could have used any documentation available in the public domain because, as thousands of you can attest, there is no such documentation; well, now we know, the only real (verifiable) basis for putting him on the ballot was, he filed an application.

      Now, we get to focus on ballot fraud.

      If ksdb knew more about election law; I suspect, s/he would grasp the enormity of what we have done. ADMINISTRATION

      • ksdb says:

        jbjd, it might help to look up the word “enormity.” It doesn’t mean what you think it does, unless you’re trying to diminish your own “accomplishments.” Your summation about the only “real (verifiable) basis” for putting Obama on the ballot has been understood for a long time. Nobody needed to read a bunch of silly essays about the birth certificate being campaign advertising to understand that. Those who support Obama simply don’t care. They believe his birth myth, they take the jpgs and PDFs at face value and they’re not going to be persuaded to change their minds because of anything you’ve posted here. Feel free to prove me wrong, but you need to actually show some results.

        • jbjd says:

          ksdb: What was perhaps “understood” and what is now established in fact; are two distinct and different things. Failing to appreciate this fact exposes the folly in your flagrant attempts to elevate the former over the latter, the purpose for which one can only speculate. In 2010, asserting under TX law that under certain circumstances party chairs can be said to be acting as public officials; citizens of TX asked the TDP to produce documents. His office, mimicking the DNC, said they didn’t have to (although the DNC expressly explained, they were not a public agency). Then, in 2012, on her own, kjcanon asked the TDP for these same documents. This time, they ignored her (like the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, then Chair of the DNC Presidential nominating convention, had done in 2008). But when, with my assistance, she revised that request letter, incorporating the law with respect to party chairs as public officials, the TDP immediately produced the requested documents.

          Now, one might say, Mr. Richie might have produced the documents anyway. One might also speculate that, having received a 3rd request for these records and, with the certain knowledge such requests would not abate (a knowledge based perhaps on having received copies of citizen complaints of election fraud to AG Abbott) he had merely decided to acquiesce to the inevitable. Either way, one need no longer merely speculate as to what was the basis for the party’s certification of Mr. Obama’s qualifications. Now, we not only ‘believe’ what was used; but we also ‘know.’

          And, arguably as significant an accomplishment, is the knowledge that whenever either a candidate or a political party is engaged in a campaign; what they say could best be viewed as paid political advertising, governed as campaign expenditures under the U.S. Code and protected as to their contents by the 1st Amendment. ADMINISTRATOR

    • ksdb says:

      Thanks for the overreaction, kj. In all your ranting about me, you didn’t ever get around to explain exactly what it is you think you’ve accomplished, Your link only shows that you’re chasing after an assortment of standard election filing documents and then you posted them on a website.Is that it?? What exactly has that achieved? Be specific.

  9. Native Texan says:

    kjc/jbjd, You are wasting your time and breath on ksdb. We here in Texas are pushing ahead with our contacts and getting this information our as quickly as possible. We understand that ya’ll are still in the process of finalizing documents. I, for one, have been setting up meetings with different groups all over this end of the state who are interested in our progress

    • jbjd says:

      Native Texan: The thing is, every citizen who fails to understand how our electoral system works; places an additional onus on those of us who are expanding our understanding. Even revising legislation so as to accomplish Constitutional goals will require support from those same citizens who only (seem to) dismiss or undervalue our efforts at this stage. You are assuming the responsibility for educating your fellow citizens, who comprise these “different groups.” Wouldn’t it be reassuring to know that, at least those people reading this “jbjd” blog can ‘get it’ for themselves? ADMINISTRATOR

  10. jbjd says:

    I posted this comment on the Obama Conspiracy blog.

    Dr. Conspiracy writes, “I read your blog article and it seemed to me that you failed to made (sic) the argument that Mr. Richie was legally required to undertake some formal process of determining the eligibility of Barack Obama. The place of Obama’s birth was publicly known at the time and that alone should have been sufficient the way that I read it.” Then, let me repeat, under TX law, in order for party candidates for President to be entitled to appear on the ballot, the party Chairs must have filed with the SoS adopted rules that spell out how they verified the candidates are federally qualified for the job. Neither the TDP nor the RPT filed those rules; nor could they have, since these rules do not exist.

    Thus, the TDP was already not entitled to have its Presidential candidates – and there are 4 of them – to appear on the ballot. But, the SoS could use her discretion to keep these candidates on the ballot. Only, there is still the problem of swearing as to the candidate’s federal eligibility. Did the party chairs perpetrate fraud by swearing to eligibility without checking? Well, the RPT didn’t respond to a records request for the basis of their certifications. As prescribed by the TX Public Information Act, a formal complaint has been filed with AG Abbott. The TDP did respond, providing only Mr. Obama’s application to appear on the ballot.

    Yes, as you suggest, one might speculate, Mr. Richie ‘knew’ Mr. Obama was federally qualified and so, based his certification to the SoS on this personal knowledge. Theoretically, this could counter a charge he had committed ballot fraud by submitting the certification without documentation of the facts. However, the candidate admitted to doubts whether he was a citizen, and provided what his campaign characterized was ‘documentation’ of his Hawaiian birth in June 2008 and April 2011. I argued that, if this documentation provided such proof; it made no sense to me that Mr. Richie would have subjected himself to charges of ballot fraud by not using (and, subsequently by not producing in response to the document request) such documentation. On the other hand, I reasoned that, if the documents do not establish a Hawaiian birth on account they are only campaign advertising then, better Mr. Richie should not claim them as the basis for his certification and in so doing provide evidence that tends to further establish the fraud.
    BALLOT ENTITLEMENT LAWS should DISQUALIFY PRESIDENT OBAMA in TEXAS

    ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Native Texan says:

    The response to our information has been very encouraging. KJC and I are coordinating our efforts in an effort to expedite and maximize the coverage of our message. The networking we have done through our county gatherings with candidates have been very positive and will enhance the voice of our fellow citizens when the complaints start rolling in to the SoS and the AG. jbjd, keep the faith. You will see that KJC is just one of a whole bunch of silent majority here in Texas who have been awakened.

    • jbjd says:

      Native Texan: I assure you, I am not usually a ‘glass half full’ kinda gal; I usually prefer to call a glass half empty what it is. However, in this case, even if only on account we have now established, no documentary evidence available in the public record can establish Mr. Obama’s federal qualification; I can joyfully pronounce, the glass overflows. And that’s for every voter, in every state, not just TX. However, the good news does not stop there; now, people can (at least begin to) understand such things as the interplay between the ballot and political parties; and between law and practice.

      The letter to the SoS comes first; you – the citizens of TX – must now advise the SoS how to proceed. Since effecting the appearance of the ballot takes less time than conducting a criminal investigation; the citizen complaint of fraud to the AG comes after.

      Go get ’em, pardner. ADMINISTRATOR

      • Native Texan says:

        jbjd, You are dead on as usual. One of my favorite rules is the one about leading a horse to water. In this case, I feel my goal is to find a good cattle prod and help the process along. Some of us down here work a little better with outside stimuli. I am ready to to rock and roll after hitting so many brick walls a few years ago. This time I feel like we are going into a knife fight with the correct weapon of choice. We are going to make a personal face-to-face with Madam Andrade to help her understand what we expect as results. Might even have a cattle prod in my back pocket to see if it will help. Bless you, jbjd. you are greatly appreciated here in the Republic of Texas. By the way, Sam Houston is sizing up Santa Anna’s forces as we speak in the NW Houston area. Tomorrow will be a skirmish near where Houston currently stands. Then it was called Harrisburg. Saturday will be the big day. I predict we Texians will whoop them again. Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!

        • jbjd says:

          Native Texan: Go get ’em. I would be curious to learn from you what is the reaction of Republicans on hearing that their party not only has also failed to ensure ballot eligibility, as required by law; but also that it holds its members in such disdain, it ignoreda legal request under the Public Information Act for documents held by the party, not even requesting a waiver from that requirement, from the AG, as provided for in that same law. ADMINISTRATOR

          P.S. I also want to remind you, the RPT or its Presidential nominee could also contest the placement on the ballot, the name of the nominee submitted by the TDP. (See the exchange between acitizenonthego and me.)

          P.P.S. Again a reminder, the RPT has submitted the requested documents. GOOD THING the REPUBLICAN PARTY of TEXAS READS the “jbjd” BLOG

  12. acitizenonthego says:

    jbjd and ‘Kelly’,

    TDP email response: “The attached filing forms are submitted in response of your request of documents that were the basis for our certification of presidential candidates on our primary ballot.”

    Great work on retrieving documents from the TDP! What an accomplishment to get the TDP to acknowledge, under TX law, that Boyd Richie, the chair, is accountable, the same as a public official and therefore must continue to be accountable. Texas law requires the candidate to be constitutionally eligible and this requirement does not restrict the right to hold office and the constitutional and statutory provisions must be strictly construed against eligibility if the provisions “must be strictly construed against ineligibility”.

    “Our conclusion conforms with the Texas principle that “[a]ny constitutional or statutory provision which restricts the right to hold office must be strictly construed against ineligibility.” Wentworth v. Meyer, 839 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex.1992).

    “… In addition, “while states enjoy a wide latitude in regulating elections and in controlling ballot content and ballot access, they must exercise this power in a reasonable, nondiscriminatory, politically neutral fashion.” Miller v. Moore, 169 F.3d 1119, 1125 (8th Cir.1999).

    … “1. The “Conclusively Established” Standard

    The governing standard, “conclusively established,” bears emphasis. Something is “conclusive” when, by virtue of “reason,” it “put[s] an end to debate or question,” usually because of its “irrefutability.” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED (2002).16 Accordingly, Texas courts have explained that public records must leave no factual dispute concerning the conclusiveness of ineligibility. See In re Jackson, 14 S.W.3d 843, 848-49 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, orig. pet.) (holding that a state actor under § 145.003 has “no fact-finding authority;” instead, she may “administratively declare that a candidate is ineligible only when the record conclusively establishes the candidate’s ineligibility”) (emphasis in original); Culberson v. Palm, 451 S.W.2d 927, 929 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1970, orig. pet.) (holding that ineligibility was not conclusively established where there remained “a fact question”).

    http://openjurist.org/459/f3d/582/texas-democratic-party-v-j-benkiser

    Boyd Richie has some ‘splainin’ to do since he must know (?) he cannot obtain any properly authenticated identification documents directly from HI and the images released by the WH are not properly authenticated documents as the images are only the products of graphic design and use of political speech in projecting a political point of view by responding and distributing literature and advertisements against a national controversial issue. This can only establish for the public record that the candidate self authenticated himself by the TX application and his paid political advertising, leaving “a fact question”, his age, residency and citizenship, unanswered under TX law as the nominees must “possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law”.

    I suspect the RPT has no idea what to do and may know that the application is only a self authenticating document and could not provide any other information for the ‘R’ candidates to be constitutionally eligible for ballot access or simply didn’t know the involvement of Texas election law; the state Party chair being equal to a public official, which is most likely the case. I say silence is political speech with no accountability.

    As for the state officials who “enjoy a wide latitude in regulating elections and in controlling ballot content and ballot access, they must exercise this power in a reasonable, nondiscriminatory, politically neutral fashion.”

    Boyd Richie will retire in June of this year.

    http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/texas-democratic-party/tdp-chair-boyd-richie-will-not-seek-another-term/

    Will he still be considered in the capacity of a public official after he retires in ± a month and a half?

    • jbjd says:

      acitizenonthego: Wow; great comment! (This reminds me of CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (1 of 2); CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (2 of 2); and JUDGE ABBOTT WOULD ORDER TDP CHAIR BOYD RICHIE TO DECLARE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA IS INELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB!) As you probably know; this ‘legal’ background is only another tool which can be used to persuade state officials to investigate this matter further, as spelled out in separate documents (in progress) directed to the SoS and AG. (Unless, of course, as I previously proposed in past posts; the RPT or, a candidate with standing (as defined in those articles) determines to proceed against the D party.)

      Mr. Richie ceases being a public figure for the purpose of the certification of candidates for the ballot required by TX law. His successor has the honor of submitting the name of the Presidential nominee to the ballot in the general election.

      As for your thoughts on the RPT; well, your guess as to what motivated them to ignore a request brought under the TX Public Information Act for public documents which were the basis for their candidate certifications, is as good as mine. ADMINISTRATOR

      P.S. Again, the RPT has sent the requested documents. GOOD THING the REPUBLICAN PARTY of TEXAS READS the “jbjd” BLOG

  13. Native Texan says:

    This just keeps getting better and better. Thanks “a” and “jbjd”.

    • jbjd says:

      Native Texan: Not so fast… just got a critical update from kjc. Good thing the RPT reads the “jbjd” blog! ADMINISTRATOR

  14. teakwoodkite says:

    Well done. How goes it with the Texas SOS, lately? I really appreciate the detail in your work. It take it she is personally aware of your efforts?

    • jbjd says:

      teakwoodkite: Thank you; as they say, ‘the devil is in the details.’ And funny you should ask who’s personally aware of my efforts. Wait till you read tomorrow’s post.

      As for the SoS, well, I will have to report back on that. ADMINISTRATOR

  15. […] I am able to amend some misleading information I posted in the previous article, BALLOT ENTITLEMENT LAWS should DISQUALIFY PRESIDENT OBAMA in TEXAS. How they came to aid in this clarification, is a […]

  16. teakwoodkite says:

    “Did the party chairs perpetrate fraud by swearing to eligibility without checking?”

    Doesn’t this cut two ways? In response, one could plead negligence, which would be fraud minus intent? (“without checking”) On the other hand, if intent is present and may be proven….a higher threshold to achieve?
    (acitizenonthego, interesting comment.)

    “Texas law requires the candidate to be constitutionally eligible and this requirement does not restrict the right to hold office and the constitutional and statutory provisions must be strictly construed against eligibility if the provisions “must be strictly construed against ineligibility”.

    …I am a simple kite…does this infer that Texas law is well and narrowly defined, as to allow for very little latitude as to who can be placed on the ballot? If so, do the remedies have a long history of settled Texas case law and what outcome? I ask because, there are a finite amount of states posessing similar requirements. Are there enough similarites from state to state to prevent any action being challenged at the federal appelate level. (aka the 9th circus or shopping in general?

    If I was red teaming this, one senerio would be how to best slow walk this, until it was a mute point legally…these folks habitutally choose expiedency over the the law…so under the bus they go, since nobody in this current admin “takes one for the team”).

    • jbjd says:

      teakwoodkite: Without citations, I don’t know what cases you are paraphrasing. But I am not proposing anyone in TX except the RPT, which has standing, goes into court. They could get an immediate injunction keeping the President off the ballot. And, I told them how, on the blog. But here’s the thing.

      People should be up in arms that Boyd Richie, Chair of the TDP, waited 2 years to produce evidence which would have established 2 years ago, the only basis for getting Mr. Obama on the ballot was his application. People should be screaming that the whole COLB / long form birth certificate ploy was paid campaign advertising. And once they get that neither document means anything, as evidenced by the fact, neither was used as evidence of ballot eligibility in a ballot eligibility state; maybe they will scream, yet.

      The ‘game’ has been over for a long time. But not enough people ‘get it.’ Even though the ‘proof’ is laid out all over this blog.

      If eligibility is a prerequisite to getting on the ballot in any state; and the only evidence of eligibility offered is … well, none; why aren’t people spreading this news all over the blogosphere? Indeed, the people shouting the loudest are (paid) supporters of the President, who previously left me alone but who, perhaps seeing the writing on the wall, have ratcheted up their vitriol over the past few days.

      We were duped; simple as that. And no ballot challenge in the world would be necessary to keep a Constitutionally ineligible candidate off the ballot, if we just understood how our electoral system works, and then, spread the word.

      The fraud is, there was reason to doubt the President’s eligibility based on the campaign’s focused strategy to disguise ‘vital documents’ pointing to where he was born; but party officials swore he was eligible, anyway. ADMINISTRATOR

      • teakwoodkite says:

        Thanks jbjd. Spot on.

        • jbjd says:

          teakwoodkite: Yes; but aside from the impact with respect to the ballot entitlement laws in TX, Mr. Richie’s submission of Mr. Obama’s ballot application as the sole indicator he is federally qualified for office (a requirement tied technically to the entitlement to appear on the general election ballot); this issue has implications for every ballot eligibility state, and to voters in all states. If the Chair of the state political party would rather admit, his federal eligibility determination is based only on the candidate’s ballot application; than produce an image of a COLB or long form birth certificate which is only part of a political advertising campaign; then why would anyone vote for the man whose re-election campaign spawned that intentionally misleading ad in the first place? ADMINISTRATOR

  17. […] are able to transmit to little more than the candidate’s name, address, and date of birth. BALLOT ENTITLEMENT LAWS should DISQUALIFY PRESIDENT OBAMA in TEXAS. This means that, with respect to the names of the Presidential candidates which are submitted to […]

  18. […] The legal standard for getting the name of the Presidential candidate from the major political party on the general election ballot in Texas is spelled out in §192.031 PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT.  The first of four prongs to entitlement is, the person must be “federally qualified” for the job. Id. But no law specifically designates whose responsibility it is to determine either in the first instance, whether the candidate is federally qualified; or, at some point after the political party has electronically submitted the name of the candidate to the Secretary of State (“SoS”) and before she certifies the name to the ballot, whether anyone has previously determined s/he is federally qualified for the job. However, we know that the Secretary does not verify Constitutional eligibility; and so, Ms. Canon determined to find out on what documentary basis both the RPT (Republican Party of TX) and TDP had determined their 2012 Presidential candidates’ federal qualifications. The RPT returned their candidate applications which, like those applications designed by the Secretary for Independent and Write-in candidates, contained the Constitutionally qualified self-affirmation. The TDP returned the candidates’ unauthenticated applications. (See BALLOT ENTITLEMENT LAWS should DISQUALIFY PRESIDENT OBAMA in TEXAS.) […]

  19. Pamila Wiersma says:

    Thoughtful blog post ! I am thankful for the details – Does anyone know where my assistant might acquire a fillable 2013 TX 130-U form to edit ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: