Libertarians Win a Hearing in Debate Case (Bush exit strategy !)

[joeunderdog]

The third and final debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry has been thrown into doubt after a state judge in Arizona ordered a hearing on whether the event, scheduled for Wednesday, should be halted because the Libertarian Party's nominee for president has not been invited.

Judge F. Pendleton Gaines III instructed the debate's hosts, Arizona State University and the Commission on Presidential Debates, to appear in his courtroom in Phoenix tomorrow to respond to a lawsuit filed last week by the Libertarians.

snip

Judge Gaines was appointed to the bench in 1999 by Gov. Jane Hull, a Republican. In his show-cause order issued Friday morning, the judge also required that the university and the debate commission be served with the lawsuit by Friday afternoon. An attorney for the university accepted service, but security guards at the commission's headquarters in Washington ordered process-servers to leave the building, Mr. Euchner said.

Indeed, Mr. Badnarik and the Green Party nominee, David Cobb, were arrested Friday night after they crossed a police line at the presidential debate in St. Louis. Mr. Badnarik said he was trying to serve the lawsuit on a representative of the debate commission. The two candidates were released after being given tickets for trespassing and refusing a reasonable order from a policeman.

http://www.nysun.com/article/2962

[Democat]

1. This right wing judge will not be able to stop the debate

What's he going to do, order Bush and Kerry arrested if they show up?

The debate will happen, regardless of some right wing judge.

[sventvkg]

2. public university, public supported funds..They have no right

restricting this debate to only the dem and repug candidates..The Libertarian party for instance, is on the ballot in 48 states!!!! It's not fair and unconstitutional that they try to restrict it to only Repub and Dem. Sorry but this is true.

[PermanentRevolution]

3. Correct me if I'm wrong...

But isn't the Commission on Presidential Debates a private organization? How does Badnarik have legal standing to file a lawsuit against them in the first place? They can set whatever rules they want regarding inclusion criteria. And their criteria cleary states that any candidate who wants to appear in the debate must have at least 15% support in national polls.

From their site:

"3. Indicators of Electoral Support

The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly reported results at the time of the determination."

http://www.debates.org/pages/candsel2004.html

I'm unclear on exactly what ground this lawsuit is based. That ASU is sponsoring the debate doesn't mean that they're responsible for the candidate selection process chosen by the Debate Commission, and the Debate Commission is not in any way being funded by Arizona taxpayers. I don't see how this is going to move forwards.

[Tamyrlin79]

4. It is private... And THAT'S a PROBLEM

It is a private organization running a PUBLIC event. Umm. No. That means that they can set any arbitrary rules they want to and keep out anyone but the two-party candidates? No, it isn't fair, particularly when that private organization makes the rules to help maintain the status quo two-party duopoly. Do you have a private organization running the federal treasury? No. All of them have some sort of oversight and basis in law. In the political arena, no one party or candidate should have an institutionalized preference when running for office. A principle of fairness to all forbids it. Equal protection and all.

The rules that limit candidates must be reasonable and fair, like "can't be included if they aren't on the ballot in enough states to (theoretically) win the election". That's a sensible rule that is FAIR to everyone, whereas how it is now just excludes everyone but the Dems and Repubs. And the 15% rule is just too high. 5-10 would be much more reasonable. Eliminating fringe candidates but including anyone with a modicum of serious support.