Election 2008: Texas Turns... Yellow?

As some will know, I am a pretty big supporter of third-party rights in this country, believing that both of the two major parties are in need of some serious revision. So I was delighted to hear about a suit filed in Texas by Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, contesting the presence of John McCain and Barack Obama on the ballots in November.

According to the campaign's press release:

"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."
Texas election code §192.031 requires that the “written certification” of the “party’s nominees” be delivered “before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before election day.” Because neither candidate had been nominated by the official filing deadline, the Barr campaign argues it was impossible for the candidates to file under state law.
"Supreme Court justices should recognize that their responsibility is to apply the law as passed by the Legislature, and the law is clear that the candidates cannot be certified on the ballot if their filings are late," says Drew Shirley, a local attorney for the Barr campaign, who is also a Libertarian candidate for the Texas Supreme Court.
A 2006 Texas Supreme Court decision ruled that state law "does not allow political parties or candidates to ignore statutory deadlines."

It's true that too often, the two major parties break election rules and allowed to get away with it because both parties violated them. Essentially, why would McCain complain about Obama breaking a law, when he knows that Obama will do the same thing right back to him? This is an example of why multiple parties keep the election process [more] honest. Smaller parties are forced to know the election laws forwards and backwards, because they have to follow every letter to survive the attacks the major parties put on them (see, for example, the removal of Barr from the West Virginia and Connecticut ballots).

Other states have kicked Barr and others off the ballot because they did not meet filing deadlines. If it's fair to remove candidates for failing to meet deadlines when they represent minor parties, then turnabout should be fair play. If I were a resident of Texas (or any other state that placed their deadline earlier than August 27, the day the Democrats officially declared Obama their candidate), I would be tremendously offended that the major parties thought they were more important than my state's laws.

Of course the point of deadlines so early is to make certification for minor parties extremely difficult. But if the major parties are too cocky to read the rules of every state, then the Secretaries of State for the various states should boot the punks off their ballot and let parties that know how to read appear on the ballot.

Of course I'm not hopeful for the success of this lawsuit. The judges in Texas are elected on a partisan basis, so they owe a debt to their parties. And when it gets appealed up, the judges were all appointed by partisan elected officials, so they still owe a debt. Not quite fair, I know, but it would be nice if judges would simply read the law and apply it equally in all cases. Either they filed by August 26 or they didn't. Risk getting kicked off the bench to do the right thing.

But as we all know, "...some are more equal than others."

Public Understanding of Bankruptcy Law

I'm deep into this semester, and my schedule is quite heavy. In addition to coursework in Constitutional Law, Criminal Procedure, Secured Transactions, Federal Criminal Law, and Evidence, I am in the depths of Moot Court (and that is all I'm allowed to say about Moot Court, apparently) as well as representing the student body as a member of the Indiana University Student Association. That would explain why I haven't blogged since I got back from the ABA Annual Meeting in New York (which, incidentally, was one of the most enjoyable law-related activities I have yet to participate in).

There is no doubt that the press sometimes picks up stories about the law and frames them in the context of "Judge is evil for enforcing law X". Sometimes I agree; the law in question is sometimes abhorrent and should be overturned on Constitutional grounds. Even better, here in Indiana, let a jury find that the law is something other than it seems to be. But other times, the press is making something sound horrible without considering anything in the world of the law.

Today the AP picked up a story about a bankruptcy court ordering a victim to pay back a thief. The story begins:

Mark Poveromo feels ripped off twice over. A judge ordered him to repay money he collected from a builder convicted of stealing from him — and told him to kick in the thief's attorney fees and court costs, too.
Some legal experts say the case, in which a criminal case in Connecticut intersects a bankruptcy judgment filed in St. Louis, shows a need for Congress to revise the nation's bankruptcy laws to better treat people who are awarded money as part of ruling in a criminal case.

Apparently, the builder stole a lot of money from Mr. Poveromo. Then, two months before being convicted, the thief declared bankruptcy because, well, he was bankrupt. The thief paid off a large portion of the stolen property. Then the bankruptcy judge took it back because, as we all know, Article 9 of the U.C.C. says unsecured creditors are on the bottom of the totem pole (nevermind that the reporter never mentions the law behind this judge's reasoning... just make the judge out to be a jerk).

Now, a few months ago I may have thought to myself that this is completely unfair; a miscarriage of justice! But I've taken a few weeks of Secured Transactions now, and, unlike the general populace, I won't fall for this reporter's trickery.

The story advocates altering the bankruptcy code to allow victims of crimes to essentially become secured creditors after their judgment. As the law exists now, as Mr. Poveromo puts it, "Crime does pay." Obviously, this would be a hard law to write. Why limit the law to protect only victims of crime? If your legislative intent is to protect victims, shouldn't every victorious plaintiff in a tort claim be granted this secured status? And what makes a victim more important than a commercial lender? After all, if a new class of secured parties suddenly appears, lenders will be less likely to grant loans (because they will be in a worse position), or at least will demand higher interest rates to compensate them for the additional risk.

Do I feel bad for victims who, unfortunately, don't get the protections of Article 9? Sure. They've been wronged, and they deserve restitution. But why should we put them above commercial lenders, or anyone that was wise enough to get a security agreement? Mr. Poveromo's lawyer should have done enough research to know that the thief had filed for bankruptcy.

Of course, my biggest complaint here is the reporter who covered this story. He should have at least put the judge's reasoning in the article instead of making judges out to be evil dictators taking money from victims to compensate thieves (or, as one law professor was quoted, making "outrageous decision[s]" and executing a "miscarriage of justice"). If the populace feels judges are acting improperly, the press is certainly responsible for leading them in that direction.