Oklahoma Americans Elect Sues State Election Board to Place its Presidential Nominee on Ballot; Hearing Set for September 5

On August 31, the Oklahoma Americans Elect Party sued the State Board of Elections, over the Board’s refusal to let the party list its presidential candidate on the ballot. The state acknowledges that the Americans Elect Party is ballot-qualified, but says it won’t print the party’s presidential nominee on the ballot because the national leaders of Americans Elect don’t want that to happen. The case has a hearing on September 5, 2012, at 1:30 p.m., before a State Supreme Court referee.

The Oklahoma State Supreme Court frequently arranges for cases to be heard by a referee. Then the referee makes a summary of the evidence and arguments on both sides, and makes a conclusion, and lets the State Supreme Court decide whether it agrees or not. The case is Lawhorn v Ziriax. The state leaders of Americans Elect had nominated Gary Johnson on July 21, and the State didn’t react to that decision until August 29. The Attorney General had recommended to the State Board of Elections on August 17 that the state deny the request of the state party. But that opinion was kept secret until August 29.

Here is the brief. Here is the application, asking the State Supreme Court to hear the case. UPDATE: here is a news story about the lawsuit.


  1. give-me-liberty · · Reply

    Is there a chance the LP would sue as well if this fails, seeing as how the previous lawsuit was terminated in bad faith?

  2. Jed Siple · · Reply

    One day after they start printing ballots.

  3. Richard Winger · · Reply

    #1, no, this will be the only lawsuit. The other lawsuit is still alive but won’t move ahead until after the election.

    #2, because the State Supreme Court has taken this action, and also because the Democratic Party won’t have nominated for president and vice-president yet, Oklahoma won’t print any ballots starting on September 4.

  4. What are their chances of winning?

  5. Richard Winger · · Reply

    #4, I am optimistic, because the Supreme Court could have just refused to hear the case. Instead they set a hearing in front of a referee that they appointed.

  6. jonathan · · Reply

    Awesome thanks for the news.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: