As noted earlier, on August 18, a Republican Party official in Pennsylvania filed a challenge to Bob Barr’s appearance on the Pennsylvania ballot. Pennsylvania law provides for stand-ins on petitions, and provides that petitions should include a substitution committee, so that if any candidate named on the petition withdraws, the substitution committee is in charge of naming the replacement candidate. The lawsuit complains that the Libertarian petition, which was circulated between February and August, should not have been circulated with the stand-in, after the late May national convention had determined the actual nominee. The complaint argues that the state should print the stand-in presidential candidate on the November ballot, instead of Bob Barr. The stand-in is Libertarian Party activist Rochelle Etzel.
The lawsuit attached 139 pages of exhibits. They include the national Libertarian Party Bylaws and Convention Rules (14 pages); the Minutes of the National Convention, including appendices that give the roll-call vote for all nominations, both public office and party office (86 pages); the Minutes of the National Committee meeting of May 26 (7 pages); some internal e-mail between the national party and the Pennsylvania party (2 pages); an inventory of each petition sheet, listing the circulators for all 1,430 sheets (28 pages); and copies of Bob Barr’s candidate affidavit and the Substitution Committee Certificate (2 pages).
None of this material is damaging to the Libertarian Party or Bob Barr. The internal e-mail from David Jahn merely says, “We need to continue collecting signatures under Rochelle and Chuck Boust names. Once we get enough to qualify them for the ballot, we’ll submit the nominations papers in their names. Then they will withdraw and we’ll substitute their names with the actual candidates. I know it sounds weird, but that is the way we have to do it in Pennsylvania.”
The logical flaw in the lawsuit is that it assumes the national convention in May changed the presidential nominee of the Pennsylvania Libertarian Party. In law, national conventions have no authority whatsoever. They only have moral authority. Any state party (whether a major party or a minor party) is free to choose its own presidential candidate, since in law, only state parties nominate candidates for presidential elector. The presidential electors are the true candidates in November, and if a state party ignores the choice of the national party, it may do so. Examples are the Alabama Democratic Party in 1968 and 1964, the Democratic Parties of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina in 1948, the Arizona Libertarian Party in 2000, and the Republican Parties of California and South Dakota in 1912.
The exhibits seem to be an instance of giving a judge far more information about the Libertarian Party than the judge could possibly want or need to decide the case, but it will be an asset for any historian some day researching the Libertarian Party as it functioned in 2008.
“None of this material is damaging to the Libertarian Party or Bob Barr”
Is it safe to say, then, that the case against Barr is likely to fail?
Yes
Wouldn’t changing the name on the petition confuse people and lead to doubled signatures?
good but you never know.
BTW show the love and give me a thumbs up
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4570.html
Jonathon,
I read your article and it was thoughtful, well-written and relevant. I gave it a thumbs up. Good job!
There is no mechanism under Pennsylvania law to change the names on nomination papers. I think the argument is that there should be no LP Presidential candidate on the ballot, the idea being there should not be that choice for the voters. The move to strike Barr would leave no candidate on the ballot as the candidate nominated by the political body has withdrawn. Also, good article Jonathon!
The “Pennsylvania Republican Party official” in question needs to go hide under a rock. He just made himself look stupid. I hope he’s not a lawyer by trade, because he’s a bad one if so. I don’t even need to know the legal details to know this is silly. If the judge involved actually affirms this inanity he needs to join said “Pennsylvania Republican Party official” under said rock, and polish his resume.
Just curious.
What is the story with the “Republican Parties of California and South Dakota in 1912” ?
I don’t think I’ve ever heard about this before.
A State may vest the nomination of presidential candidates in a national party organization.
See Florida for example. The major parties are given the option of using the presidential preference primary to either (a) choose the nominee; or (b) choose delegates to the national nominating convention.
Similarly, minor parties that are affiliated with a national party that holds a nominating convention are entitled to place the nominees of the convention on the ballot.
Minor parties that are not affiliated with a national party may place their candidates on the ballot, but only by petition (1% of registered voters).
It would be an absurd construction that a state party could be affiliated with a national party that holds a nominating convention, and thereby gain authority to place its candidates names on the ballot, yet not place the candidates nominated by the national convention on the ballot.
It’s not quite accurate to say “any state party … is free to choose its own presidential candidate.” In North Carolina, the bylaws are specific on this point:
(Article XII)
Pursuant to the relevant statutes of the state of North Carolina, the LPNC Executive Committee shall submit to the State Board of Elections the names of the nominees for President and Vice President of the United States as chosen by the national convention of the Libertarian Party, and shall appoint and submit the names of Presidential Electors committed to those nominees.
I’m pretty sure this is legally binding. In theory, the restricton could removed “at any time,” since our Bylaws may be amended by initiative. But the process is fairly difficult… besides, state law is not set in stone, either — not while the legislature is in session!
In Pennsylvania, the Libertarian Party is not a recognized political party. It is a “political body” administered by a “committee to fill vacancies,” and its national affiliation has no bearing on state law.
The LP should pursue sanctions against the guy who filed this suit. The penalties that the courts imposed on Ralph Nader and Carl Romanelli have intimidated a lot of people out of trying to run for office in Pennsylvania. Some pushing back is in order.
In 1912, the Republican Parties of California and South Dakota were controlled by people who passionately supported Theodore Roosevelt, even though Roosevelt was the Progressive Party nominee. So the Republican Parties of those two states just said, “We want Roosevelt; we don’t care what happened at the Republican National Convention”. Therefore Taft was not on the ballot in either state. In California he was a write-in candidate, and got one-half of 1% of the vote even though he was the incumbent president and the national Republican Party candidate for president. Taft could have filed as an independent candidate in South Dakota, but he didn’t. California at the time didn’t permit independent candidates for president, although that wasn’t clearly settled until 1924.
Regarding the article on the Nolan Chart, is this the same Jonathan Cymberknopf who, as a prolific blogger for the Reform Party’s Max Linn during the 2006 gubernatorial campaign in Florida, pathetically tried to raise the issue of Republican Charlie Crist’s sexual orientation during that campaign?
Though few Floridians paid any attention to his mindless ramblings at the time, Jonathan’s sleazy blogging during that campaign was reminiscent of the smear campaign waged against Mary Ruwart prior to the LP’s national convention in Denver earlier this year.
If this is really the same guy, it figures he’d be supporting Bob Barr.
Pennsylvania is very particular with their petitions; I’m not sure ANY signatures would be accepted if some petitions had Etzel and others had Barr.
http://www.dos.state.pa.us/elections/lib/elections/020_election_calendar/2008electioncalendar.pdf
Pennsylvania Election Calendar.
As stated above “As noted earlier, on August 18, a Republican Party official in Pennsylvania filed a challenge to Bob Barr’s appearance on the Pennsylvania ballot.”
Per PA Election Calendar:
AUGUST 8 Last day to file objections to nomination papers nominating political body candidates (including independent candidates) or minor political party candidates.
AUGUST 11 Last day that may be fixed by the Court for hearings on objections to nomination papers.
Also:
AUGUST 21 Last day to file substituted nomination certificates to fill vacancies caused by the withdrawal of candidates nominated at the primary election or by nomination papers.
YET neither the D’s nor the Rs have officially nominated a presidential candidate as of August 25? Note: Clinton caried the PA Primary.
Pennsylvania has allowed candidate substitution for years. A challenge on this basis has no merit.
The LP should win, if for no other reason, they didn’t substitute ELECTORS, which is who the votes are actually tabulated for.
They should win even if they substituted electors.
So by Richard’s own posting of info, WHY is the LNC thinking they have a case worth pursuing in NH, with plans to file on the 27th?
I imagine a judge could well write:
“The logical flaw in the lawsuit is that it assumes the national convention in May changed the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. In law, national conventions have no authority whatsoever. They only have moral authority. Any state party (whether a major party or a minor party) is free to choose its own presidential candidate, since in law, only state parties nominate candidates for presidential elector. The presidential electors are the true candidates in November, and if a state party ignores the choice of the national party, it may do so.”
Seth, the difference is that the NHLP wants to be able to substitute Barr for Phillies, but is unable to do so by state law. If the NHLP wanted Phillies on the ballot, then it would be the same, but they don’t.
Speaking as a member of LPNH’s ExecComm, this entirely misses 2 things:
1) LPNH held a convention and picked a candidate. Barr was not our choice, nor was the choice “To be determined later”, nor was the choice NOTA.
2) LPNH ExecComm has never held a vote wanting to substitute. Discussed it, yes. But even if we did, it’s unclear that we even have the authority under the bylaws and constitution of LPNH to order it. We couldn’t even replace a nominee (Governor) decided at the same convention as we decided on Prez.
3) LNC is bringing the lawsuit, NOT LPNH. In fact, they asked us if we’d join them, NOT the reverse.
Seth,
You need to read DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. WISCONSIN EX REL. LA FOLLETTE, 450 U. S. 107 (1981). If you want the LPNH to withdraw its affiliation from the LNC, that’s one thing. But if you want the LPNH to retain its affiliation that’s another.
Actually, as I pointed in a private email to many on the LNC, Richard Winger, and other interested parties last night, should the LNC attempt to disaffiliate LPNH, the quote from Richard above is in fact a valid defense: While National (and it’s convention) might have a moral authority, they certainly have no legal one, and having no legal one means the choice must have been one of a moral/ethical nature.
Given our repeated complaints about ballot access timing/difficulties which we made National aware of, which they dismissed and preferred to blame on individuals, we faced a moral dilemma of how to best serve our members. (Risk having no ballot line again, or start early with a candidate we felt good with)
We (the LPNH board at the time, plus open discussions with others during board meetings) considered the options, made all parties aware of the options and issues, and held a public nomination convention with the LNC’s full knowledge, witnessed by our Rep. NOTA was always an option, and could have won if a simple majority wished.
If what we were doing was immoral or unethical in the eyes of the LNC, they should have had their representative speak up right there and then, with a warning to our voting membership, or forever hold their peace. Or at least file for disaffilation right there and then (by the next LNC meeting). The fact they didn’t says that the decision, while unpopular with many of them, didn’t meet any real standard by which they felt sure we’d crossed a moral line worthy of tossing us out of the LP. Filing now would amount to a case of sour grapes over split milk. You can’t let stand an immoral choice until you suddenly feel like filing a complaint about it later on – either it was wrong in the first place, or it wasn’t, so a failure to take action says that it wasn’t immoral.
Perhaps LPNH can nominate whomever it likes. But after having their one-state nominating “convention,” (which I suspect most people understood to be nonbinding and not final), I believe they went ahead and sent delegates to the national convention. If you were planning on effectively forming your own party and rejecting all but your chosen nominee, I think it’s disingenuous to then try to shape who the national nominee is. You’re either part of the Libertarian Party or you’re not.
It sounds like you guys really don’t like Bob Barr and that you have a legitimate grievance over ballot access. I can’t speak to the latter but the former was hashed out at the convention. New Hampshire and many others were heard but their view did not prevail. If our state affiliates don’t view ballot access for our chosen nominee as a formality but rather as another battle for the candidates, it will do enormous long-term harm to the libertarian movement.
I will personally go up and help the New Hampshire LP collect signatures next time round if tomorrow they relent and remove Phillies from the ballot before this unnecessary lawsuit has to be filed. Or we can all dig in about our grievances and undermine our best opportunity in a presidential election in a long time.
In regards to South Dakota in 1912. I’ve heard that the voters elected Republican electors, who decided to pick Roosevelt over Taft.
Re: #12. In 1912, California was still electing individual presidential electors (Wilson received 2 electoral votes). Did the names of Wilson, Roosevelt, or Debs appear on the ballot?
The practice of California in 1912 does not define the limits of how a State may appoint its presidential electors any more than the practice of Tennessee in 1796 did.
State law could vest the authority to nominate the presidential candidate in a national convention, or even a national primary, and then let that candidate name the presidential electors.
It is safe to say that the low-life Republican Party, the party of Bush, will stop at nothing to demean, slander and steal their way into office. These animals are the most un-American bunch I have ever seen.