As noted in yesterday’s blog post, 13 states recently submitted an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that Court to hear Arizona’s appeal in Brewer v Nader. The issues are whether out-of-staters can collect signatures in Arizona, and whether Arizona’s June 4 independent presidential petition deadline is unconstitutional.
If you live in one of the 13 states in which the Attorney General signed on to this amicus, you may wish to complaint to your state’s Attorney General. The 13 Attorneys General consist of these five Democrats: Mike McGrath of Montana (although he is is only in office for another week); Joseph Biden III of Delaware; Nancy Rogers of Ohio (although she is about to go out of office); Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma (who plans to run for Governor in 2010); and Bruce Salzburg of Wyoming.
The eight Republican Attorneys General are: Troy King of Alabama; Talis Colberg of Alaska; John Suthers of Colorado; Bill McCollum of Florida; Lawrence Wasden of Idaho; Mike Cox of Michigan; Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire; and Larry Long of South Dakota.
You might mention that if every state had a June 4 petition deadline, in the past, the Republican Party could not have run any candidates in 1854. In 1854, the Republican Party was founded on July 6, and in the fall congressional elections, it won a plurality in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Also, Theodore Roosevelt didn’t declare his candidacy as the Progressive Party nominee in 1912 until August; and Robert La Follette didn’t declare his independent progressive candidacy until July 4, 1924. So, if all states had had a deadline like Arizona, all these important political developments would have been strangled.
With all these attorney generals signing on does this mean the case is more likely to go to the Supreme Court? Also, why the resistance on this case going to the Supreme Court; wouldn’t it help ballot access if the Supreme Court ruled in Nader’s favor or is that highly unlikely?
Let me guess, someone will be putting a posting here soon that says the Libertarian, Constitution, and Republican parties will soon end up in the “dustbin of history.”
Naw, they’re more like “History’s ashtray”.
If the Arizona case is accepted by the US Supreme Court, of course Nader might win in that Court. But the way it is now (at least on the issue of who can circulate) is already pretty good. The only two decisions the US Supreme Court has put out on the issue of who can circulate have been victories. Those two are Meyer v Grant, which said that states can’t make it illegal to pay circulators; and Buckley v American Constitutional Law Foundation, which said that states can’t force circulators to be registered voters.
By the way, the 3 judges who ruled against Oklahoma in the 10th circuit early this month, on the issue of out-of-state circulators, include two appointees of Democratic presidents and one appointee of a Republican president.
So, it’s pretty redundant for this case to go the Supreme Court then, or what? Sorry, I am not very scholarly when it comes to these issues and thanks for any clarification.
P.S it would be good press for this case to go to the Supreme Court and for Nader to win.
It’s not redundant if the case wins in the US Supreme Court. That would have the effect of nullifying the 8th circuit decision from North Dakota (Initiative & Referendum Institute v Jaeger), which currently hurts not only in North Dakota, but in South Dakota and Nebraska.
NO official ballots in 1854.
EQUAL nominating petitions NOW.
P.R. and A.V. NOW — before it is too late and the Red/Blue gerrymander party hack MONSTERS cause Civil War II to start.
The sentence that matters, from Winger’s mouth:
On December 17, Montana’s Attorney General asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Arizona’s appeal in Brewer v Nader…
Emphasis on MONTANA.
Richard:
By the way, the 3 judges who ruled against Oklahoma in the 10th circuit early this month, on the issue of out-of-state circulators, include two appointees of Democratic presidents and one appointee of a Republican president.
Eric:
Oh, you mean like Justice Brier who was appointed by Bush I, but votes just as liberal as Ginsberg?
Hey Richie pooh, ever hear of the concept of REPUBLICAN IN NAME ONLY? Otherwise known as a RINO.
What’s the big deal about a “friend of the court” brief being filed? I hope the Supreme Court does agree to hear this case, as I believe it will rule in Nader’s favor. With Nader’s name on the case, it will get more publicity.
I’m watching this case closely, as my state of Mississippi also prohibits out-of-state petition circulators.
BTW: Justice Breyer was appointed by Bill Clinton, after he had appointed Ginsburg.
D. Frank Robinson Says:
December 24th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Memo to Mr. Dondero: Have some eggnog and chill.
Eric Dondero Says:
December 24th, 2008 at 5:22 am
Winger bias again: Doesn’t even mention the fact that THE MONTANA ATTORNEY GENERAL IS A DEMOCRAT!!!!
My gosh Winger. Are you that much of a patsy for the Democrat Party? What are you on their payroll or something? … [snip] …
Gene Says:
December 24th, 2008 at 5:53 am
Give it a rest Dondero. Richard is one of the greatest allies ballot access activists have. By lashing out at an ally this way, you undermine your own credibility – not his.
Phil Sawyer adds:
That is really funny (but sad) that Eric Dondero implied that Richard Winger is “a patsy for the Democratic Party.†Mr. Dondero is one of the people famous for not being able to decide whether he is a Libertarian or a Republican (the party that will be a minor-sized party by the year of 2012). At any rate, both parties (along with the Constitution Party) are bourgeois conservative parties that are going to end up on the trash heap of history. The Proletarian Revolution is now happening in this country and it is probably irreversible at this point.
Watch what happens in California. The bourgeois ruling class is attempting to cure the state’s budget problems by loading everything on the backs of the working class. We are simply not going to let that happen.
Stop the bail-outs of the ruling-class financial institutions and start to heal the suffering of the people!
Umm, excuse me Mr. Sawyer, but some of us believe that the Libertarian Party and the Republican Party are basically one in the same. Some facts, that might have escaped your attentions:
1. Libertarian Party founded in 1971 by the Colorado State Chairman of the Young Republicans.
2. 8 of 9 of all past Libertarian Party Presidential candidates came from the Republican Party, or have since returned to the GOP.
3. The 2008 Libertarian Party Presidential ticket was made up of two Republicans: Bob Barr and Wayne Root.
4. 10 out of 11 of all Libertarian State Legislators ever elected to office, were either elected as dual-party Republicans, or caucused with the Republican Party immediately upon being sworn into office.
The Libertarian Party exists much like the Conservative Party of New York State. It is there to put pressure on the GOP to move more in the libertarian direction on issues. When the GOP moves away from libertarians, the LP is there as an alternative vehicle for frustrated libertarian-leaning GOP voters.
I’m lashing out at an “ally”?
Need I remind you that Winger is an “ally” who costed me about $500.00 on day two years ago, by requesting that I come up to Tulsa, Oklahoma, while I was in Dallas, TX to be the guest speaker to his Ballot Access gathering.
At the time I was making about $300 to $400 a day petitioning for a Dallas initiative. More on weekends. I gave up my Sunday at Winger’s request, and spent about $80.00 round-trip to drive the 4 hours up there, and 4 hours back.
Only to find out that Winger had done changed the location on me, and had forgotten to call me on my cell phone that morning to inform me of that.
Result: I spend an entire day driving up to Tulsa, Oklahoma for nothing, and lost an entire day of petitioning.
That’s what “allies” do for ya.
Eric Dondero Says:
… [snip] … The Libertarian Party exists much like the Conservative Party of New York State. It is there to put pressure on the GOP to move more in the libertarian direction on issues. When the GOP moves away from libertarians, the LP is there as an alternative vehicle for frustrated libertarian-leaning GOP voters.
Phil Sawyer responds:
Sort of like DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) within the Democratic Party, I guess – if you want to look at it that way; however, DSA does not run candidates on its own. Furthermore, I am sure that many Libertarians would be against that approach.
Neither the Libertarian Party nor the Republican Party are any longer good for anything, at any rate. Imperialist bourgeois capitalism, in this country, has reached and passed its zenith. Conservative bourgeois political parties (such as GOP, LP, and ConP – not ComP) have outlived any purpose that they once had.
Down with the bourgeois ruling class! Up with the Proletarian Revolution!
Merry Christmas to all!
“Eric Dondero Says:
December 25th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Umm, excuse me Mr. Sawyer, but some of us believe that the Libertarian Party and the Republican Party are basically one in the same.”
LOL!!!!!!
I wasn’t in charge of the meeting location in Oklahoma. The people who called the meeting set the location, and then they changed it a few blocks. Eric Dondero had the cell phone numbers of several of the people at the meeting, and he could have called to ask the new location, but he didn’t. Although I had my cell phone turned off while the meeting was in progress, Jimmy Cook, chair of the Oklahoma LP, had his cell phone turned on. Also if Eric Dondero had called my cell phone even while it was turned off, he could have left a message and when I turned the phone on in the break, I would have then received it.
If Eric regularly makes $300 to $400 per day when he is working, he has a far higher annual income than I do. I gave $10,000 to the Oklahoma ballot access initiative. I don’t believe he gave a penny.
Richard, is there going to be another try for the initiative to reduce the signature requirement in Oklahoma for minor party and independent candidates? Since the out-of-state petition ban has been rescinded it should make getting an initiative on the ballot easier than it was last time. It would be good to try to get this on the 2010 ballot. If this initiative fails to qualify for the ballot or qualifies for the ballot but does not pass, I think that the LP should go for ballot status in Oklahoma again for 2012.
Perhaps this initiative could be run at the same time as something with Paul Jacob, like Spending Limits and/or Term Limits.
Dear Richard, for the rest of your life I am going to hound you about this. Get used to it. Can you imagine how pissed off I was that day, sitting at that Pizza place waiting for you all to show up, and then finally realizing I’d been stood up and had to drive all the way back to Dallas on my own dime?
Needless to say, my Petitioner Supervisor at the time, nice fellow from Colorado, wasn’t too pleased either that his top petitioner lost a whole day’s worth of signatures, especially since he had given me the prime spot at a Wal-Mart, and since the deadline for turning in the signatures was two days after that.
You might want to jot this little incident down as among the biggest screw-ups of your entire life. I don’t plan to hound you for reimbursement – $300 to $400 or so – though it would be nice.
But I will continually raise this subject for others to be aware of, here and at other forums. Those who praise you, and think you’re the next coming of Jesus Christ, need to know that you have some inherent flaws, and have royally screwed some people over in the past.
Andy is correct. Piggy-backing the effort on Paul Jacob’s deal would make a lot of sense.
Phil Sawyer:
Neither the Libertarian Party nor the Republican Party are any longer good for anything, at any rate. Imperialist bourgeois capitalism, in this country, has reached and passed its zenith.
Eric:
Does that include capitalism from small businesses? You want to put them out of business too, through higher taxation, and greater regulations? Stalin tried that in the 1930s. Ended up starving 20 million Russians and Ukraniuns to death.
And btw, there’s basically no such thing as “big business capitalism” left in the United States. The government essentially owns all big business these days, through regulation and extremely high corporate taxes. The only real capitalism that is left is small business.
#17: If there is another initiative petition to change Oklahoma ballot access law then – given the extraordinary expense of that undertaking – the initiative should basically abolish petitioning for candidate all together.
I have drafted a bill which the cannot get a sponsor in the Oklahoma legislature and would not be considered regardless. I propose to reduce the signatures required for a candidate to get on the ballot one – the candidate. In part this is because Oklahoma also prohibits write-in candidates. Furthermore, the filing fees for a candidate should be refunded in full if the candidate receives two votes and one-half if the candidate receives only one vote. This provision for refunds would require that every vote be counted and enable a candidate to sue for the refund if all votes were not counted.
Oklahoma uses scanners to count ballots and a hard copy ballot exist for every voter. Ballot counting disputes should come under ‘strict scrutiny’ of the courts.
With a change in political fortunes, the State Election Board in Oklahoma will have a new Secretary (Republican). I expect problems from this new regime.
There are two other ways Oklahoma ballot access laws may be fixed…(1) Bob Barr’s lawsuit is still pending; (2) Senator Randy Brogdon is planning to re-introduce his bill, and this time, for the first time in history, Republicans have control of both houses of the legislature.
Comment 17 is actually stuck in moderation. What you are referring to as 17 is 19 on my screen. 18 (on my screen) was to see if it would post if I posted in parts.
PS) At any rate, both parties [LP and NS-GOP] (along with the Constitution Party) are bourgeois conservative parties that are going to end up on the trash heap of history.
P) The libertarians shouldn’t be. See
http://mises.org/story/2099
Conclusion is:
“Genuine libertarianism is very much left wing. It’s revolutionary. The long and tragic alliance of libertarians with the right against the spectre of state socialism is coming to a close, as it served no purpose after the fall of the Soviet Union and so-called “conservatives†have subsequently taken to letting their true big-government-on-steroids colors fly…. [I]n the period since the demise of the Soviet Union, both the radicals and moderates among the left have been subconsciously seeking a new radical creed to orient themselves upon to replace Marxism…. I believe that radical libertarians … will be most effective when they overcome any lingering right wing cultural contamination of their libertarian views and embrace their inherent radicalism — which is most at home on the left. For as the radicals go, so do the moderates grudgingly follow in small steps…. It’s time for libertarians to stop fighting the left and take up the challenge of leading the left.â€
Overwhelming supporting evidence in the article.
Please don’t bother to argue against the thesis without reading the supporting evidence.
PS) The Proletarian Revolution is now happening in this country and it is probably irreversible at this point.
P) Entirely doomed, just like it was in the USSR and everywhere else.
ED) 1. Libertarian Party founded in 1971 by the Colorado State Chairman of the Young Republicans.
2. 8 of 9 of all past Libertarian Party Presidential candidates came from the Republican Party, or have since returned to the GOP.
3. The 2008 Libertarian Party Presidential ticket was made up of two Republicans: Bob Barr and Wayne Root.
4. 10 out of 11 of all Libertarian State Legislators ever elected to office, were either elected as dual-party Republicans, or caucused with the Republican Party immediately upon being sworn into office.
p) Precisely the problem with the Libertarian Party as it currently is. It needs to cut the umbilical cord to the Republicans and conservatives completely and irrevocably, to rediscover why liberal and libertarian sound so similar, and why Frederic Bastiat sat on the left in the French Parliament (from where we draw the categories of left and right). Then, and only then, can the Libertarian Party become effective.
The idea that the Libertarians belong in the same general grouping with the Constitutionalists and Republicans is what belongs in the sewer of history. The space between the Libertarians, Democrats and Greens is the new frontier of politics where the future exists. See http://voteliberalist.org/ for an interesting UK experiment.
Incidentally, left/libertarian/centrist is the plurality cluster on the Nolan quiz at US colleges (I have tens of thousands of data points I personally gathered for this), and studies show that the vast majority of people never change their party after the age of 30.
If anyone reading is interested in donating $300 or portion thereof so that a new College Libertarian Organizing Committee can file 501c3 paperwork, please write travellingcircus at gmail dot.com and CC mdh underscore lists at yahoo dot com. We have the chair of the WV LP, Matt Harris, who has experience in filing 501c3 paperwork and is willing to do so if we can raise the requisite fee.
Mission statement:
Steering committee for a proposed new effort to create professional libertarian college field outreach. Once the group is created, we will raise funds and hire field organizers to travel, create and expand
campus networks.
Could also work for things like Vans Warped Tour – we could have a libertarian booth crew travel with the tour so we are set up on every stop, not just the ones where the local LP is organized enough to take
advantage of the opportunity.
PS) Imperialist bourgeois capitalism, in this country, has reached and passed its zenith.
P) Anti-imperialist, anti-corporate free market/free will syndicalist voluntaryist mutualism is the future of third millenium politics. Bureaucratic imperialist socialism, imperialist bourgeois capitalism, and their synthesis of faux-democratic imperialist corporate fascism are all late second-millenium metastisized cancers, or actually strains of the same cancer of anti-free will, force-based politics.
PS) Conservative bourgeois political parties (such as GOP, LP, and ConP – not ComP) have outlived any purpose that they once had.
P) ConP, ComP – SSDD. The LP can have a bright future after it is reorganized as a non-conservative party. Otherwise, the movement will succeed outside of outmoded regime politics.
PS) Down with the bourgeois ruling class! Up with the Proletarian Revolution!
P) Down with the bureaucrat/corporate ruling class! Up with the agorist countereconomy!
RW) If Eric regularly makes $300 to $400 per day when he is working, he has a far higher annual income than I do.
P) That sounds better than what it is. I often make that much or more when I am working. However, I spend more time not working than I do working many years, and living full time on the road costs $500-1000 per week just in food and housing alone, not including luxuries such as medical care, clothing, transportation, etc.
My nomad lifestyle makes any attempt to get an apartment turn into, essentially, overpriced storage. When I am not working, I have to either find people willing to let me sleep on their floor, or continue to pay those same costs without knowing how long it will be until the next job.
Donating money to political causes becomes a rather tenuous notion at this point, although I do donate more time and effort than most people.
paulie Says:
December 26th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
… [snip] … It’s time for libertarians to stop fighting the left and take up the challenge of leading the left.†… [snip] …
Phil Sawyer responds:
The anarchists of the left have been trying to do that (lead us) for a long time. I have been trying to tell them to go join the Libertarian Party and leave the rest of us alone.
If people want anarchy, they should go live in Mexico.
Mexico doesn’t have anarchy, they have a gang of thugs which collects protection money, interferes with peaceful people, and calls itself a government just like the US does.
Even if that was not the case, there is no reason that peaceful people should have to move thousands of miles, leave behind their families, friends, jobs and communities just because armed thugs claim illegitimate “turf” there.
I see no more reason to move anywhere due to the existence of the armed gang known as the US regime, any more than I see a reason to move because of armed gangs known as Bloods, Crips, MS13, mafia, triads, yakuza, local police departments, hell’s angels, vice lords, gang disciples, etc.
There is, of course, no moral difference whatsoever between these gangs.
The proper solution to living in a gang-infested neighborhood, city, bioregion, continent, hemisphere or planet is to help shut the gangs down. Moving is suboptimal, and moving onto another gang’s self-proclaimed turf does not solve the problem.
By the way, although Brad Spangler (who wrote that) is an anarchist like me, as noted in comment 24, there is nothing to that strategy that would not also apply to limited government libertarians as well.
As he says, For as the radicals go, so do the moderates grudgingly follow in small steps…
PS) The anarchists of the left have been trying to do that (lead us) for a long time. I have been trying to tell them to go join the Libertarian Party and leave the rest of us alone.
P) Actually, Phil, we’re probably coming your way in larger numbers, since the Libertarian Party seems intent on kicking us out so they can try to bring in more right wing Republicans.
I like names like Green and Peace and Freedom better than libertarian anyway, at least they are words the average person can pronounce: and those words are wholly compatible with what I believe in, even though the current platforms of those parties are not.
Perhaps it’s time to revive the libertarian caucus in the peace and freedom party … it was before my time, but I understand there were quite a few libertarians and anarchists in the Peace and Freedom party before 1974.
Since the Libertarians want to go in a Republican direction, and Peace and Freedom wants to be a national party again, maybe real libertarians should join the peace and freedom party.And with a name like that, it would be more true to its name if it became a libertarian party (to oppose corporatism, church/state, war/militarism/imperialism, and bureaucracy/regime; support small business, workers cooperatives, social liberalism/liberation, peace, and privately organized community self defense).
Most of the libertarian people left the Peace and Freedom Party of California after 1974 (and formed the Libertarian Party of California) because the socialists and communists in the Peace and Freedom Party won the power struggle. PFP-CA has been since that time a party that officially promotes socialist democracy. Speaking for myself and many Party members, we do not want the anarchists and libertarians (many of whom are simply anarchists in business suits) back in our Party. Just do your own thing and leave us alone, thank you very much.
paulie Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 4:31 am … [snip] …
P) Actually, Phil, we’re probably coming your way in larger numbers, since the Libertarian Party seems intent on kicking us out so they can try to bring in more right wing Republicans. … [snip] …
Phil Sawyer:
Oh well, whatever happens will be the new reality. I am also a member of the Communist Party USA. CPUSA utilizes democratic centralism as the primary operating procedure. My intuition tells me that you all will not be asking for membership in that Party. I am not too worried about the Peace and Freedom Party dealing with a bunch of anarchists and libertarians. We have plenty of spirited debates among the various factions as it is and a few more factions should not do much more harm (hopefully).
Phil Sawyer entered (in an earlier post):
Gene Says:
December 19th, 2008 at 10:21 am
There’s no torch to be passed. Run if you want to run. You ought to thank Ralph and others for making that possible in face of the obstacles so thoroughly documented on this site.
Phil Sawyer adds:
What is needed is not the passing of the torch from one independent presidential candidate to another independent presidential candidate. What is necessary is the birth of a new, leftist, party of the people – or, at least, a new coalition that represents most (if not all) of the leftist parties that currently exist. I have been saying and writing that since 1974.
Phil Sawyer, California Elector for:
Eugene McCarthy for President in 1976;
Eugene McCarthy for President in 1988;
Ralph Nader for President in 2008.
Michal Mudd Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I’m proud of our party [Green Party of the United States] in both elections and hardly think we are “dead.â€
Forming a new political party, as Phil Sawyer wishes, is harder than you think in this day and age, and any “new, leftist, party of the people†will face the same hardships that the Green Party has faced and continues to face. We need to continue to push for, in the court of public opinion as well as in the statehouses of America, electoral laws that are truly fair and democratic (that’s little d).
I predict the love-fest between American progressives, including those that deserted the Green Party’s candidates, and the Obama Administration will be short-lived, as the unfortunate curve to the center materialized [sic], and they’ll soon come to their senses that true “change†requires more than just a Democrat in the Oval Office.
Phil Sawyer responds:
Well, at the present time I am not involved in any efforts to start a new political party. I have been involved in such efforts over the decades and I know that what Michal says is true: it is very difficult. We did pretty darn well with the Reform Party of the United States, though.
Regarding the Green Party of the United States, I am actually a card-carrying member (and frequent donor, when possible), Michal. However, my political activism these days is with the Communist Party USA; and the Peace and Freedom Party of California (member of the State and Sacramento County Central Committees). You could correctly call me a watermelon green (green on the outside and red – very red – on the inside).
There has been a lot of talk, it seems, among many people in the Green Party of the US and the Peace and Freedom Party of California about a merger between PFP-CA and the watermelon greens. Just talk, though, and no action of any sort that I am aware of.
If someone else wants to take the leadership on starting a new party or coalition, I would be interested in following. I have been a leader down that path so many times in the past that I am not now interested in doing it myself. That all brings everything back to “square one.” Where is the strong, mass, Party of the People when we really need it the most? We are living in revolutionary times but there is no mass Party of the People to organize and lead the Revolution. So, we are left with the Democratic Party (the Party that Michal does not seem to think will bring “true ‘change'”) as a main center of organization. Until we (“progressive” independents) have a mass Party of our own, we need to accept the fact that most of the action is going to be happening within the Democratic Party. As V.I. Lenin wrote: “If you want to … win the sympathy and support of the ‘masses,’ you … must absolutely work wherever the masses are to be found.”
PS] Most of the libertarian people left the Peace and Freedom Party of California after 1974 (and formed the Libertarian Party of California)
p] LP CA was already formed before that.
PS] because the socialists and communists in the Peace and Freedom Party won the power struggle.
P] I know. That’s why I am proposing revisiting that mistake and having the anarcholibertarians win this time.
PS] PFP-CA has been since that time a party that officially promotes socialist democracy.
P] Hopefully that will not be the case for too much longer.
If that is true, why were there so many libertarian people in the Peace and Freedom Party of California at that time? I remember that in the General Election in November (of 1974) I voted for the complete Peace and Freedom Party slate. At the top of the ticket there was Elizabeth Keathly (I hope that I spelled that correctly) – a libertarian. If I remember correctly, there alternated down the ticket socialist and libertarian. Even though there were socialist write-in candidates (promoted by the State Central Committee) running against the libertarians, I voted for the candidates on the ballot. At the time, I was more open to libertarians (and registered Democratic). In addition, it made sense to me to support the candidates selected by the Peace and Freedom Party voters.
In 1854/1855 relatively few candidates ran as “Republicans” or even as candidates of parties indicating opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Even in those cases where candidates were “Republican” or “Anti-Republicans”, many were incumbents who had been elected under other party labels (mostly Whig) in 1852/1853.
35% of representatives in the 34th Congress were elected in 1855. For those 82 seats there were no Whig nor Anti-Nebraska candidates.
When the 34th Congress met (in December of 1855) there was indeed a a plurality of “opposition” representatives (who were neither Democrats or American). A majority of those “opposition” representatives had been elected as Whigs.
The eventual speaker-elect, Nathaniel Banks was elected on the American Party ticket.
In June of 1912, Teddy Roosevelt was seeking the Republican nomination, and had thoroughly dominated the primaries. After the Taft supporters put down several credential challenges at the GOP convention, Roosevelt announced that he would accept the nomination of the “honestly elected majority” of the Republican convention or a new political party. Immediately after the convention, California governor Hiram Johnson was named temporary chairman of a new party which met in August, at which time Roosevelt accepted its nomination. Johnson was named the vice presidential nominee.
In California, Roosevelt supporters won the primary contests for Republican presidential electors, and it was too late for Taft supporters to organize a new party (California law had no provision for independent presidential candidates – see BAN September 1912).