Jim Sullivan has this op-ed in the Boston Herald. The first half talks about the impact of the Libertarian Party if it nominates William Weld for vice-president. The latter half criticizes the party for its policy during the last ten years of deliberately avoiding being ballot-qualified.

For the last ten years, the Massachusetts Libertarian Party has been led by individuals who try to avoid qualified status. This policy suffers from these defects: (1) it keeps the party from having its own checkbox on the voter registration form, so its registration (once the third highest of any state Libertarian Party) has plummeted; (2) it requires the party to submit 10,000 valid signatures to place its presidential nominee on the ballot; (3) it deprives the party of its own presidential primary.

Leaders of the Massachusetts Libertarian Party say they avoid being qualified because: (1) when a party is qualified, state law makes it very difficult for its own members to get on its own primary ballot (except presidential candidates can get on a presidential primary ballot just by request); (2) state law forces ballot-qualified parties to elect party officers in the primary, instead of at party meetings. The second problem could be overcome with a lawsuit, because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1989 in Eu v San Francisco County Central Committee that states cannot tell parties how to be organized. The first problem is a genuine problem, but it could potentially be overcome by activism to change the primary ballot access laws.