Lawsuit Filed for a Libertarian Party Presidential Primary in Florida — 40 Comments
At the heart of the lawsuit is whether the Florida Secretary of State abused their discretion by changing the policy set by a prior Secretary of State which implemented a state constitutional provision to give equal access to the ballot for independent and minor parties. In 2016, the Libertarian Party hosted its first primary which under the current Secretary of State’s interpretation would not have been allowed.
The lawsuit was filed with the Supreme Court of Florida and transferred to the 2nd Circuit Court of Leon County which shares jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of Florida for consideration.
Hector Roos was a member of the state board of LP Florida from 2021-2024 and its 2022 Governor candidate.
It is interesting that the Florida is depending on a 1972 AG opinion, while the Florida Constitution was amended in 1998.
@Jim: The law that is at the heart of the lawsuit is originally from 1913. Obviously a lot has changed since then including the state constitution which is why the Secretary of State’s actions are a slap to voters who passed equal ballot access in 1998.
Why do you want one?
When will the courts be directly confronted with the argument that all ballot access laws are censorship of the rights of voters in violation of numerous constitutional provisions? Furthermore, administration of the state monopoly of ballot publishing with anonymity for voters does not require printing the names of any candidates or parties on the ballot. A constitutional ballot is an write-in only ballot which was the de facto ballot format until the states confiscated and monopolized the right to publish ballots in the 1890s. Ballot censorship laws only serve to entrench the candidates of two particular parties in government.
The problem is ballots. You can just count people.
The “PPP” law contradicts itself. First it says “each political party other than a minor political party”, and then it says “each political party”.
When two laws conflict, the conflict shall be resolved in a manner that is least restrictive to the public.
Which is less restrictive to the public:
(A) Piggybacking on the Republican Primary by adding a Libertarian Primary, at minimal(?) cost to the taxpayer, and allowing additional members of the public to participate
(B) Not granting the Libertarians a primary, saving minimal cost to the taxpayer, and preventing some members of the public to participate
B, since it saves us money.
Bob, if alternative parties are not allowed to hold primaries that is unequal treatment. Further, a primary is an opportunity for public and voter engagement. I don’t know what Roos’ view on primaries in general would be but in my view the state, and thus taxpayers, ought not be funding the process for political parties to choose their nominees. But if the state is going to hold primaries, especially presidential preference primaries, it should be for all parties and not be in the business of granting preferred status on the establishment parties.
As a Libertarian who was active in 2016, what Mr Roos has said is blatantly false. There was no Libertarian primary in 2016. There was a straw poll at the 2016 State Convention in Palm Beach. There was no statewide primary. Either mr Roos is ignorant of the fact, or purposely lying. Even wikipedia shows that there was no primary in Florida in 2016:
If at the heart of this lawsuit is an alleged abuse of discretion of a policy regarding a Libertarian never happened or existed, this suit will be thrown out of court, and Mr Roos will rightfully be shown how ignorant he actually is.
Have there been any Libertarian primaries for governor, U.S. Senate, or other offices in Florida? How do non-presidential Libertarian candidates get on the general election ballot?
Given that a libertarian presidential primary is nonbinding, of interest to few voters, and costs taxpayers money, I would think they wouldn’t want it.
Paul Gook, there was a Libertarian primary for US Senate in 2016 won by Paul Stanton with 73% of the vote over Augustus Sol Invictus. It was not a presidential primary but as I understand it the qualification of a party for a presidential primary is the same as the qualification for a primary for other partisan state and federal offices.
That was a binding primary, thus very different.
State law states only major parties can have a Presidential Primary. In Florida, ANY PARTY can have a primary for ANY partisan office. That is clearly stated in Florida statutes. What Mr Roos is stating regarding a Presidential Primary is blatantly false and shows a huge ignorance of the law
Roos does post a lot of retarded shit so it isn’t surprising.
@Herb,
In Florida, when there is only a single candidate, the election is canceled. This applies to both primary and general elections.
Since Florida Democrats have only one presidential candidate there will be no Democrat presidential primary.
@Herb,
In 2016, there were two candidates for nomination by the Libertarian Party for the US Senate and a primary was held.
See SOS website.
@PG,
The presidential preference primary may be a direct primary at the discretion of the party.
If the LP were requesting a direct primary, the constitution would clearly prevail.
It would be a clear equal protection violation if certain parties were compelled to have a direct primary or none at all, while other parties could have a choice.
There should be no comparison between a binding nomination event and a useless waste of taxpayer money.
@Bob,
Is the Republican presidential preference primary in Florida a lawful expenditure of state funds? What utility does it have?
Is it binding?
I said useless,not illegal.
And: how many people might want one in any given presidential year, vs libertarians?
@Bob,
You appeared to claim that it would be a waste of state funds for a Libertarian presidential preference primary. Your rationale appears to be that it has no utility (i.e. useless). Correct me if I misunderstood.
If the Libertarian presidential preference primary has no utility to the state, why does a Republican presidential preference primary have utility to the state? I am trying to determine if your views are consistent.
I thought that the Florida Constitution forbids expenditure for private purposes, but I could not find it. So perhaps spending on frivolous or useless events is legal, and it is just an unwise policy decision.
I didn’t say the GOP primary is or isn’t a good use of state funds. If it’s binding, it’s a better use than if it’s nonbinding, like libertarians. Is it? I don’t know. Maybe you do.
How many voters show interest in having one, historically, vs in having one for libertarians? That would also help determine how useful or useless it is.
That doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily a good use of tax money even if it’s binding and there’s a lot of voter interest. It could be funded some other way. But it does mean the libertarian primary would be a more obvious waste, since it’s nonbinding and few would want to participate or care about its outcome.
@Bob,
The Florida Constitution requires that it not be harder for minor party candidates to qualify for the ballot than major party candidates. Florida could require a bazillion signatures for Libertarian and other minor party candidates, but it would also have to make the same requirement for major party candidates. The major party candidates don’t like that because they have to face the humidity, alligators, and mosquitos. So instead Florida has primaries as large filing fees for ALL parties.
In Florida, if there is only one candidate in an election, whether the general election or a party primary, they cancel the election. In 2022, for the 28 congressional districts Republicans had 25 primaries. In the other three districts the sole Republican candidate was nominated without a primary. The Democrats had primaries in 14 districts, but 11 Democrats who faced no opposition were nominated without a primary. There were three districts with no Democratic candidates for the primary, and thus no Democrats on the general election ballot.
There were two districts with a single Libertarian candidate. There was no Libertarian primary for those two districts, but the Libertarian candidate was on the general election ballot.
It doesn’t matter any or all of those primaries were wasteful or not, or some were “more” wasteful than other. Florida does consider an election with only one candidate to be pointless.
In 2016, there were two Libertarian candidates seeking the US Senate nomination, and there was a Libertarian primary that chose the nominee.
Florida applies a different standard for presidential primaries, one that is not consistent with the constitution. By default, the presidential primary is a direct primary, that is binding.
It does permit a party to have a presidential preference primary, so long as delegates “reasonably reflect” the results of the primary. The allocation of delegates must be established by party rule, so that the election is effectively binding.
There is simply no basis for making a distinction between parties simply because Florida has not updated a statute passed prior to the 1998 amendment to the constitution.
I’m not sure what all that means or why you’re telling me things I didn’t ask about. Libertarians have a rule against state parties making primaries binding. They are not binding.
If Florida requires the Florida LP to make its primary binding, it runs afoul of libertarian rules, so they can’t have a presidential primary in Florida. But even if they could, I think they should not want it, because it wasted the tax money of all taxpayers, is of interest to very few, and determines nothing.
Libertarians say they want to save taxpayers money. Here’s an instance where they can prove they mean it, by not having a primary. Or prove they are lying politicians, by having one, or trying to.
Presidential primaries. There’s no rule against binding primaries for other office.
It would be one thing if the state forced them to have one. It’s quite another if they are trying to force the state to pay to have one for them, especially when it determines nothing, by their own rules.
@Bob,
Political parties in Florida must make nominations by primary. This includes the Libertarian Party of Florida (LPF). It really does not matter what the national Libertarian Party thinks. I suppose they could disaffiliate the LPF.
The LPF submitted a list of presidential candidates to the Secretary of State. It doesn’t matter that you believe that they should not want a presidential primary.
Clearly you’re wrong, or they wouldn’t be suing to have a primary. The state is not trying to force them to have a presidential primary. It’s the other way around.
I don’t know what you mean by it does not matter what the national party thinks. The national party decides through a vote of its delegates who its presidential candidate is. Any presidential primary is nonbinding. Only what the national party wants matters. It even has a rule against any state party making a primary binding. If a state party tried that, their delegates would not be seated.
The state of Florida never required them to have a presidential primary before. It’s not requiring one now, either. It’s been placing their presidential candidates chosen by their national convention on the ballot. I don’t see why it would be any different this year.
So the question is still why they would want to have one. If your answer is that the state is forcing them to, or that they won’t be allowed on the ballot otherwise, your answer is factually wrong.
The language in 103.101 dates back to 1915 (sic) when a party which polled less than 5% of the statewide vote was not considered to be a “political party” See http://laws.flrules.org/ and legislative history for 103.101
The language for the presidential primary has never been updated to match the 1998 constitutional amendment. This does not indicate affirmative action by the Florida legislature, but rather carelessness and neglect. The State of Florida has never required the Libertarian Party to have a presidential primary before because it is acting in a lawless fashion contrary to the Florida Constitution.
The lawsuit is intended to bring the State of Florida in compliance with its own constitution.
Do you believe the State of Florida should comply with the Florida Constitution?
At one time delegates to the national convention delegates were directly elected in Florida. In 1945, the law was changed so that the delegate candidate could indicate their presidential preference: (e.g., Bob Florida Man supports Truman (or Barkley or Wallace or Russell). Note that Florida was exceptional as a southern state with a presidential primary.
The libertarians have limited resources. Their ostensible purpose is to make government as small as possible, not to make state laws in line with state constitutions when the net effect would only be to make government marginally bigger and maybe disenfranchise members of one of their larger state affiliates in the selection of their presidential ticket.
Supposing the lawsuit wins, all it would do is either
1) saddle Florida taxpayers with paying for a nonbinding presidential primary for libertarians which maybe a fraction of 1% of Florida taxpayers have the slightest interest in,
2) try to make that primary binding on a national convention which has rules against that and isn’t likely to be bound by Florida law, but if it somehow is, would just not seat the Florida delegates.
3) Maybe it would serve to keep them from having any more national conventions in Florida.
None of that sounds like a good use of their donors money.
@Bob,
The Libertarian Party has an interest in having fair and equitable elections.
Once the tax money is out of your pocket it is no longer your money.
The lawsuit is apparently being pursued by an individual on a pro se basis.
It has limited resources. That means time, money, filing costs, and everything else. There is nothing unfair or inequitable about not having a useless vote.
@Bob,
I can’t find a rule in the Libertarian Party Bylaws about pledged delegates. There is a rule against the unit rule, but that is entirely different.
Incidentally the case has been transferred to a circuit court in Leon County (Tallahassee). It is unlikely to be resolved in time to provide relief this year.
I saw that mentioned on some of there discussion on a past article here or maybe another similar site. Can’t tell you beyond that.
@Bob,
A State can not legally bind delegates (see Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981))
The Florida statute says, “Any party rule directing the vote of delegates at a national nominating convention shall reasonably reflect the results of the presidential preference primary, if one is held.”
This does not say that LPF must have a rule directing the vote of delegates. It says that if they do, then the direction must reasonably reflect the results of the primary.
L.p. Natl has the purported rule against binding potus primaries. Not lpf
At the heart of the lawsuit is whether the Florida Secretary of State abused their discretion by changing the policy set by a prior Secretary of State which implemented a state constitutional provision to give equal access to the ballot for independent and minor parties. In 2016, the Libertarian Party hosted its first primary which under the current Secretary of State’s interpretation would not have been allowed.
The lawsuit was filed with the Supreme Court of Florida and transferred to the 2nd Circuit Court of Leon County which shares jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of Florida for consideration.
Hector Roos was a member of the state board of LP Florida from 2021-2024 and its 2022 Governor candidate.
It is interesting that the Florida is depending on a 1972 AG opinion, while the Florida Constitution was amended in 1998.
@Jim: The law that is at the heart of the lawsuit is originally from 1913. Obviously a lot has changed since then including the state constitution which is why the Secretary of State’s actions are a slap to voters who passed equal ballot access in 1998.
Why do you want one?
When will the courts be directly confronted with the argument that all ballot access laws are censorship of the rights of voters in violation of numerous constitutional provisions? Furthermore, administration of the state monopoly of ballot publishing with anonymity for voters does not require printing the names of any candidates or parties on the ballot. A constitutional ballot is an write-in only ballot which was the de facto ballot format until the states confiscated and monopolized the right to publish ballots in the 1890s. Ballot censorship laws only serve to entrench the candidates of two particular parties in government.
The problem is ballots. You can just count people.
The “PPP” law contradicts itself. First it says “each political party other than a minor political party”, and then it says “each political party”.
When two laws conflict, the conflict shall be resolved in a manner that is least restrictive to the public.
Which is less restrictive to the public:
(A) Piggybacking on the Republican Primary by adding a Libertarian Primary, at minimal(?) cost to the taxpayer, and allowing additional members of the public to participate
(B) Not granting the Libertarians a primary, saving minimal cost to the taxpayer, and preventing some members of the public to participate
B, since it saves us money.
Bob, if alternative parties are not allowed to hold primaries that is unequal treatment. Further, a primary is an opportunity for public and voter engagement. I don’t know what Roos’ view on primaries in general would be but in my view the state, and thus taxpayers, ought not be funding the process for political parties to choose their nominees. But if the state is going to hold primaries, especially presidential preference primaries, it should be for all parties and not be in the business of granting preferred status on the establishment parties.
As a Libertarian who was active in 2016, what Mr Roos has said is blatantly false. There was no Libertarian primary in 2016. There was a straw poll at the 2016 State Convention in Palm Beach. There was no statewide primary. Either mr Roos is ignorant of the fact, or purposely lying. Even wikipedia shows that there was no primary in Florida in 2016:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries
If at the heart of this lawsuit is an alleged abuse of discretion of a policy regarding a Libertarian never happened or existed, this suit will be thrown out of court, and Mr Roos will rightfully be shown how ignorant he actually is.
Have there been any Libertarian primaries for governor, U.S. Senate, or other offices in Florida? How do non-presidential Libertarian candidates get on the general election ballot?
Given that a libertarian presidential primary is nonbinding, of interest to few voters, and costs taxpayers money, I would think they wouldn’t want it.
Paul Gook, there was a Libertarian primary for US Senate in 2016 won by Paul Stanton with 73% of the vote over Augustus Sol Invictus. It was not a presidential primary but as I understand it the qualification of a party for a presidential primary is the same as the qualification for a primary for other partisan state and federal offices.
That was a binding primary, thus very different.
State law states only major parties can have a Presidential Primary. In Florida, ANY PARTY can have a primary for ANY partisan office. That is clearly stated in Florida statutes. What Mr Roos is stating regarding a Presidential Primary is blatantly false and shows a huge ignorance of the law
Roos does post a lot of retarded shit so it isn’t surprising.
@Herb,
In Florida, when there is only a single candidate, the election is canceled. This applies to both primary and general elections.
Since Florida Democrats have only one presidential candidate there will be no Democrat presidential primary.
@Herb,
In 2016, there were two candidates for nomination by the Libertarian Party for the US Senate and a primary was held.
See SOS website.
@PG,
The presidential preference primary may be a direct primary at the discretion of the party.
If the LP were requesting a direct primary, the constitution would clearly prevail.
It would be a clear equal protection violation if certain parties were compelled to have a direct primary or none at all, while other parties could have a choice.
There should be no comparison between a binding nomination event and a useless waste of taxpayer money.
@Bob,
Is the Republican presidential preference primary in Florida a lawful expenditure of state funds? What utility does it have?
Is it binding?
I said useless,not illegal.
And: how many people might want one in any given presidential year, vs libertarians?
@Bob,
You appeared to claim that it would be a waste of state funds for a Libertarian presidential preference primary. Your rationale appears to be that it has no utility (i.e. useless). Correct me if I misunderstood.
If the Libertarian presidential preference primary has no utility to the state, why does a Republican presidential preference primary have utility to the state? I am trying to determine if your views are consistent.
I thought that the Florida Constitution forbids expenditure for private purposes, but I could not find it. So perhaps spending on frivolous or useless events is legal, and it is just an unwise policy decision.
I didn’t say the GOP primary is or isn’t a good use of state funds. If it’s binding, it’s a better use than if it’s nonbinding, like libertarians. Is it? I don’t know. Maybe you do.
How many voters show interest in having one, historically, vs in having one for libertarians? That would also help determine how useful or useless it is.
That doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily a good use of tax money even if it’s binding and there’s a lot of voter interest. It could be funded some other way. But it does mean the libertarian primary would be a more obvious waste, since it’s nonbinding and few would want to participate or care about its outcome.
@Bob,
The Florida Constitution requires that it not be harder for minor party candidates to qualify for the ballot than major party candidates. Florida could require a bazillion signatures for Libertarian and other minor party candidates, but it would also have to make the same requirement for major party candidates. The major party candidates don’t like that because they have to face the humidity, alligators, and mosquitos. So instead Florida has primaries as large filing fees for ALL parties.
In Florida, if there is only one candidate in an election, whether the general election or a party primary, they cancel the election. In 2022, for the 28 congressional districts Republicans had 25 primaries. In the other three districts the sole Republican candidate was nominated without a primary. The Democrats had primaries in 14 districts, but 11 Democrats who faced no opposition were nominated without a primary. There were three districts with no Democratic candidates for the primary, and thus no Democrats on the general election ballot.
There were two districts with a single Libertarian candidate. There was no Libertarian primary for those two districts, but the Libertarian candidate was on the general election ballot.
It doesn’t matter any or all of those primaries were wasteful or not, or some were “more” wasteful than other. Florida does consider an election with only one candidate to be pointless.
In 2016, there were two Libertarian candidates seeking the US Senate nomination, and there was a Libertarian primary that chose the nominee.
Florida applies a different standard for presidential primaries, one that is not consistent with the constitution. By default, the presidential primary is a direct primary, that is binding.
It does permit a party to have a presidential preference primary, so long as delegates “reasonably reflect” the results of the primary. The allocation of delegates must be established by party rule, so that the election is effectively binding.
There is simply no basis for making a distinction between parties simply because Florida has not updated a statute passed prior to the 1998 amendment to the constitution.
I’m not sure what all that means or why you’re telling me things I didn’t ask about. Libertarians have a rule against state parties making primaries binding. They are not binding.
If Florida requires the Florida LP to make its primary binding, it runs afoul of libertarian rules, so they can’t have a presidential primary in Florida. But even if they could, I think they should not want it, because it wasted the tax money of all taxpayers, is of interest to very few, and determines nothing.
Libertarians say they want to save taxpayers money. Here’s an instance where they can prove they mean it, by not having a primary. Or prove they are lying politicians, by having one, or trying to.
Presidential primaries. There’s no rule against binding primaries for other office.
It would be one thing if the state forced them to have one. It’s quite another if they are trying to force the state to pay to have one for them, especially when it determines nothing, by their own rules.
@Bob,
Political parties in Florida must make nominations by primary. This includes the Libertarian Party of Florida (LPF). It really does not matter what the national Libertarian Party thinks. I suppose they could disaffiliate the LPF.
The LPF submitted a list of presidential candidates to the Secretary of State. It doesn’t matter that you believe that they should not want a presidential primary.
Clearly you’re wrong, or they wouldn’t be suing to have a primary. The state is not trying to force them to have a presidential primary. It’s the other way around.
I don’t know what you mean by it does not matter what the national party thinks. The national party decides through a vote of its delegates who its presidential candidate is. Any presidential primary is nonbinding. Only what the national party wants matters. It even has a rule against any state party making a primary binding. If a state party tried that, their delegates would not be seated.
The state of Florida never required them to have a presidential primary before. It’s not requiring one now, either. It’s been placing their presidential candidates chosen by their national convention on the ballot. I don’t see why it would be any different this year.
So the question is still why they would want to have one. If your answer is that the state is forcing them to, or that they won’t be allowed on the ballot otherwise, your answer is factually wrong.
The language in 103.101 dates back to 1915 (sic) when a party which polled less than 5% of the statewide vote was not considered to be a “political party” See http://laws.flrules.org/ and legislative history for 103.101
The language for the presidential primary has never been updated to match the 1998 constitutional amendment. This does not indicate affirmative action by the Florida legislature, but rather carelessness and neglect. The State of Florida has never required the Libertarian Party to have a presidential primary before because it is acting in a lawless fashion contrary to the Florida Constitution.
The lawsuit is intended to bring the State of Florida in compliance with its own constitution.
Do you believe the State of Florida should comply with the Florida Constitution?
At one time delegates to the national convention delegates were directly elected in Florida. In 1945, the law was changed so that the delegate candidate could indicate their presidential preference: (e.g., Bob Florida Man supports Truman (or Barkley or Wallace or Russell). Note that Florida was exceptional as a southern state with a presidential primary.
The libertarians have limited resources. Their ostensible purpose is to make government as small as possible, not to make state laws in line with state constitutions when the net effect would only be to make government marginally bigger and maybe disenfranchise members of one of their larger state affiliates in the selection of their presidential ticket.
Supposing the lawsuit wins, all it would do is either
1) saddle Florida taxpayers with paying for a nonbinding presidential primary for libertarians which maybe a fraction of 1% of Florida taxpayers have the slightest interest in,
2) try to make that primary binding on a national convention which has rules against that and isn’t likely to be bound by Florida law, but if it somehow is, would just not seat the Florida delegates.
3) Maybe it would serve to keep them from having any more national conventions in Florida.
None of that sounds like a good use of their donors money.
@Bob,
The Libertarian Party has an interest in having fair and equitable elections.
Once the tax money is out of your pocket it is no longer your money.
The lawsuit is apparently being pursued by an individual on a pro se basis.
It has limited resources. That means time, money, filing costs, and everything else. There is nothing unfair or inequitable about not having a useless vote.
@Bob,
I can’t find a rule in the Libertarian Party Bylaws about pledged delegates. There is a rule against the unit rule, but that is entirely different.
Incidentally the case has been transferred to a circuit court in Leon County (Tallahassee). It is unlikely to be resolved in time to provide relief this year.
I saw that mentioned on some of there discussion on a past article here or maybe another similar site. Can’t tell you beyond that.
@Bob,
A State can not legally bind delegates (see Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981))
The Florida statute says, “Any party rule directing the vote of delegates at a national nominating convention shall reasonably reflect the results of the presidential preference primary, if one is held.”
This does not say that LPF must have a rule directing the vote of delegates. It says that if they do, then the direction must reasonably reflect the results of the primary.
L.p. Natl has the purported rule against binding potus primaries. Not lpf