On September 10, the Kansas Secretary of State removed Chuck Baldwin from the ballot, and substituted Ted Weill for president, as the Reform Party’s presidential nominee. This action was taken, even though the Kansas Secretary of State knows that the Kansas Reform Party nominated Chuck Baldwin and even though there are no Reform Party candidates for presidential elector pledged to Weill. The Kansas Secretary of State took this action after being notified by a Texas Reform Party official that the Reform Party national convention had nominated Weill. I spoke to an elections department official in Kansas, who said that it is the responsibility of the state party to nominate candidates for presidential elector. I said, “But the Kansas Reform Party supports Baldwin.” He said, “We know.”
The Baldwin campaign is seeking an attorney. As most readers of this blog know, the true candidates in November in a presidential election are the candidates for presidential elector. The only candidates for elector certified to the Kansas Secretary of State have said they will vote for Baldwin if they are elected to the electoral college. The Kansas Secretary of State has no logic on his side.
No logic indeed. Movning forward, if you are interested in the position, pleae run against this Sec. of State as a 3rd party candidate……and win!
This is why we need to go back to having presidential electors THEMSELVES ON THE BALLOT. Let the state party conventions nominate their slate of presidential electors. Let individuals petition for ballot access as independent electors.
Go to Main/Nebraska style district electoral votes so that each party will have 3 (2 at large, one district) presidential electors on the ballot in each congressional district. The most names you’d typically have would be 18 (3 each for Repub, Dem, Libertarian, Constitution, Green, Nader) plus three blanks for write-in and three more check boxes for “none of the above.” Voters to select not more than three names.
NOW, these electors would go around doing most of the campaigning. ELIMINATE straight ticket voting. ELIMINATE political party designations on the ballot.
RESULT: an INFORMED ELECTORATE.
Kansas should have officially disaffiliated. Hopefully they take this step in the future.
So much for the Reform Party being a party of the people. This is the kind of top down rule that we would expect from the Dems and Reps.
So sad! I am not a Baldwin Boy, but the Reform Party of Kansas has a right, NO —AN OBLIGATION, A DUTY —–to nominate THEIR ticket.
Weill – McNulty are probably illegal any way. Teddy Boy [whom has always been generous and gracious to me and Tish Firmiss personally] brought a bus load of his employees to DFW!
These folks don’t understand logic.
If the Kansas Party wants Baldwin, then they should have Baldwin placed on the ballot.
Logic, are folks here demanding Logic???
How about Messer Frank MacKay of New York saying in New Your that he is the National Chairman of the Independence Party of America, while at the same time saying elsewhere and on his personal web sites that he is also at the same time the National Chairman of the National Reform Party, i.e. a National Chairman of two different National Political Parties???
WTF!!!!!!!!!
The Kansas statutes could be interpreted as vesting the authority to nominate presidential and vice presidential candidates in a national convention.
In 1980 the American Party national convention chose Percy Greaves for president. The American Party was ballot-qualified in Kansas that year. The Kansas version of the party didn’t like Percy Greaves, so they nominated Frank Shelton for president. So Shelton was on the Kansas ballot as the American Party nominee; he was not on the ballot in any other state. And the Kansas statutes have not changed (on the relevant points) since 1980. The Secretary of State knows about the 1980 precedent, but he chose to disregard it.
Also in 1968 the Conservative Party of Kansas was ballot-qualified, and it was not affiliated with George Wallace’s party, but the Conservative Party nominated Wallace for president and he appeared as the Conservative Party nominee in Kansas.
LET THE KANSAS SoS KNOW HOW YOU FEEL HERE-
http://www.kssos.org/contact.html
OR CALL HIM-
(785)-296-4564
I believe that Kansas does not allow substitution for petitioning candidates and that is why Chuck Baldwin was not on the Kansas ballot in 2004. I they were consistent they would have placed the national ticket on then.
Bill Lussenheide asked “LET THE KANSAS SoS KNOW HOW
YOU FEEL HERE-“. I am the current Vice Chairman of
the American Independent Party. Our past Chairman
was named one of the Real Party In Interest in a Writ of Mandamus in the Superior Court of California for Sacramento County. They did not name me in that lawsuit yet. I expect to be named
a party in suit # two, since I was the elected Chairman of the 2008 convention of the AIP held in
Sacramento and was the elected leader of the
California delegation to the Constitution Party
Convention. Therefore, I am now informing my
attorney and his lawfirm partners and associates
in Topeka that you might have a conflict with our
retainer agreement by associating with the Brewtown
lawfirm that tried to get its lead attorney admitted Pro Hac Vice in the case of King v. Bowen.
Bottom line to my attorney in Topeka, please do not
let your firm associate with a Brewtown, Wisconsen
law firm on a suit against the Kansas SoS until I
know the I am free from lawsuits in California related to the 2008 Convention of AIP selection of
the ticket of Alan Keyes (President) and Wiley S.
Drake, SR. (Vice Chairman).
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party of California.
Just found a typing error in the above. It should
have stated “the ticket of Alan Keyes (President)
and Wiley S. Drake, Sr. (Vice President).”
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party of California.
It is logically inconsistent for anyone to think that the California Secretary of State is correct to place Keyes on the ballot in California, and also think that Ted Weill should be on the ballot in Kansas. Kansas Secretary of State is going with the principle (which is wrong) that the national convention trumps the actions of state officers of the state party. If the Kansas Secretary of State’s position were valid, then Baldwin should be the nominee of the AIP in California even if absolutely no one in the California AIP supports Baldwin. The California AIP participated in the national convention of the Constitution Party.
To Richard:
You state it is “logically inconsistent” for SoS
of California “to place Keyes on the ballot in
California” and “also think that Ted Weill should
be on the ballot in Kansas” (by the Kansas SoS).
It is my view that it is not inconsistent because
California and Kansas are both sovereign states and
each has its own laws. 3 USC section 5 leaves it
up to each of states the rules on conducting a
Presidential Election (Act of June 25, 1948, chap. 644, 62 Stat. 673).
I remember when I was a graduate student at UCLA,
I purchased a t-shirt stating “I support the UCLA
Bruins or any team opposing USC”.
I do not know Ted Weill, but I can see the Kansas
SoS ruling a ballot access based on Kansas Law and
a California SoS ruling on California Law.
I recall that in 1968, the Peace & Freedom Party
had different people on the ballot for President in
different states or no listing at all, viz., California and Utah.
What I would like to know is the figure of 37 states that Cody Quirk gave as for the number
of states that Baldwin was on the ballot included
the State of Kansas or not?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party of California.
I think we can all agree here and say hmmmm,and it seemed like the Reform Party was moving somewhere foward with the latest ruling about the Convention this past summer and cleaning it up a bit.
I am registered Reform and all I can say is I don’t know. In principle it makes sense to have Weill/McEnulty as the ticket in Kansas. At the same time though Kansas would be a solid state for Baldwin and why not let them garner some votes and bring some excitement to the Kansas RP.
I will probably be in the minority with that statement, but I’ve already been the minority a few times within the party.
Does Weill/McEnulty even have a website? I’ve offered to the McEnulty team a few times to help out, but of course not even received a thank you for being interested email. I find it funny you email the Nader team and you’ll have a state rep. either calling or emailing you within the day.
I’m disappointed in this ruling (in that I would have preferred to have had Baldwin on the ballot), but I am not outraged. I am not certain in this case that there is a principle by which the national party should not have the right to have its person selected.
The reason, however, why Mr. Seidenberg is wrong to charge hypocrisy is that, as far as I understand it, there was no contingent in Kansas clamoring for Weill, the national Reform Party candidate. There were no dueling conventions in Kansas.
In California, the members of the AIP clearly wanted Baldwin for President, but Noonan and Seidenberg hijacked the Party.
In other words, the issue is not that the AIP owes Baldwin the nomination, but that the Baldwin convention was clearly the legitimate one.
That is, that the legitimate AIP California convention was the one held by the Baldwin supporters, not the one held by Noonan and the party hijackers.
Glaivester,
You are incorrect. There was only one convention of
the American Independent Party at that took place in Sacramento, CA on July 5, 2008. Alan Keyes was
the pick of the delegates to that convention. I was elected the Chairman of the AIP 2008 ctonvention.
Anne E. Thomas was not a delegate to the convention
either in 2004, 2006, nor in 2008. She was an non
member officer, so according to all editions of
Roberts Rules of Order she had no authority under
the by-laws, manual of parlimentary proccedures, or
the election laws of the State of California to call to order any meeting of the California AIP.
Therefore that is one of many reasons that the events in Los Angeles on June 28 & 29, 2008 was a
void act and could not be an act of the AIP.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party.
If everyone understood that the ONLY reason there are national political parties is for all the state parties to have one common presidential candidate, I doubt anyone would be surprised at the Kansas SOS decision.
Nobody would be the least bit surprised if this article was about a state Democratic or Repiblican party.
I suspect if it was a Dem or GOP party, everyone posting here would expect the state SOS to put the nominee of “the party” on the ballot. I suspect everyone would also think it was totally illogical to even think, or hope, the SOS might do otherwise.
Bev
On a Reform Party side note I see that the website has been relaunched eventhough the information is still has no updated.
Anyway, it’s good to see some things moving foward.