From a story today in Richard Winger’s Ballot Access News:
The Massachusetts Libertarian Party is ballot-qualified, and it could keep its status through 2012 by running a candidate for any statewide office this year. Although the law requires that one of the party’s statewide nominees poll 3%, it is a virtual certainty that the Libertarian Party could easily meet this test for an office like State Treasurer. […]
The Massachusetts Libertarian Party says it can’t find anyone who wants to run for statewide office this year. It is true that if any candidate emerged, he or she would need 5,000 signatures to get on the Libertarian Party’s primary ballot, and only registered Libertarians and registered independents could sign. This is a tough requirement, but over half of all Massachusetts registered voters are registered independents, so it isn’t as bad as it might seem at first. […]
@35, @36
As a descriptor of the Massachusetts litigation, Richard Winger does not know what he is talking about. Based on my experience in Massachusetts, I would strongly encourage anyone with ballot access issues to check very carefully before believing his claims on anything.
#1) The ACLU did not file suit in our case. We have a fine Boston Law firm who took our case pro bono.
#2) Pro Bono means that the Attorney’s fees are waived. It does *not* mean that the filing fees, research costs, etc are waived. In fact, the various parties on our side agreed to pay those costs and are liable for them.
@44 “The bottom line here was that Mr. Starr and others did not believe that the LAMA ballot access plan was viable and did not trust Dr. Phillies and associates to cooperate with substitution. ”
The LAMA plan, which called for the LNC to collect half of the needed signatures and the LNC to collect half, was agreed to by Bill Redpath and I. We called a stop to collecting when we discovered, rather late, that the LNC had signed for twice as many signatures as had been agreed. All the signatures we collected were basically a waste of time and money.
Worries about substitution: Whoever had the LNC sign the contract that it did — Freedom Petition Management kept its side, to the letter; they are great to work with — in my opinion needs his head examined. The LNC petitions *had my name on them as the Presidential candidate* and *had my name on them as an elector*. If there were going to be difficulty with “Dr. Phillies and associates” over substitution, which there was not, the LNC petitions would have ensured that the difficulty took place.
That’s in addition to wasting — my best estimate — $15,000 or $20,000, i.e., about a third of what we waste every month through the gold-plated structural-platinum office facility.
Regarding JT’s remark that the Libertarian Party is running fewer candidates:
The State Committee of LAMA has constantly been trying to recruit candidates, which, at least in theory would come from the ranks of Libertarian activists.
The problem is everyone wants to run for President. We should be able to cover many State House of Representative Districts, all that is needed is a candidate. In most of them one person could collect the signatures.
So who would you blame for the fact that most who would call themselves Libertarians will not run for the legislature? The State Committee? If we had more candidates for the legislature we would be getting more publicity, which would make it easier to field state wide candidates.
While some may want to look to the past when the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts did run State wide candidates, those campaigns were more individual campaigns than party campaigns. The top of the ticket was emphasized. They never built a local base. They were expensive, and unsustainable. Just to get on the ballot one needs an army of volunteers to get 10,000 signatures, or a lot of money for signature collecting.
What precisely has he done that is so wonderful? All I’ve heard (from a former employee of theirs) was that he likes to take a lot of credit for other people’s work and throw tantrums.
On the ballot access petitioning side, their one success of any significant size that I know of so far – Rev. Billy – required them to get 3 times the number of signatures required, which is far more than normal. A contractor who was there told me Sean was there, but did nothing, basically using it as a paid vacation to NYC.
On another drive, they failed, with 2x the number of signatures required.
I’ll see if that former client will allow me to quote him about that. I have it sitting in my email from yesterday.
Yes, the foundation does good work. I’ve yet to see any evidence that any of that good work is Haugh’s, but he does have a prestigious title.
The petition company, well…the less said, the better.
“Andy @52 …Sean Haugh should not be put in charge of anything.” I really hesitate to feed into this feud, but is this the same Sean Haugh that is on the Free & Equal website as an Executive Director?”
I do not want to argue with Andy–mainly because I don’t have the significant time it takes, as Thomas Knapp can surely attest, but Sean Haugh has done a wonderful job over at Free & Equal. I had my problems with Haugh when he threatened to sue IPR, but anyone must admit Haugh and Tobin have done really well with the Free and Equal Foundation.
Thanks for your response.
Earlier up in this very long thread, I mentioned 6 attorneys who do constitutional ballot access cases and don’t charge. The problem is that any chances to sue will evaporate (for the Mass. Libertarian Party) if the party doesn’t keep its status as a qualified party.
I personally have been saying for years that the signature requirements are excessive, and they are keeping us, and others off the ballot. I live in a city where I can walk from house to house. But in a rural district it can be along ways to the next house. I have read of court decisions where the court says that states have a right to make requirements to avoid “ballot crowding.” but in Massachusetts most of the legislature runs un-opposed.
Whether an organization is a party or a “party designation” does not matter. Both have onerous signature requirements. The Libertarian party is just barely a party because of the approximately 95,000 votes I received, not because there are many people registered Libertarian “L.” Any organization will have the same problem, as they inch over the threshold to become a party they get new rules slapped on them which they cannot meet. Several Parties and Party designations have gone through this cycle.
We could change the laws by initiative petition, which also has onerous signature requirements. I would rather spend money to do that than other issues such as abolition of taxes, etc. I think in the long run it would get us more. But those who have the money do not agree. A suit could be filed regarding ballot access. But there again, it would require money. The results are uncertain. But I would favor either one or both of these actions if the money and organization were to materialize. We might also have allies such as the Green Party.
The situation is going to get worse. I think the voter registration rate has dropped in Springfield, Massachusetts in the past several elections from 40% to 30%. In addition about 40% of those signing nomination papers have difficult to read signatures. It will become more difficult for challengers to get on the ballot.
Hello, Mr. Underwood. What do you think of the idea that the Libertarian Party should sue Massachusetts over the onerous requirements for a registered Libertarian to get on the Libertarian primary ballot?
If the party loses its qualified status in November 2010, it loses the ability to file such a lawsuit, because an unqualified party won’t have standing.
The rest of Mr. Underwood’s comment is on the money.
Un-enrolled voters as a group will not sign a nomination form.
Lots of them do when I ask them. You have to know how to pitch it.
Andy @52 …Sean Haugh should not be put in charge of anything.” I really hesitate to feed into this feud, but is this the same Sean Haugh that is on the Free & Equal website as an Executive Director?
Same guy.
Why do you ask?
Most of my experience at running for office consists of knocking on doors to get signatures in Springfield, MA. The voter registration figures do not tell the whole story. Most of the 300 people registered as Libertarian in Springfield cannot be found. The of the 5 who can 3 will not sign a nomination form for a Libertarian. Un-enrolled voters as a group will not sign a nomination form. Every time I have gotten on the ballot Democrats made up most of the signatures, followed by Un-enrolled and Republicans. Most voters have no idea as to their party registration. And only about 40% of Springfield, MA is registered to vote. So with party status it is almost impossible and at least very expensive to get a candidate on the ballot. In the case of LAMA we have been fiscally responsible with expenditures on campaigns.
In 2008, when I was the US Senate Campaign, I do not recall the forms taking a large part of George Phillies living room, I recall them taking the whole room and part of another room, leaving little room to walk. We delivered them to the Secretary of the Commonwealth using several boxes and a hand truck.
I (and LAMA) had hoped that my running for US Senate would be an inspiration to other Libertarians throughout Massachusetts to run for the legislature. More candidates on the ballot in more districts would have gotten us more interest than any voter registration drive. One or two people could get the 150 signatures needed to run for state Representative. But that did not happen. I have now changed my registration to “Un-enrolled,” it is the only way I stand a chance of getting on the ballot for State Representative.
Bob Barr a CIA plant? LOL! ROTFLMAO! He He Haw Haw. …Hey, Hey, they don’t do things like that! ….Ummmmm….Do they? …Nah.
Andy @52 …Sean Haugh should not be put in charge of anything.” I really hesitate to feed into this feud, but is this the same Sean Haugh that is on the Free & Equal website as an Executive Director?
I agree with most of what Paulie says here. Petitioning was a big mess mismanaged by the Barr campaign (those drives were run so badly it was negligence in my opinion) and suffering under a few Haugh tactical errors (his big mistake was blackballing good petitioners). Hindsight is always 20/20 though.
The main point I deviate on is I believe the LNC was right to be distrustful of Phillies on Massachusetts substitution (as a presidential candidate himself and someone who had was so livid with the prospect of a Barr ticket that he said he wouldn’t give it any support). That was shown in New Hampshire where both Phillies and Barr were on the ballot.
I can corroborate Richard Winger when he says in 2006 Phillies expressed great disdain for major party status. I spoke with George on the phone personally many times. Whether Phillies was de jure in charge of the Massachusetts state party then or not, he was de facto in charge of the Massachusetts LP because the actual chair was unreachable, the board hadn’t met in a while, and Phillies was the one responsive and talking to the LNC.
@57 agreed.
My comment was already too long as it is, and that was besides its main point.
“In the meantime, Jake Witmer and others were sent on a fool’s errand to West Virginia”
West Virginia was only a fools errand because fools were running it. The LP could have obtained ballot access in West Virginia had things not been run in such a foolish manner.
Also, it should be mentioned that Mark and I, along with my brother, were productively petitioning for LP ballot access in Pennsylvania but we ended up quitting that drive due to Sean Haugh trying to chisel us on the pay and causing our pay to be delayed. Mark and I ended up working on ballot initiatives in Colorado for a few weeks when we could have been gathering signatures for Libertarian Party candidates. My brother ended up petitioning for an independent candidate for Congress and then did petitioning for the Constitution Party and the Green Party. This caused some Libertarians in Pennsylvania who were running for the state legislature to fail to make the ballot and it also contributed to the ballot access failures that happened in other states due to Mark and I not working on any LP ballot access for several weeks after this until we went to Alabama and due to my brother not working on any LP ballot access for the rest of that election cycle.
The LP could have easily had candidates on more ballots in 2008 than it ended up with had better people been in charge of ballot access.
Whenever Dondero says stuff like this, chances are better than even that the person in question is a pro-war (and frequently, coercively socially conservative as well), Republican or independent, who is probably in most cases not even interested in the LP. On rare occassions, there are exceptions to this rule.
Just in case anyone reading did not already know that.
Under such a scenario Haugh could have face prosectution as well.
Could =/= would. I stand by the statement you were addressing.
“had that happened, I suspect it would have been they, not he, who would have faced the legal consequences.”
Under such a scenario Haugh could have face prosectution as well. In fact, as things stood Haugh could have been prosecuted due to the fact that he solicitated a crime, which is a crime in and of itself. The fact that Haugh has not been prosecuted is due to the fact that the criminal justice system is already overflooded with cases and there is nobody that’s in a position of power that has the motivation to go after him, but this does not erase the fact that his actions were criminal.
Tom Knapp said: “It’s not nice to lie, Paulie.
The LP’s political director didn’t ‘order’ LPMA state officers to do anything, because he had no authority to order them to do anything.”
Sean Haugh CLEARLY solicited the aid of Libertarians in Massachusetts to destroy petition signatures that were collected by Gary Fincher. He said to “burn” them whether they were paid for or not. This WAS solicitation of a crime and the issue of what authority that Sean Haugh had or didn’t have is not relavent to this fact.
This was a perfect illustration of why Sean Haugh should not be put in charge of ANYTHING.
It’s not nice to lie, Paulie.
I’m not lying.
The LP’s political director didn’t “order” LPMA state officers to do anything, because he had no authority to order them to do anything.
Not all orders are issued by people with the authority to issue them. He told them to do it, and bragged about it later. Some other less savvy state LP officials may have listened, and could have been somewhat forgiven if they thought the national political director was someone who had the authority to issue such orders. Although, had that happened, I suspect it would have been they, not he, who would have faced the legal consequences.
“Meantime, Gary Fincher (who was the top performing petitioner on the Massachusetts drive, with excellent numbers and validity, and has worked all the New England states extensively many times before) was thanked for his efforts by having the LP’s political director order LPMA state officers to burn his signatures (in my hearing and earshot).”
It’s not nice to lie, Paulie.
The LP’s political director didn’t “order” LPMA state officers to do anything, because he had no authority to order them to do anything.
I don’t want to be tiresome, but I hope persistent readers will note that George has commented in this thread numerous times, but not once has he discussed the possibility of a ballot access lawsuit, on the issue of Massachusetts’ horribly difficult requirements for the member of a small qualified party to get on his or her own party’s primary ballot.
He addressed it back in comment 11, although not in any detail.
“George Phillies was very disappointed when the US Senate candidate got over 3% because that gave the party qualified status again.”
me– why on earth would Phillies not want ballot access ??
Welcome back to IPR. Missed ya!
If there is not actually some reason that you don’t want to tell me why you are not talking to me, you can give me a call and I can explain it.
If it’s already been answered further up (I haven’t finished reading the thread yet), I’d still like to talk to you for other reasons.
George Phillies was so influential in 2006 in the Massachusetts Libertarian Party that he intimidated the national LP into not helping it get someone on the ballot for statewide office in 2006. He told Bill and me that he would oppose that idea with every fiber of his being. There was a potential willing candidate to run for either Treasurer or Auditor, I forget which, who was very qualified, but after George expressed his fierce opposition to the idea, we backed off. And when I say “fierce” I just wish I could put use italics or underline it. One would think we had suggested we all go out and deface a cemetery.
Above, Phillies says that this would have been a violation of state and federal law.
JT @16, can you name some of these state Libertarian parties that you say displayed “vehement and widespread opposition to Barr’s candidacy”? My impression is that our affiliate parties generally respected the will of the delegates that they sent to the National Convention. I know of only a few Doubting Thomases (like Knapp and Sipos) who openly proclaim they voted against the Libertarian Party in the November presidential election.
And even there, Knapp convinvced Kubby to help hold the party together instead of leading a major walkout, ran on the same ticket with Barr as an active candidate for US Congress, and did tons of on the ground work for the LP and Barr in his capacity as a local LP representative/activist.
Many LP members had the same sort of mixed loyalties when it came to Barr – respecting the decision of the delegates, but wishing sorely it had been different.
Also our petitioners in New England would then have had the time and resources to do a better job in Connecticut and Maine, two states in which Barr failed to get on the ballot.
We already had those resources.
To wit:
I was staying 1.5 miles from the Connecticut border when the Massachusetts drive ended.
I made inquiries with LPHQ about working Connecticut and Rhode Island.
I was told to go to Alabama instead, and was misinformed that Mark Pickens and myself would be given the entire contract for Alabama.
As it so happened, we only got a part of the Alabama contract, and ended up at the end doing ballot access in Alabama for Chuck Baldwin alone. We got him on the ballot, too, BTW, and had that whole contract for our group. We could have had all three til the end and qualified them all, but Barr/LP and Nader saw fit to split up the contract between us and others. Oh well.
Meantime, Gary Fincher (who was the top performing petitioner on the Massachusetts drive, with excellent numbers and validity, and has worked all the New England states extensively many times before) was thanked for his efforts by having the LP’s political director order LPMA state officers to burn his signatures (in my hearing and earshot). Fortunately, they knew better than to commit this criminal activity, but this former LPHQ employee has subsequently defended this in writing, and is still getting LP contracts, such as the current LP Illinois ballot access drive that is going on now.
Getting back to New England, 2008, Fincher ended up working other states in the region, but not for the LP. Had he been allowed to keep working for the LP, I have no doubt whatsoever that Connecticut and Maine would have qualified, as they did in the past when he was allowed to work there.
In the meantime, Jake Witmer and others were sent on a fool’s errand to West Virginia. Among other reasons, that drive was crippled by the LPHQ/Barr campaign insistence on not cooperating with other ballot access drives going there, as well as in Connecticut and elsewhere, until it was too late.
The WV boondoggle — although run by the Barr campaign, not LPHQ — was kept alive after the deadline, instead of getting the petitioners up to Connecticut. Witmer left WV with the intention to go to Connecticut, where he had worked before, but was specifically told to not bother coming by LPHQ. He ended up in Alabama too.
So, to sum up, we ended up with an excess of petitioners in Alabama, getting Barr on well ahead of the deadline and left with only Baldwin on our boards, and another doing everything but the LP in New England. Meantime, there were Nader and Baldwin petitioners in various states ready and willing to circulate for Barr who were told not to, and those states failed to get Barr on the ballot.
Phillies is the last person who deserves to be blamed for this monumental mismanagement, all of which was at the national level — and all of which involved people who are still getting LP ballot access contracts this year.
In 2008, LPMass put all its resources into petitioning for the Presidential campaign. The Senate candidate was a freebie, because the Presidential nominating paper covered him. That was enough resources to put on the ballot 10 or 20 candidates for State Legislature. If we had known that national had signed, not for the number of signatures we had expected, but a far larger number adequate to put a Presidential candidate on the ballot by themselves, we would have done things differently, and perhaps had substantially more candidates.
I’ll vouch for this as I was on the ground getting signatures, participated in conference calls with the LNC executive committee, and attended LAMA meetings that addressed the issue. The bottom line here was that Mr. Starr and others did not believe that the LAMA ballot access plan was viable and did not trust Dr. Phillies and associates to cooperate with substitution. Neither concern was valid, as it turned out, and resources were duplicated and wasted.
I have no idea why Eric Garris’s fine name is being dragged into this. Some readers will be aware that I have vigorously supported the AntiWar.com site and its fundraising efforts.
Mr. Garris is the publisher of the online version of Ballot Access News. I don’t know that he necessarily contributes to the content (although he has at least on occassion), but he does the web work.
Winger also claims that we had lots of candidates on the ballot in 2004. Winger prevaricates again. You can read the actual numbers at http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleres/maprim04.pdf You have to page down to Libertarian, and if you hunt hard you will find the half-dozen state legislative candidates.
Mr. Winger made no claim to the contrary. Above, in #6 he writes ” In 2004, Libertarians who did it were 6 candidates for the legislature”
In 2006, when the party was not ballot-qualified (because in 2004 the only statewide race was president, and the LP just doesn’t poll 3% for president, in any state, ever), ballot access was “better” (in George Phillies’ opinion). Yet despite the fact that the party’s no-qualified status is supposedly better, the party had no candidates on the 2006 general election ballot for any federal or state office, except two for the legislature.
In conclusion, when the LP was ballot-qualified it had oodles of candidates, and when it wasn’t, in 2006, under the Phillies leadership, it had only two.
2006 ballot access was not under Phillies leadership. That came later IIRC. And there are numerous other factors in the above that bring to mind the phrase “correlation is not causation.”
The report was simply copied from BAN, so I suspect it is Richard Winger who you say is hostile to your campaign, or perhaps Eric Garris. In either case, I’m inclined to take Winger/Garris’ side over yours, George. Nothing personal, but those two have compiled quite a list of accomplishments and I admire both of them immensely. I am sure you are well-intentioned, but Winger’s argument here is air-tight (as his ballot access arguments always are).
Generally true, but in this case George is correct.
Urgh! Who’s in charge up there??
My gosh, they couldn’t just find someone off the street just to place their name on the ballot?
You mean the average Libertarian multi-millionaire non-cheapskate who is just itching to run for office as a Libertarian, but has not managed to find a way to contact the party on his or her own — like we run into just about every day? That kind of someone off the street?
(sarcasm, in case anyone couldn’t tell)
George Phillies also fails to mention that the Massachusetts Libertarian Party had plenty of candidates on its primary ballots in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Yes, it was a lot of work, but people did it. In 2000, Libertarians who qualified for the Mass. Libertarian primary ballot were Carla Howell for US Senate, David Euchner for US House, and 18 candidates for legislature. In 2002, Libertarians who got on the Mass. Libt primary ballot were Michael Cloud for US Senate, Carla Howell for Governor, Kamil Jain for Auditor, Ilana Freedman for US House, and 14 candidates for the legislature. In 2004, Libertarians who did it were 6 candidates for the legislature.
I’m sure this has probably been answered above already, but I’m replying as I go.
Put simply, Mr. Cloud during that time had fundraising capabilities that are far outside the range of what the LPMA (MALP?) might hope to raise today. Successful ballot access isn’t cheap, and I know many of the people that got the bulk of the signatures that made the above candidacies possible.
LP just doesn’t poll 3% for president, in any state, ever
Mr. Winger, off all people, would know the exceptions to this. Off hand, Alaska in 1980, although I understand the point he was trying to make.
Ok I am going to say something people are not going like. The lack of ballot access has helped Georgia. We usally are onr of the top states in total votes for Libertarians yet we have some of the worst ballot access laws ? What this has cause is that we run about 10 candidates at the statewide level. We run good no not good but great candidates and we do not spread are selves to thin and each campaign has people working on it and we dont get the media spotlighting some wacko candidate because we dont have them running but if we had 40 candidates running we would do worst because we would spread ourselves thin.
But then again I could be wrong 🙂
Richard: “The expense argument is not a valid argument.”
Fair enough. I don’t know the answer.
When the ACLU files a ballot access constitutional case, it doesn’t charge anything. When Law Professor Mark Brown of Capital Law School files a constitutional ballot access case, he doesn’t charge anything. When Law Professor Bob Bastress of West Virginia University files a constitutional ballot access, he charges nothing. When Dan Treuden of the Bernhoft Law firm files a ballot access case, his law firm charges nothing. When Gary Sinawski files a constitutional ballot access for the Libertarian Party, he generally charges nothing since he is on retainer to the national Libertarian Party Committee. The expense argument is not a valid argument.
Richard: “I don’t want to be tiresome, but I hope persistent readers will note that George has commented in this thread numerous times, but not once has he discussed the possibility of a ballot access lawsuit…”
George did @ 11 say, “LAMA is aware of Winger’s ideas on having other people file lawsuits.”
That’s not a discussion, granted. But the “having other people file” part suggests to me that either he thinks filing a lawsuit is wrong or he thinks it’s too much work/expense. I’d be interested in knowing also.
I don’t want to be tiresome, but I hope persistent readers will note that George has commented in this thread numerous times, but not once has he discussed the possibility of a ballot access lawsuit, on the issue of Massachusetts’ horribly difficult requirements for the member of a small qualified party to get on his or her own party’s primary ballot. Massachusetts and Maine are easily the two worst states in the nation, for primary ballot access. Neither state takes into account how many registered members a qualified party may have. All the other states either require no petition to get on a primary ballot, or a very tiny number of signatures, or else let any registered voter sign, or make the requirement a percentage of how many members a party has. Also South Dakota is bad on this variable as well, but only for newly-qualifying minor parties, not continuously qualified ones.
@29
LibertarianGirl: We have ballot access *whether or not* we run someone for Treasurer this year. We would have had ballot access in 2010 no matter whether or not Bob Underwood had received 3% of the vote. The BAN quote to the contrary, to put it excessively charitably, is based on a bizarre definition of ballot qualification that does not involve the ability to get on the ballot.
If you move to Massachusetts in 2012, and we can always use more activists, you will indeed be able to run as a Libertarian candidate, even though we are not running someone for Treasurer.
We moved from one non-Presidential candidate in 2008 to some number not yet settled of candidates this year to hopefully more in 2012.
@24 “If national had a willing candidate, did national then expect Dr. Phillies and others to drop what they were working on and take up the ensign? I think what I am really asking is did Dr. Phillies block the work of others or simply not cooperate with someone else’s plan to the extent they wished? Was there something else?”
There was something else. The National plan if executed involved extensive violations of state and Federal law. The same question came up this way, the matter was explained to National –again! — and the plan was dropped for precisely the same reasons it was dropped in 2006.
In addition, the 2006 plan would have made it impossible for us to run a US Senate candidate in 2008. The reason for this is that the National plan would have generated vast potential additional costs for the state party, costs that national refused to cover.
I’m hoping that the BTP, with its more radical membership, will be more receptive to PLAS than the LP which is loaded with rightists.
I have posted a proposed PLAS resolution on bostontea.us. I have offered to participate in a representative contingent to the GP. I would recommend that Richard Winger be pursuaded to participate. His expertise in state election laws & ballot access would be greatly needed in any such vote coordination effort. Winger hasn’t endorsed PLAS either-yet.
“George Phillies was very disappointed when the US Senate candidate got over 3% because that gave the party qualified status again.”
me– why on earth would Phillies not want ballot access ??
& in presidential debate on CSPAN when George described himself as “moderate”, what more accurate would be that he is radical enough to relate to both sides & “moderate” (verb) This gets into the Teddy Roosevelt comparison ?George. He is able to relate to rightists & radical left. & then compromise, moderate, negotiate. Progressivism is basically that-a compromise between the libertarian right & radical left. Note: the convergence of left & right is AT ANARCHISM. The divergence of left & right is AT REACTION-the dem & rep duopoly.
I stepped away mid edit, didn’t reload, and missed a few posts so I apologize to Mr. Winger for asking a question that seems to have been answered.
It does seem that the real crux was that Dr. Phillies did not feel that his time was best spent on the effort rather than actively resisting.
Concerned Citizen @2, very observant that George has not endorsed PLAS-yet. I expect he will sooner or later. Also very astute that all is not lost in MA or anywhere without LP ballot access. We could fall back on Green or Independent ballot access. Esp. in NE, Upper midwest & west coast progressive strongholds. But it is better to have the ballot access generally. Then mix & match.
Winger seems infinitely reasonable here. Thanks for all you do Richard.
RW@23
“When a small party is qualified in Massachusetts, it is very tough for its members to get on its primary ballot (although it is very easy for candidates to get on its presidential primary ballot). He is absolutely right about that.”
I think I understand what you are saying is that Dr. Phillies did not feel that he would be able to muster the resources to get the petition signed?
If national had a willing candidate, did national then expect Dr. Phillies and others to drop what they were working on and take up the ensign? I think what I am really asking is did Dr. Phillies block the work of others or simply not cooperate with someone else’s plan to the extent they wished? Was there something else?
Neither are very good positions for a future chair IM(NS)HO but they do have decidedly different connotations.
I’ve already explained why he is so opposed to having qualified status. When a small party is qualified in Massachusetts, it is very tough for its members to get on its primary ballot (although it is very easy for candidates to get on its presidential primary ballot). He is absolutely right about that. But the solution is to sue to overturn those restrictive laws. We can’t sue if we aren’t a qualified party. We wouldn’t have standing to sue.
Methinks I smell poo-poo on somebody’s shoes!
RW@19
“He told Bill and me that he would oppose that idea with every fiber of his being. There was a potential willing candidate to run for either Treasurer or Auditor, I forget which, who was very qualified, but after George expressed his fierce opposition to the idea, we backed off.”
What was the reasoning? Even if you did not agree with it surely it would be fair to at least present the reason Dr. Phillies resisted?
Brian, you ask a fair question. I don’t want to point my finger at specific state parties. That was just my impression from groups of activists in various states. I don’t have data showing that most LP members voted for someone other than Barr (I don’t even know who else a libertarian could vote for in the general election, if he or she voted at all). But I think there was a lack of acceptance of his candidacy within the party that translated to a smaller campaign budget and volunteer network than when the LP was a similar size in the 1990s. I’ve been following the party since 1996, and I’ve never seen such disgust with a presidential nominee amongst LP members before.
George Phillies was so influential in 2006 in the Massachusetts Libertarian Party that he intimidated the national LP into not helping it get someone on the ballot for statewide office in 2006. He told Bill and me that he would oppose that idea with every fiber of his being. There was a potential willing candidate to run for either Treasurer or Auditor, I forget which, who was very qualified, but after George expressed his fierce opposition to the idea, we backed off. And when I say “fierce” I just wish I could put use italics or underline it. One would think we had suggested we all go out and deface a cemetery.
JT @16, can you name some of these state Libertarian parties that you say displayed “vehement and widespread opposition to Barr’s candidacy”? My impression is that our affiliate parties generally respected the will of the delegates that they sent to the National Convention. I know of only a few Doubting Thomases (like Knapp and Sipos) who openly proclaim they voted against the Libertarian Party in the November presidential election.
I agree with JT. I look forward to a day when we have no more problems with ballot access, and every office has a Libertarian candidate running for it.
I look forward to a day when the *Republican* state committees are begging the RNC — by phoning the RNC telephone booth/Headquarters — for help on ballot access (ditto the Democrats), and have their requests rejected.
I don’t know what is going on in Mass., except that that it’s obvious the party is fielding fewer candidates than it did early in the decade. But given the vehement and widespread opposition to Barr’s candidacy seen within many (not all) state Libertarian parties, I’m not sure that saying “the LP would have been able to put Bob Barr on more ballots” is an argument that resonates with a majority of party members. I could be wrong about that though.
Personally, I think the LP should have strong enough state parties that only a few states with the most onerous ballot access laws should be looking for any support from the national party. National LP scarce resources should go to a modest headquarters, basic operations, and high-quality promotional materials for activists and candidates. As far as other state parties, get your act together if you don’t already and get your own Libertarian candidates on ballots. That’s a big part of why you exist. If you can’t even do that, you probably shouldn’t.
Winger’s claim that I was influential in my party in Summer 2006 is based on his ignorance of our state party, in which Carol McMahon and I were in the minority on our state committee. The majority advocated not recruiting candidates, and they carried the day in 2004 and 2006.
In 2008 we made a decision as to whether to put our resources into Presidential ballot access or local candidate ballot access. We decided “President”. Given the 2008 experience, not to mention the abuse my state association is getting here as a result of that decision, I anticipate donor resistance to repeating that decision.
Winger fails to mention that his scheme for having the LNC place people on the 2006 Massachusetts ballot, if it had advanced, would have been a criminal conspiracy in violation of state and Federal law.
LPMass, my Presidential campaign, the LNC, and I spent twice too much on ballot access in MA in 2008. If the LNC had wanted to save $20,000 out of much larger sum of money it spent on Massachusetts ballot access, it had but to agree to the LPMass proposal for handling Massachusetts ballot access. Aaron Starr, Bill Redpath, et al., rejected our proposal — I had to deal with Starr phoning me after Redpath and I had shaken hands on a deal, demanding we renegotiate, and promising the the LNC ExComm would reject the deal on which Redpath and I had already shaken hands.
“Drat, he’s getting 3.1%”? Scarcely better than 2.9% but much more serious in its consequences.
With respect to Connecticut and Maine, petitioners were available at the state line, doing nothing, available to do petitioning; their offers were ignored. With respect to Maine, in-state volunteers under James Oaksun were available; their offers were ignored.
The reason I know that George Phillies was disappointed that the Mass. LP got its qualified party status back in November 2008 was that I telephoned him election night, November 4, 2008, and said I was trying to find out if the LP candidate for US Senate had polled as much as 3%. I said I was having trouble finding election returns that included the LP candidate’s share of the vote. George had better sources for the election returns in Mass. than I did, and he said something like, “Yes, drat it all, he’s getting 3.1%”.
I had nothing to do with my post being reprinted here at IPR. I had trouble sleeping last night and I got up in the middle of the night and turned on my computer and checked IPR and there it was.
The number of candidates who got on the Mass. Libt primary ballot in 2004, as I said in my first post, was 6. That is more than when the party was not ballot-qualified in 2006 (2) and 2008 (1).
When I said George was leading the party in 2006, I didn’t know who was actually chair, but I knew George was very influential even in 2006. When Bill Redpath and I saw him at the national convention in 2006 and we asked him about regaining the party’s qualified status by running for statewide status in 2006, he was adamently opposed. That was the first time I realized how much George hates having the party be ballot-qualified. But if we had run someone for lower statewide office in 2006, we surely would have got our status back. Then the national LP would not have needed to spend $20,000 getting Barr on the ballot in 2008. Also our petitioners in New England would then have had the time and resources to do a better job in Connecticut and Maine, two states in which Barr failed to get on the ballot.
“In conclusion, when the LP was ballot-qualified it had oodles of candidates, and when it wasn’t, in 2006, under the Phillies leadership, it had only two. ”
Let me repeat that. In 2004, we had few candidates.
In 2006, during the ballot access period, the party leadership was Tom LaRoche, Carla Howell, and their cronies, not me.
“In 2008, also a year in which the party was not ballot-qualified, it had none for the legislature or for Congress, again a year under Phillies leadership. ”
The State party in 2008 processed something like 19,000 signatures for the Presidential ballot access campaign. I have a very clear idea what that looked like, because the nominating papers occupied a large part of my dining room, and when we were sorting them for distribution also a large part of my living room, den, and 500+ square feet of kitchen. When it came time to mail those nominating papers to the smaller towns Brian Stack and I handled almost the entire mailing process.
As I said in one of our Summer 2008 state party newsletters, we had a choice with available resources between ballot access for the Presidential candidate and recruiting candidates down ticket, and we chose statewide access.
“Winger claims that I was ‘very disappointed’ that Bob Underwood got 3% of the vote. Winger has no way to know my actual opinion on the matter. ”
Ohk, give us your opinion.
Winger’s claim that candidate access in 2006 was ‘under the Phillies leadership’ is a flat-out lie.
Ballot access petitioning in Massachusetts was in Spring-Summer 2006, when LPMass had as Chair Tom LaRoche, who actively opposed candidate recruitment and support. The good guys did not retake the state party until fall 2006, well after ballot access petitioning was over.
LAMA is aware of Winger’s ideas on having other people file lawsuits.
Winger also claims that we had lots of candidates on the ballot in 2004. Winger prevaricates again. You can read the actual numbers at http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleres/maprim04.pdf You have to page down to Libertarian, and if you hunt hard you will find the half-dozen state legislative candidates.
We did have lots of candidates on the ballot in 2000 and 2002. There was also a great deal more money. Eventually the largest donors discovered what they were getting for their money — a major local newspaper did the legwork — and the checkbooks slammed shut.
In 2008, LPMass put all its resources into petitioning for the Presidential campaign. The Senate candidate was a freebie, because the Presidential nominating paper covered him. That was enough resources to put on the ballot 10 or 20 candidates for State Legislature. If we had known that national had signed, not for the number of signatures we had expected, but a far larger number adequate to put a Presidential candidate on the ballot by themselves, we would have done things differently, and perhaps had substantially more candidates.
Winger claims that I was ‘very disappointed’ that Bob Underwood got 3% of the vote. Winger has no way to know my actual opinion on the matter.
I have no idea why Eric Garris’s fine name is being dragged into this. Some readers will be aware that I have vigorously supported the AntiWar.com site and its fundraising efforts.
“Readers should understand that one of the people involved in the above report appearing and getting to IPR (NOT BRIAN HOLTZ OR THE IPR STAFF) is extremely hostile to my campaign, and decide for yourself why the above report was written this way.”
The report was simply copied from BAN, so I suspect it is Richard Winger who you say is hostile to your campaign, or perhaps Eric Garris. In either case, I’m inclined to take Winger/Garris’ side over yours, George. Nothing personal, but those two have compiled quite a list of accomplishments and I admire both of them immensely. I am sure you are well-intentioned, but Winger’s argument here is air-tight (as his ballot access arguments always are).
IMPORTANT!
There’s a hardcore Libertarian up in Plymouth, Massachusetts. His name is Jay Beurargard. He’s got a weekly column of sorts with the Plymouth Weekly. Guy’s an ex-Marine, kind of crazy. The paper describes him every week as an “elected Libertarian Town Councilman.”
I’ve passed his name on to Mass LP sources, but they don’t seem to know anything about the guy.
Someone up there, PLEASE FOLLOW UP!!
Perhaps you could get him to run?
Urgh! Who’s in charge up there??
My gosh, they couldn’t just find someone off the street just to place their name on the ballot?
Hmm… I don’t understand this at all.
George Phillies completely ignores my point that the party could plausibly file a lawsuit to overturn the restrictive ballot access laws for primary ballot access for small qualified parties. Such cases have won in federal court in Pennsylvania and South Dakota.
George Phillies also fails to mention that the Massachusetts Libertarian Party had plenty of candidates on its primary ballots in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Yes, it was a lot of work, but people did it. In 2000, Libertarians who qualified for the Mass. Libertarian primary ballot were Carla Howell for US Senate, David Euchner for US House, and 18 candidates for legislature. In 2002, Libertarians who got on the Mass. Libt primary ballot were Michael Cloud for US Senate, Carla Howell for Governor, Kamil Jain for Auditor, Ilana Freedman for US House, and 14 candidates for the legislature. In 2004, Libertarians who did it were 6 candidates for the legislature.
In 2006, when the party was not ballot-qualified (because in 2004 the only statewide race was president, and the LP just doesn’t poll 3% for president, in any state, ever), ballot access was “better” (in George Phillies’ opinion). Yet despite the fact that the party’s no-qualified status is supposedly better, the party had no candidates on the 2006 general election ballot for any federal or state office, except two for the legislature.
In conclusion, when the LP was ballot-qualified it had oodles of candidates, and when it wasn’t, in 2006, under the Phillies leadership, it had only two. In 2008, also a year in which the party was not ballot-qualified, it had none for the legislature or for Congress, again a year under Phillies leadership. There was a US Senate candidate on in 2008 because his name was on the statewide petition along with Bob Barr. George Phillies was very disappointed when the US Senate candidate got over 3% because that gave the party qualified status again.
The headline might more accurately open “Ballot Access News Claims….”
@2 The ballot access issues were solved by Robert J Underwood, and the solution was put into effect by Joe Kennedy.
Oh, rose fertilizer from male cows. Actually, this report has come up before on IPR. The claims about ballot access are still not true.
The Ballot Access News discussion of Massachusetts ballot access laws is incorrect. You can read the actual rules and their implications at cmlc dot org/onballot dot htm (Apologies for spelling that out, but I don’t quite understand the IPR spamtrap perfectly.)
Fortunately, since it is 4 in the morning, and lnc-discuss and the state chairs list leak like the Titanic, several libertarians forwarded this to me last night, and I was able to compose a fuller explanation to be returned to them last night.
As it happens, we will apparently have about five libertarians trying to get on the ballot for Congress, and three or four trying for state rep, including one trying the write-in at primary approach, though most read my article on MA ballot access in time to make an informed decision as to which party line to use. Joe Kennedy’s Liberty Party *may* have more candidates.
LAMA does not have anyone who off hand wanted to burn an extra $15,000-$30,000 just to get on the ballot as ‘Libertarian’ rather than ‘Liberty’ or whatever.
I then wrote:
The Ballot Access News claims about party ballot status in Massachusetts are in error. It has made them before, has been corrected, and just keeps on making them. Running someone for Treasurer in Massachusetts this year will not create ‘ballot-qualified’ status for “Libertarian” in Massachusetts.
No matter whether a Massachusetts Libertarian runs for Treasurer or not, in 2012 Massachusetts Libertarians will be able to appear on the ballot with “Libertarian” as the line after their names.
Indeed, if a Libertarian runs for Treasurer this year, and manages to get 3% of the vote, he will hurt ballot access for every Massachusetts Libertarian Party candidate other than President in 2012, because each of those candidates would need exactly as many valid signatures as before, and with major party status it would no longer be possible for Democrats or Republicans to sign Libertarian nominating papers.
To reassure Mr. Wills (reference to a State Chairs post), it would be a violation of State and Federal Law for the LNC to contribute to the campaign of a hypothetical Massachusetts Libertarian running for State Treasurer or any other Massachusetts non-Federal office, this point has repeatedly been made to Bill Redpath by several LAMA officers, and there is no indication that the LNC is contemplating performing the criminal acts that Wills urges the LNC not to perform.
Mind you, I wish I were fortunate enough that Massachusetts had ‘nominate by convention’ as an option, but we don’t. States that do in
some form, such as Indiana, North Carolina, and Texas, are able to run far more candidates than we do, with far less effort at the ballot
access stage. If we had convention nomination, we might be running more candidates than the Massachusetts Republicans now do.
As a candidate for National Chair, my objective is to have vibrant, thriving parties in all 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and every other territory of our great country. When we get there, ballot access for our Presidential candidate will not be an issue.
Until then, we will have substantial competition for resources. 50-state ballot access access costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. If the 2012 LNC budget is $800,000, that’s a serious problem. If the 2012 LNC budget is $4.4 million, the same as our 2000 budget in real dollars, 50-state ballot access is much less of an issue. That’s just common sense.
If any of you want to hear how Massachusetts ballot access works, read (that web link) or give me a call.
George Phillies
508 754 1859
Readers should understand that one of the people involved in the above report appearing and getting to IPR (NOT BRIAN HOLTZ OR THE IPR STAFF) is extremely hostile to my campaign, and decide for yourself why the above report was written this way.
Robert, why do you have so much faith in George? He never endorsed PLAS.
And this is actually a great opportunity for PLAS. Libertarians just need to endorse Green or progressive independent candidates, and that’s it, no ballot access issues.
Come on Mass. people. Somebody step up to the plate! George, what is going on here?