Today, as reported on their Facebook page, the Libertarian Party of Illinois turned in 53,000 signatures to satisfy, with a more than healthy margin for validity rate, the ballot access requirement of 25,000 signatures.
Libertarian Party Ballot Access: Libertarian Party of Illinois Turns in 53,000 Signatures
By Caryn Ann Harlos on June 27, 2016 12:51 PM
Caryn Ann Harlos
Caryn Ann Harlos is a paralegal residing in Castle Rock, Colorado and presently serving as the Region 1 Representative on the Libertarian National Committee and is a candidate for LNC Secretary at the 2018 Libertarian Party Convention. Articles posted should NOT be considered the opinions of the LNC nor always those of Caryn Ann Harlos personally. Caryn Ann's goal is to provide information on items of interest and (sometimes) controversy about the Libertarian Party and minor parties in general not to necessarily endorse the contents.
Congratulations!
A shout out to Michael Shannon, recent LP “The two-party system is broken” candidate for president at the Orlando convention, who worked his butt off helping the courageous crew collect 53,000 ballot-access petition signatures in Illinois!
Yeah, the credible reason they went over-budget is because their budget was based upon ballot access drives from years ago and did not reflect inflation or market conditions in 2016.
I’m sure there’s a credible reason for going over the planned budget. My assumption is someone funded the effort. It’s always wise, however, to ask questions and keep people honest. Even among your own.
(Assuming that it has been met)
That’s actually 19 inches of statism. Just sayin’.
Seriously though, good job by the LP, meeting that absurd signature requirement.
Excellent point, Jill.
I admit to not coming around IPR as much lately because of all the negativity. If a comment serves no purpose other than to complain, it would be nice to think twice about posting it–as I have about this comment. I’ve thought about saying this for a while, but then this would me a complainer, too. But, seriously, there is plenty to complain about, but also some great stuff going on. We had a great presence at Politicon in Pasadena this past weekend–an event that was expected to have 45,000 in attendance! There have been several articles in mainstream media with my vice-chair, Joshua Glawson, dressed up as George Washington holding Gary Johnson signs! Plus, yours truly was interviewed, and my group and I were mentioned favorably in a public radio write-up with an audio clip. I hope to put this all together tonight in an article.
And yes, Andy, I know the LP of CA used to have many more people and used to be more relevant. But, hey, we seem to be getting better!
.
Sometimes, Andy, such on-line speculation can be counterproductive – encouraging outcomes that would be undesireable.
But this time, it looks like caution based on advice from wiser heads. The Greens are also reported to be filing double the requirement. Either the Ds or the Rs might see the risk from 3rd parties as higher this year, so it’s good both to prepare for and to deter a challenge by filing more sigs. Even with high validity the situation in IL requires extra precaution.
Exactly, Steve.
It isn’t Andy. It should be an automatic part of a post project analysis. What was done, who did it, where could it have been done better.
The stakes were high in 2012 and the LP of IL did not turn in more than double the signature requirement that year. I recall around 43,000 being turned in then as well.
There have been times in the past where the LP of IL turned in double or more than the signature requirement, and they did that because the validity was low. I know that when this drive in in Illinois was started the original plan did not include turning in more than double the signature requirement, so I am wondering if the plan was altered because they started hiring jabronies and droolies off the street and off of Craigslist who brought the validity rate down, so they had to pay for more signatures than originally planned for to make up for it.
How is pointing out that I was right about the amount of money budgeted for the drive, and inquiring about the validity rate, just finding a reason to complain?
They probably turned in more because the stakes are higher this year, so there is a greater incentive to keep the LP off the ballot. With so many signatures it’s unlikely any challenge would succeed, so they’re less likely to try.
Always have to find something to complain about . . . . .
I am wondering if they turned in 10,000 more signatures this time than last time because their validity rate was lower this time. Regardless of the reason, it looks like the odds are very high that the LP has qualified for the Illinois ballot.
The LP ended up spending a lot more money on the ballot access drive in Illinois than was originally budgeted, just as I predicted would happen right here on IPR.
They also ended up turning in more than double the signature requirement, which is 25,000. Note that in 2014, the LP of IL turned in about 43,000 signatures to meet the 25,000 requirement, and this was enough to survive the challenge.
That has to trend on Twitter: #19InchesOfFreedom