Posted at
Ballot Access News
Unfortunately, on July 29, the Kentucky Secretary of State retracted his ruling that the Libertarian Party of Kentucky could choose to have Sonny Landham on the November ballot as an independent candidate for U.S. Senate instead of as a Libertarian. Now the choices are either: (1) the party can submit its petition in early August and have Landham listed as a Libertarian; (2) the party can submit its petition in the middle of August, which will mean that the petition will only be valid for president and vice-president, but not U.S. Senator (the deadline for the presidential and vice-presidential candidate is in early September, but the deadline for all other office is in early August). In that case Landham won’t be on the ballot at all.
And thanks for the clarification!
From my experience petitioning all over the country, I highly doubt Mr. Landham was mentioned as the subject of the petition very often if at all, regardless of him being somewhat known in Kentucky.
To answer questions and avoid further speculation:
Petition for Barr and Landham were gathered in conjunction. Title page for both candidates were required to be shown by petitioners upon request of signature.
Moellman and Combs are state candidates and they would need to turn in their own petitions for ballot access.
Ed Martin is a US House candidate in KY-3. he likewise has turned in his own petition.
Write-in votes for Rand Paul would be worthless. Write-in candidates must likewise go thru a petition process to be a write-in candidate. This would be the only time I would categorize something as a “wasted” vote.
Secretary of State only changed their mind when media started to hound them. Would have accepted the split petition, but informed LPKY that it could be open to challenge. With media attention, SOS decided to avoid all together.
Landham is better known name than Barr in Kentucky, so Landham was most likely stated as subject of petition (speculative as i was not present at any petitioning except my own)
Hope that helps out some.
I find I get into too many unnecessary arguments/discussions that way.
Also, I usually have more than one candidate/party on my boards. But, as I said, people are welcome to read it, and I tell anyone who asks.
When I petitioned in my state this year, I just openly said “Ralph Nader”, otherwise I usually just say a party name.
I usually just say independent, third party, smaller parties, or something of that nature, although I’ll tell people if they ask, and of course they are more than welcome to read it themselves.
Paulie’s right. Most of the petitioners likely only ever mentioned Barr or the Party’s name. Not Landham.
He basically hitchhiked onto the ballot because he was part of the party’s slate. It was the Barr/party folks that earned the ballot slot, not him.
Because he’s gotten him himself kicked off that slate, it’s just too bad for him.
Look, Landham’s got the necessary signatures to be on the ballot and to deny him that staus would be wrong.
Landham was a passenger virus. LP national got on the ballot, he just came along for the ride. I would be surprised if more than 1% of the petitioner signers signed because Landham was one of the candidates, or would not have signed if he had not been.
I wonder if politics had something to do with the SOS changing his mind.
Look, Landham’s got the necessary signatures to be on the ballot and to deny him that staus would be wrong.
The LPKY has diassociated itself from Landham and if it wants to go further, it should encourage Libertarian to write-in Rand Paul’s name when voting.
Sorry.
Yes, Democrats and Republicans can drop candidates. Although exactly how late depends on each state, they generally give them until the ballots are actually printed.
Yes, in the vast majority of states they can be on the ballot without petitioning.
You skirted my question. I’m asking if they could drop a lone candidates from the ballot at this late date without affecting their other candidates.
btw, again, if they turn in the petition after the first deadline, but before the second, they lose all non-presidential statewide candidates. That is not an easy decision to make.
I agree, but I’m not sure Moellman et al. will.
I think it’s worth losing two lower level candidates to prevent Landham from causing lasting damage to the party, both in KY and beyond.
It’s a shitty deal and certainly worse than the first deal that the SoS put out, but they’ve already curbed Landham, they can’t bring him back in now.
If there’s an option that would allow them to disavow one candidate, they should take it
OK, I think that’s what they should do then.
Would that keep Moellman and Combs off the ballot? (Moellman is the state chair, so he might take that personally).
Guys, based on what Richard Winger says, they don’t have to re-petition for Barr.
The presidential deadline is later than the one for statewide candidates. According to Winger, they just have to turn in the signatures after the statewide deadline ends and they’ll count for Barr, but not for Landham.
I understand that all their statewide candidates are all on the same petition.
Possibly non-statewide candidates too?
I’m assuming this means they’ll have to re-petition for Barr/Root?
I doubt the LP will want to spend that money twice just to get rid of bozo the clown. I am thinking they are more likely to decide that they want him to run as a Libertarian after all rather than go that route.
I think I’m missing something here. The LPKY doesn’t want him.
I’m not sure whether they will want him or not. I’m guessing they probably will if the alternative is to re-petition for Barr from scratch.
It would seem option 2 is a given.
I’m not so sure on that.
Are down-slate candidates effected by this petition?
Dunno.
Is there concern Landham will sue the LPKY?
Dunno that either. Good questions though.
Would this work any differently if it were the GOP or Dems on the hot seat?
Yes, in the vast majority of states they can be on the ballot without petitioning.
Second worst candidate in 2008? So called Reform’s so called presidential pick, Ted, I knew George Washington Personally, Weill…….
“Lance Combs, KY House District 81
Ken Moellman, KY House District 78”
There are no other statewide candidates, only these guys.
Well, the reactions seem to be the new decision’s the end of the world. The way BAN tells it, it sounds like the only downside is Landham doesn’t get on the ballot. My heart bleeds for him, but what’s the bigger picture that’s getting his opponents worked up about this reversal?
I understand that all their statewide candidates are all on the same petition. So now if they turn in the petition by a certain date, they’re requesting ballot access for all those candidates, including Landham.
The Pres/VP deadline is a little later, so they could turn it in before that deadline and still get Pres/VP on, but no other statewide candidates.
In a way, this is a little better, because it means that Landham is less likely to still be in the race in any form. If he was in as an Independent, he would still be building on the original news momentum that he got as a Libertarian (not to mention still horrifying minority populations everywhere).
I’m assuming this means they’ll have to re-petition for Barr/Root? Hopefully down-ticket candidates aren’t affected, though I haven’t heard any mention that they are.
Fred,
My guess is if Landham sues anybody, it will probably be the Secretary of State. He was pretty friendly to the LPKY on the radio last night. Though of course he didn’t think he was getting bumped off the ballot at that time.
I think I’m missing something here. The LPKY doesn’t want him. It would seem option 2 is a given. Are down-slate candidates effected by this petition? Is there concern Landham will sue the LPKY?
Would this work any differently if it were the GOP or Dems on the hot seat?
Yeah, this is a heavy load of crap.
The other way enabled the KY LP to split the middle. Now they really do have to make the tough choice.
My editorial comment at LFV
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/sonny-landham-the-floater-that-just-wont-stay-flushed/