Barr still shy of necessary signatures in New Hampshire

The Union Leader is reporting that Bob Barr’s presidential campaign is still more than 700 signatures shy of reaching the New Hampshire ballot by legitimate, non-aggressive means.

Libertarian George Phillies of Worcester, Mass., qualified for New Hampshire’s ballot last month. Republican-turned-Libertarian Bob Barr needs another 557 signatures from the 2nd District and 218 from the 1st District to join Phillies and Nader as alternative candidates.

Of course, Barr’s pre- and post-nomination backers at LPHQ have filed suit ( source follow link http://www.cresthavenacademy.org/chapter/thesis-paper/26/ https://childrenofthecaribbean.org/plan/write-me-custom-college-essay-on-hacking/05/ er diagram assignment follow url school case study template how to write analytical essay https://greenechamber.org/blog/book-report-book-jacket-template/74/ Buy Motilium 10mg https://nyusternldp.blogs.stern.nyu.edu/how-to-change-default-email-font-on-iphone/ custom writing research papers https://caberfaepeaks.com/school/thesis-writing-service/27/ coursework psychology taking cialis and viagra together http://mechajournal.com/alumni/customessaywritingservice-net/12/ source url https://creativephl.org/pills/cheap-medicine/33/ chronological resumeВ https://thedsd.com/internet-essay/ order esl cheap essay on donald trump esl bibliography ghostwriters websites uk get link mail order cialis generic viagra for sale gumtree pay to write research paper http://pejepscothistorical.org/education/time-management-thesis/03/ see url best dissertation conclusion writers website here how to write a dissertation in 2 weeks CORRECTION: Intend to file suit by September 4) on his behalf in an attempt to steal George Phillies’s place on the New Hampshire ballot, as covered here.

Seth Cohn resigned his position as vice chair of the NHLP after its executive committee narrowly voted to join Bill Redpath and Bob Barr in their effort to take away George Phillies’s ballot access.

43 thoughts on “Barr still shy of necessary signatures in New Hampshire

  1. richardwinger

    I think the newspaper is telling us that the although Barr been credited with enough signatures yet, the work of checking signatures is ongoing.

    And it is not true that any lawsuit has been filed in New Hampshire. Finally, if and when a lawsuit will be filed, it will be for the purpose of enhancing ballot access for now and the future.

  2. richardwinger

    Oops! I meant to say the newspaper is telling us that although Barr has not been credited…

  3. G.E. Post author

    The lawsuit has not been filed yet, but it has been authorized, and the purpose of it is to remove Phillies from the ballot and replace him with Barr. Other consequences are ancillary. Libertarians do not support theft and aggression in the name of “enhancing” statist “ballot access” in the future.

  4. Thomas L. Knapp

    The 27th was the deadline for town and village supervisors to certify signatures — any “checking” of signatures needed to be done by then.

    It could be, however, that the Barr campaign has not collected all the certifications and brought them to the Secretary of State yet. They have until September 3rd to do that.

  5. G.E. Post author

    What will be the chorus of shills excuse when Barr fails to have sufficient signatures on September 3?

  6. Lance Brown

    G.E.,

    I’m having a hard time reconciling the fact that you say in the story that “Barr’s pre- and post-nomination backers at LPHQ have filed suit on his behalf”, and yet in the comments you say no suit has been filed.

    Generally speaking, it’s getting harder and harder to see the stories behind your posts, as they are coated in such a thick layer of venom that the facts, when they are accurate, are broadly outshined by your vitriol.

    And then there’s the cases where the facts aren’t accurate. Like this story, which claims a lawsuit has been filed when, from what I’m gathering here, there won’t even be cause for a suit until September 4th.

    Also, FWIW, George Phillies does not own his ballot access. The State of New Hampshire does. And it can’t be stolen.

    The real story behind NH is that the state party should be able to decide who is on their ballot line. If the law does not allow for this, then it’s not Barr’s fault, and getting it corrected is not wrongdoing on his or the LP’s part.

    And seriously, GE, it’s getting harder and harder to even read your posts. You used to claim to separate the journalism (in the post) from the editorial (in the comments), but that line has been blurred lately, to put it lightly.

  7. G.E. Post author

    Lance – I was mistaken about the suit having been filed. I acknowledged the error in the comments. It is purely factual that members of the LPHQ were supporting Barr pre-nomination, and it is obviously the case that they support him (as they are bound to) post-nomination.

  8. G.E. Post author

    I shouldn’t say “purely factual” — I should say “beyond any reasonable doubt.” In order to disbelieve this, you have to bend over backwards so far with so many “coincidences” — which the unrelenting shills for Barr/Redpath are more than happy to do.

  9. Lance Brown

    I’m also having a hard time understanding how operating within the NH secretary of state’s policies and procedures is legitimate, but using the NH court system to seek redress is not. Seems like it’s all the same state government to me, and it has rules and procedures…one of which is that the courts can intervene to ensure justice and the interests of the public are best served. It could be very easily argued that the secretary of state is wrong in how they assign ballot access. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time.

    I have no problem with George Phillies, but it makes no sense for him to be on any ballots as the LP presidential candidate. He’s not the LP’s presidential candidate. Barr is. Pretty straightforward.

  10. G.E. Post author

    “steal” can be used euphemistically, as in those who say Barr will “steal” votes from McCain.

  11. Lance Brown

    yes, but one doesn’t usually use “steal” euphemistically when making arguments about how libertarians should properly behave.

    Were you also being euphemistic here?

    Libertarians do not support theft and aggression in the name of “enhancing” statist “ballot access” in the future.

    I don’t believe that you meant “steal” euphemistically in the original post. (Largely because you backed up your theft accusation in the comments.) But it’s a convenient way to bypass my question about one arm of the government being legitimate and the other being non-legitimate, and “aggression”.

    So why don’t you explain why it’s aggression (and theft, and not legitimate means) when Barr (notably: the party’s nominee) endeavors to use the laws and mechanisms of the NH state government to get put on the ballot, but it is (by implication) legitimate and non-aggression when Phillies (notably NOT the party’s nomineee) uses the laws and mechanisms of NH to do the same.

    Philosophical points aside, I’m having a hard time understanding why Barr should be castigated for trying to get on the ballot in NH or anywhere else. In a sane world, 50-state ballot access would be automatic for the LP nominee, and this rather absurd discussion about whether Phillies or Barr or both should be on the NH ballot would not be happening. In that light, it seems to me like the Barr camp is trying to make the universe a little more sane. Which I tend to regard as a good thing.

    It is sooo crazy that any Libertarian time or energy has to be spent on resolving this at this late date.

  12. G.E. Post author

    Lance – The whole post was one giant euphemism. You didn’t get it?

    Seriously: Yes, I do consider it theft and an act of aggression. Phillies earned the ballot status fair and square, by the laws of the land. Barr is attempting to take it away from him because he FAILED (like he did so many other places) to achieve it for himself.

    Spence – You’re free to stop visiting the site any time you’d like. Our hit count would truly suffer.

  13. Spence

    Once again, you distort the meaning of what I say so you can validate yourself as if everything is directed towards you yet nothing affects you. I’ll ask you kindly to stop. Your arrogance is showing.

  14. G.E. Post author

    Spence – Arrogance is what I’m made of. Asking me to stop is like asking a dog to stop being a dog, or asking Bob Barr to stop being a neocon.

  15. Spence

    But honestly, how can you rationalize away biased information when it’s this same bias that permeates the MSM and keeps your message down?

  16. G.E. Post author

    I do my best. I was wrong in saying the suit had been filed — that was an error. Sorry.

    Bias is only insidious when it’s disguised. I do not hide my opinions and therefore people can decide.

  17. George Phillies

    I was specifically informed on Thursday, by members of the LNC, that the LNC Chair had ordered the suit be filed, and that it would be filed on Friday, so there is an entirely credible source who could have been G.E.Smith’s source as well.

  18. Thomas L. Knapp

    Lance,

    The term “the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate” is not very specific. There are around 50 Libertarian Parties in the United States, and it is an historical fact that all 50 of them do not always run the same presidential candidate (see Arizona 2000).

    The LPNH collected signatures to put George Phillies on the ballot as “the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate” in New Hampshire, and at this time he is the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in New Hampshire, that state’s laws not allowing for substitution.

    If LPNH wants to un-nominate Phillies and nominate Barr, then they should support the litigation to allow them to do so.

    If LPNH doesn’t want to do so, the LNC’s only morally supportable recourse is disaffiliation of LPNH and an attempt to put Barr on the ballot too — not to attempt to seize control of a ballot line that was secured by, and rightfully belongs to, LPNH, not LNC.

  19. George Phillies

    The reference to New Hampshire as having ballot lines is imprecise. Every candidate who petitions successfully as a Libertarian will be so listed. I personally discussed this with the NH Secretary of State.

    The LPNH State Convention specifically voted that its state committee could not do candidate substitution, that a special convention was needed. A convention was used to put Sue Newell on the ballot as a replacement. New Hampshire Libertarians who wanted to arrange a change have had a year and a half to do so. Similarly, New Hampshire Libertarians who wanted to litigate have had months since the State Convention in which to make a timely filing and have not done so.

    I went up to Jaffrey for the First Amendment Festival last weekend, and met substantial numbers of Libertarians. Almost every one thanked me for being on the ballot — most thought Barr would also be on the ballot — so that they would have someone to vote for.

  20. richardwinger

    The New Hampshire Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate is Susan Newell. She is depending on the Barr petition to get on the ballot, since she is listed on the Barr petitions. However, she doesn’t need as many valid signatures on the Barr petition as Barr does, since she has some that were gathered on other petitions.

    It is not really precise to say that “the NHLP” circulated this petition or that petition. The reality is that individuals circulate petitions. And there are multiple petitions being circulated by New Hampshire Libertarians.

    Does anyone have the minutes of the 2007 NHLP convention that nominated George Phillies for president? What was the date of that convention? Where was it? How many people attended? Was there any discussion of whether the nomination was permanent that are recorded in written minutes?

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    Richard,

    Thank you for correcting me. I’ll re-state the factual claim to make it accord as closely with reality as possible:

    “Signatures were collected to put George Phillies on the ballot pursuant to the outcome of a special LPNH convention held on April 15, 2007.”

    Per the link above, that convention was attended by about 50 persons. Here’s a PDF of LPNH’s newsletter including an article on the convention.

    That timeframe gave both LPNH and the LNC several months to consider and act on the situation.

    If LPNH was determined that Phillies would be its candidate regardless of the national convention’s outcome, it should have disaffiliated from LNC and given up its representation at the LNC’s national convention after taking that decision.

    If LNC was determined that LPNH was acting in violation of bylaws requirements as they apply to affiliates by sanctioning Phillies as the presidential nominee without the national convention having acted, it had until November of 2007 to disaffiliate LPNH for cause, strip LPNH of its national convention representation, and possibly recognize a new affiliate organization to support its prospective ticket.

    It’s hard to find a player in this saga which has acted entirely appropriately. This business of the LNC suing to remove a candidate without his consent, after he has submitted valid petition signatures, etc., and replace him with their preferred candidate, just adds to the list of bad ideas being acted upon.

  22. richardwinger

    Tom, thanks for the useful link to the info about the April 15, 2007 state convention of the NHLP. Since that convention nominated Karen Kwiatkowski, who is not willing to run for vice-president this year, did the NHLP ever hold another nominating convention to choose another VP?
    Also, is there any NHLP bylaw that gives the state party the authority to choose its own presidential nominee for the general election? And if there is a national LP bylaw that requires state affiliates to place the LP national convention choice on the ballot, and an absence of any state NHLP bylaw giving the state party the authority to disregard the national Bylaw, doesn’t that imply that the April 15 2007 convention was for the purpose of choosing a stand-in presidential nominee so the party could get started circulating a petition, as opposed to an intent that this would be the permanent nominee?

  23. Thomas L. Knapp

    Richard,

    You’re reaching pretty far here to get the result you want.

    The result you want — and which I’d like to see myself — is a court upholding substitution.

    However:

    – The contemporaneous articles mention no intent to substitute. They simply say that LPNH nominated Phillies.

    – So far as I know, the petitions circulated to put Phillies on the ballot don’t mention substitution, either.

    – New Hampshire state law forbids substitution.

    – LNC took notice of what LPNH was doing and objected to it AT THE TIME — but failed to follow through with disaffiliation, etc.

    How anyone can take those facts, and conclude from them that substitution was somehow understood to be the end point of this process, I don’t understand.

    You know as well as I do that political parties are organized and recognized at the state level. No court in New Hampshire is going to give a tinker’s damn about LNC’s bylaws. LNC is not a political party in New Hampshire, LPNH is. LPNH’s relationship to LNC is completely irrelevant to LPNH’s standing as a party in New Hampshire.

    I’ve said that LPNH should either act in accordance with the affiliate provisions of LNC’s bylaws, or disaffiliate itself from LNC.

    I’ve said that LNC should hold LPNH to the affiliate provisions of LNC’s bylaws, and disaffiliate them if they refuse to operate in accordance with those provisions.

    I stand by both those statements. You may have noticed that one particular name was not in play at the 2007 LPNH convention. Steve Kubby specifically requested to not be considered a candidate for LPNH’s nomination, precisely because he had no desire to get involved in what was obviously likely to end up as a pissing match.

    What LNC does not have the standing to do is sue for substitution of its own candidate for LPNH’s candidate. They need to either have LPNH on their side, or else live with Phillies being on the ballot, unless they want the pissing match to continue into future election cycles. My understanding is that they may now have accomplished the former.

  24. richardwinger

    Tom, you make a lot of sense. I can envisage a lawsuit that doesn’t even have the LNC involved. But I would still like to know if there are written minutes from the April 15, 2007 event. Also you didn’t mention Kwiatkowski’s v-p nomination. Did the NHLP have a later convention to nominate someone else for v-p? Also who is George Phillies’ v-p now? I understand it’s not Chris Bennett. And even if it were Chris, did the NHLP ever hold a convention and nominate him?

  25. George Phillies

    The issue of substitution in New Hampshire, for the State Convention, refers to what the LPNH activists actually control through voluntary agreement, namely the list of names that appear on nominating papers. In fact, some fine activists somehow received inaccurate forms to reproduce, and others omitted some names from the papers they were circulating.

    The notion that you can due to remove from the ballot someone who is legally qualified, has satisfied the ballot access rules, and has been placed on the ballot, is deranged, particularly if the candidate for whom you are substituting is on the ballot.

  26. Aaron Starr

    Not arguing the legal side here.

    I certainly support George Phillies’ right to be on the ballot — as an independent candidate.

    No candidate has the “moral” authority to compel an association on the ballot between him- or herself with a political party without that party’s permission.

    The national party’s bylaws clearly address the issue of who has the right to nominate our candidates:

    ARTICLE 12: PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS
    1. Nominations of candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States may be
    made only at the Regular Convention immediately preceding a Presidential election.

    The right to select our party’s nominee is reserved to the delegates selected from *ALL* the state affiliates collectively, not individually.

    A state party that voluntarily agreed to be and continues to agree to remain affiliated with the national party has a moral obligation to honor this agreements, just like any other agreement voluntarily entered into.

    I imagine, theoretically, the LPNH could choose to disaffiliate, but they would then be required to change their name from Libertarian Party to something else. Then the national party would take steps to charter a new affiliate in that state.

    ARTICLE 6: AFFILIATE PARTIES
    1. No person, group or organization may use the name “Libertarian Party” or any confusingly similar designation except the Party or an organization to which the Party grants affiliate party status or as otherwise provided in these bylaws.

    Fortunately, the LPNH has agreed to become part of a lawsuit to have Barr as the party’s sole nominee for President in New Hampshire.

    I can’t state whether the courts will agree with the plaintiffs. State governments often infringe on the “freedom of association” rights of political parties.

    I believe the lawsuit would be more likely to prevail if George Phillies were to join in such an action, and he would become a real hero in my book if he were to do so.

  27. George Phillies

    Winger proposes of the LPNH State Convention “doesn’t that imply that the April 15 2007 convention was for the purpose of choosing a stand-in presidential nominee”

    In my opinion, it would be hard to advance this claim unless you were a two-face liar or an idiot. If you wanted to designate a stand-in, you could perfectly well choose some of your own state officers — it helps to remember the exact Constitutional requirement on how electors may vote — and announce they are the standins. That is what we did in Massachusetts. We chose some credible people, knowing that they would be replaced if they were not the candidates. New Hampshire did nothing of the sort.

    The LPNH invited candidates to come or send representatives, travelling through mid-April NH were surprise snowstorms are commonplace. My campaign spent a significant sum of money to send my campaign Treasurer, Carol McMahon, as one of several surrogates.

    The State convention had speeches advocating candidates. Don Gorman gave I am told a rousing speech on my behalf. The convention held multiple ballots to choose the candidate. Why would this be done as a standin?

    I would anticipate that many of the participants in the LPNH State Convention are going to testify or be deposed over this point, if the LNC is so ill-advised as actually file this suit and manage to bring it to trial.

    The LNC has had a year and a half (with a gap) to disaffiliate LPNH. It instead admitted to its National Convention what was in my opinion a transparently fraudulent DC delegation, admitted so that the delegation head Rob Kampia was due to give a nominating speech for Barr. For Full Details, read Liberty for America libertyforamerica.com

    The LPHN has had since late May to file this suit, and did not do so until now.

  28. richardwinger

    No one has answered my questions…are there minutes from the April 15, 2007 NHLP meeting? And who is George’s vice-presidential candidate in NH? And is that vice-presidential candidate someone who has been nominated by the NHLP? The April 15, 2007 convention nominated Karen Kwiatkowski; she isn’t willing to run; has the NHLP replaced her? And if so, who is it, and when did that happen?

  29. Aaron Starr

    At the July 21, 2007 LNC meeting, LPNH Chair Brendan Kelly addressed members of the LNC during the public comments section of the meeting. We were told that LPNH was concerned that a Memorial Day weekend national convention would result in LPNH not having sufficient time to gather the required number of signatures to place our convention approved nominee on the ballot. Our approved minutes make clear that Kelly stated that LPNH was “doing things in the easiest way.” By gathering signatures for one promising candidate early, there was the possibility that this candidate would become the nominee anyway and, if not, there was also the possibility of suing for substitution. In a worst case scenario, we would have a libertarian on the ballot, though not our nominee. Regardless, we received assurances that LPNH would ultimately support the nominee selected by the delegates in accordance with the bylaws. With that information in hand, we had no reason to consider any corrective actions against the affiliate.

    To have someone now suggest that the intention all along was to disregard party bylaws seems to be a re-writing of history.

    If LPNH no longer wants to uphold the bylaws they agreed to and wants to support another candidate, their only “moral” course of action would be to disaffiliate from the national party, abandon the party’s brand name and support the candidate of their choice.

    I doubt that they would support such a move.

  30. Thomas M. Sipos

    I don’t see that the national LP “owns” the party “brand name” despite its trademark registration.

    Trademarks registration does not create absolute rights. The rights that derive from trademark registration various case by case, and can only be known for certain after a court has ruled on it.

    State parties were called libertarian before the national LP registered the “brand name.” This means that a court would likely rule that the state parties can continue to use the name libertarian even if they disaffiliate.

    Precedence of actual use is a powerful legal factor when determining the scope of a trademark.

    Furthermore, a court may rule that “libertarian” has strong generic aspects, relating to an overall political philosophy. (Such as the term “socialist.”) This would further limit the “scope” of the trademark.

    Thus, a court may well permit competing parties to call themselves by such names as the Antiwar Libertarian Party, or the Purist Libertarian Party, or the Democratic Libertarian Party, or whatever.

    The LNC barks very loudly. Yet I doubt that its bite would hold up in court.

  31. Aaron Starr

    Thomas,

    I believe you’re making a statist legalistic argument.

    My argument is a principled, moral one.

    When a state party voluntarily agrees to affiliate with the national party, it also voluntarily agrees to be bound by the national bylaws that the delegates enact at convention.

  32. richardwinger

    No one is claiming that the LNC has control of the word “Libertarian”. To the extent that parties have control of their name (for ballot purposes), it is state parties that have the power. The 10th circuit ruled in Baer v Meyer in 1984 that states must give state parties name protection even if those parties aren’t ballot-qualified. The plaintiffs were the state Libertarian and Citizens Parties, which were not qualified at the time.

  33. Thomas M. Sipos

    Aaron: “I believe you’re making a statist legalistic argument. My argument is a principled, moral one.”

    When the LNC registered the trademark, they were taking a “statist legalistic action.” One potentially aimed at disgruntled affiliate parties. In fact, they had the Arizona party specifically in mind, no?

    “When a state party voluntarily agrees to affiliate with the national party, it also voluntarily agrees to be bound by the national bylaws that the delegates enact at convention.”

    For how long? Until forever? Or until it secedes?

    Anyway, I’m not just making a legalistic argument, but a principled, free speech argument.

    Libertarian is more than the name of a political party. It’s the name of a philosophy, with many permutations and variations. It would be anti-free speech (I think) for the LP to forbid other libertarian parties from accurately describing themselves as such.

    As long as competing LPs varied their names sufficiently so as not to cause confusion with the current LP (as does the Socialist Workers Party from the Socialist Labor Party), I think one would be on moralistic, principled ground.

    Provided sufficient differentiation, I think it would be immoral and unprincipled for the LP to forbid other libertarian parties from calling themselves such.

  34. Aaron Starr

    Thomas,

    Actually, I believe we are in agreement here.

    As long as a party that disaffiliates changed its name sufficiently so as not to cause confusion and perpetuate a fraud, that would be fine.

    Today there are no “libertarian” political parties in the United States that are not affiliated with the Libertarian Party, so there are no prior use arguments here.

    Establishing the trademark is simply, in effect, memorializing an agreement that all of the affiliated parties have, which is that only the party and the affiliates may use the name “Libertarian Party.”

    It has been reported that LPNH is honoring its agreement to uphold our bylaws by joining the LNC in a lawsuit against the Secretary of State, so there is no issue here about trade marks when it comes to political parties and there is no incentive for any party to want to disaffiliate.

    The only issue now is that we have a candidate that is currently not morally entitled to use the name Libertarian Party because he was not chosen by the Libertarian Party in accordance with our bylaws.

    Mr. Phillies was not my first choice for the nomination, but then again neither was Mr. Barr. That said, I certainly found that he could be an acceptable nominee to me and I might very well support him in 2012.

    But given the decision in Denver, he is not the nominee in 2008.

    I’m sure that given an opportunity to mull it over, he’ll have to conclude that he is not morally entitled to use the name Libertarian Party for the purpose of seeking this political office in 2008 because it would defraud the voting public into thinking he was the nominee, rather than Barr.

    Hopefully, he will become the hero that I believe he is capable of being by choosing to join in this lawsuit to allow for substitution in the future. Such a move on his part would allow the plaintiffs to present a more powerful legal and moral argument in the court room.

  35. cbennett

    but just remember that people like Redpath, Starr, Lieberman and Sullentrup keep removing a proposed motion for next weekend’s lovefest in D.C. to kick George and I out of the LP. I can’t speak for George but if you feel frisky enough to revoke my membership,which I have been apart of for 17 years now…GO AHEAD and fucking do it already! But unlike prior LNC actions I don’t think they have the BALLS to do it. Yeah I’m pushing the envelope HARD now because I don’t think there are enough votes to do it. Plus it sets a bad precedent for future actions and you’ll make me a martyr for the party. Bad boy Starr, whatcha waiting for?

  36. Thomas M. Sipos

    Aaron: “As long as a party that disaffiliates changed its name sufficiently so as not to cause confusion and perpetuate a fraud, that would be fine.”

    I think a new party should have a sufficiently different name. I’m not sure that a disaffiliated pre-existing party should be required to change its name.

    Someone brought up an interesting point recently: Is the LNC a parent organization (which creates affiliate parties), or an umbrella organization (which unites pre-existing parties)?

    If a parent, then the parent retains the name. If an umbrella, then the state parties retain their names if they disaffiliate.

  37. richardwinger

    David Nolan would know the answer to that last question. I am guessing the famous living room meeting founded a national party, and state parties came later.

  38. Aaron Starr

    Thomas:

    If you look at the Article 6.2 of the bylaws you’ll find that it is the national party that charters state parties. In effect, the LNC is a parent organization.

    ARTICLE 6: AFFILIATE PARTIES
    1. No person, group or organization may use the name “Libertarian Party” or any
    confusingly similar designation except the Party or an organization to which the Party
    grants affiliate party status or as otherwise provided in these bylaws.
    2. The National Committee shall charter state-level affiliate parties from any qualifying
    organization requesting such status in each state, territory and the District of Columbia
    (hereinafter, state). Organizations which wish to become state-level affiliate parties shall
    apply for such status on a standard petition form as adopted by the National Committee,
    which petition shall be signed by no fewer than ten members of the Party residing in the
    appropriate state. Affiliate party status shall be granted only to those organizations which
    adopt the Statement of Principles and file a copy of their Constitution and/or Bylaws with
    the Party Secretary.
    3. There shall be no more than one state-level affiliate party in any one state. Each statelevel
    affiliate party shall, in accordance with its own Bylaws and these Bylaws, determine
    who shall be its delegates to all Regular Conventions. A state-level affiliate party may
    charter sub-affiliate parties within the state, which will entitle such sub-affiliates to use the
    name “Libertarian Party.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *