Ballot access: lessons learned

Posted by Jim Davidson at Next Free Voice

I am starting this topic here because I would like to see a thoroughgoing critique of all aspects of the ballot access initiatives of third party candidates. I am particularly concerned about the failures of the Barr campaign and the Libertarian Party to obtain 50 state ballot access.

It seems to me that libertarians knew going in what states were tough. And not enough was done. But I am not the expert. Paulie and his associates are.

There were failures not only in effect, but in practice. I think there was an ethical failure that Angela O’Dell didn’t get paid for her petition work in West Virginia by the Barr campaign.

There were a number of other failures in regard to petition gathering, ballot access project management, and I’d like to look at all of those failures.

Why? If we learn from the past, while it is fresh in our minds, we can plan better for the future. I’d like to see it.

32 thoughts on “Ballot access: lessons learned

  1. richardwinger

    The way to fix the problem is (1) lobby state legislatures; (2) sue. As to #1, this is the time to be asking state legislators to introduce bills. In many states, if this isn’t done this month or next month, it is too late.

  2. Catholic Trotskyist

    The way to fix the problem is to throw principles out and either join the two major parties, or combine the third parties and independents to into one political party, in my patented Fringe Alliance strategy. Then lobby the state legislatures and Congress to abolish the electoral college, and either implement runoff voting after every election, or implement instant runoff voting. This will increase support for ballot access and support for third parties.

  3. paulie cannoli Post author

    Comments at NFV….

    7 Responses to “Lessons Learned”

    1.
    edit this on 2008.11.21 at 06.02.49 M Carling

    I’ll add some to your list.

    – We had problems in CT because, among other reasons, we failed to photocopy some of the petitions before submitting them. So, when the State lost (into the shredder?) hundreds of our petitions, we couldn’t prove it.

    – We started many states much later than we should have. The most egregious example is WV. Bill Redpath, I, and others said it was too late and we would just be wasting money to try. In some very easy states, such as TN, everything was left to the final days and shrouded in secrecy. In TN, we got on the ballot despite ourselves, though in LA procrastination by the (now former) state chair and inattention by the national party staff and the campaign staff resulted in disaster.

    – In some cases, experienced, proven petitioners were cast aside to try hiring people through newspaper ads.

    – In general, national party staff and campaign staff disregarded the sage advice of experienced ballot access experts like Bill Redpath and Richard Winger.

    – Unnecessary problems with substitution resulted from holding the convention late and using an uncooperative substitute candidate. Future nominating conventions should be held earlier.

    There were probably other mistakes that haven’t been listed by anyone yet.

    2.
    edit this on 2008.11.21 at 15.20.41 Ballot access: lessons learned

    […] by Jim Davidson at Next Free Voice I am starting this topic here because I would like to see a thoroughgoing critique of all aspects […]

    3.
    edit this on 2008.11.21 at 15.49.32 Jim Davidson

    The CT info is very disturbing. Yes, keeping copies seems wise. Good one.

    Starting early, good. I note from reviews we’ve performed for BTP that many states have no set starting date. You can start at any time for a party level petition or name a candidate and start on that candidate’s petition at any time in dozens of states. Not sure that’s easy to do, but it is something to ponder.

    Proven petitioners are a good idea. Choose the people with experience. I think Paulie can second that emotion.

    I’ll go with Richard Winger as a proven, experienced, and thoroughly knowledgeable ballot access consultant.

    I’m not sure what you mean about uncooperative substitution candidate. I know that George Phillies was very cooperative, by agreement, in Massachusetts, in petitioning for substitution. Of course, there was no request for him to do so in New Hampshire, and there was no expectation of NH gov’t cooperation in that case. It seems the Barr campaign was able to get on the ballot, anyway, so I’m baffled as to why you would make this comment against George.

    4.
    edit this on 2008.11.21 at 16.33.16 M Carling

    Yes, there are a handful of states where we could already start working on 2010 ballot access. It would be cheaper to start now than to leave it to later.

    We’re off on a tangent now, but I’m not sure why you would write “Of course, there was no request for him to do so in New Hampshire….” There were many, many requests of Dr. Phillies regarding substitution in NH by many LP leaders including by Richard Winger. In MA, Dr. Phillies was cooperative by most accounts. As for “by agreement”, Dr. Phillies agreed to conduct himself in conformance with LP bylaws by joining the LP. He violated and encouraged others to violate Article 12, Section 1 of that agreement. That “Barr was able to get on the ballot anyway” sidesteps the fact that the resources spent getting the candidate on the ballot in NH due to a lack of cooperation regarding substitution could have been used to get the candidate on the ballot in CT and ME. The silver lining is that the LP may win in the courts a clear right of substitution for future elections.

    5.
    edit this on 2008.11.21 at 16.52.51 pauliecannoli

    Yes, there are a handful of states where we could already start working on 2010 ballot access. It would be cheaper to start now than to leave it to later.

    If anyone wants to contribute to that, I need to get back to work ASAP. Warm weather states would be much preferred this time of year.

    6.
    edit this on 2008.11.21 at 17.00.45 pauliecannoli

    That “Barr was able to get on the ballot anyway” sidesteps the fact that the resources spent getting the candidate on the ballot in NH due to a lack of cooperation regarding substitution could have been used to get the candidate on the ballot in CT and ME

    No one realistically expected the NH case to be resolved in Barr’s favor in time for him not to have to petition in NH.

    However, other things could have been done about CT and ME…for example, I was a mile and a half from the CT border when Mass ended, and I was encouraged to go to Alabama, which I did. Gary Fincher was in Mass at the same time, very close to Rhode Island (which he ended up working for CP and/or Nader), and not far from Connecticut.

    Andy and Mark were in Colorado, but one reason they stayed out there after the convention was that they got jerked around on Pennsylvania. Otherwise they may have headed back east.

    Jake Witmer was about to leave for CT after WV but was “fired,” so he went to Alabama instead. All of us except Gary ended up in Alabama. We ended the LP well ahead of time and ended up working on Nader and CP only, and side trips for the Socialists and BTP to Florida, Tennessee and Louisiana.

    This was not intelligent resource allocation on the LP’s part (specifically Sean and Scott).

    7.
    edit this on 2008.11.21 at 17.13.55 M Carling

    “Warm weather states would be much preferred this time of year.”

    Petitioning in the northern states in the winter is generally avoided both because it’s unpleasant for the petitioners and because voters don’t want to stop outside, take their gloves off, and sign a petition in freezing weather. Weather is a major factor in the cost per signature.

  4. George Phillies

    For those of you who take “sue” seriously, let me note that the cost of the pro bono time we received in Massachusetts would have been astronomical if we had had to pay. The Massachusetts suit succeeded for the excellent reason that we had the prior agreement of the Secretary of State that we were allowed to substitute, and his effort to claim there is no estoppal against government officials under these circumstances did not carry the day.

    No New Hampshire suit was filed until all ballots had been distributed to town clerks and some absentee ballots had been mailed, at which point its likelihood of success was zero. Incidentally, I have inquired of the New Hampshire Secretary of State, and there is still no date for bringing this suit and its multiple false claims to trial, assuming it is not dropped. No one could reasonably expect the New Hampshire suit as it was filed to succeed in time to put Barr on the ballot in New Hampshire, because it was filed after the ballots were distributed.

    Why the LNC spent thousands of dollars on a suit that could not possible be effective is unclear, but perhaps members will ask the National Committee at the next meeting what it thought it was doing.

    That’s assuming that other issues that may arise by then are not seen as more important.

  5. VirtualGalt

    Forgive my ignorance, but in which states did the LP not get on the ballot. (I know Maine was one.)

    As I recall the requirements in Maine are not all that onerous.

    Am I over-simplifying, or is this a matter of:

    1. Identifying what the requirement is;
    2. Having someone/some body determine if that requirement is achievable realistically and at a reasonable cost;
    3. If so, going to the state chair and saying, what is your plan for fulfilling the requirement;
    4. If the state chair has no plan, etc., then find a new state chair.

  6. JimDavidson

    @1 Changing the laws where they are onerous sounds like a good idea. I would be game to have the Boston Tea Party organise groups in the several states which are worst, Richard, to effect change. Do you have proposed legislation, or is it up to us to work it out? Or is it one of those things you only do with LP activists?

    With regard to lawsuits, I’m not sure why anyone expects an essentially unjust government to stop being unjust long enough to find in your favor in a court. I’ve never gotten a decent deal from a government judge.

    Neither lobbying nor lawsuits are the only ways to fix the problems, however. It is exceedingly clear that a party with libertarian principles (though not necessarily a libertarian candidate) can get 50 state ballot access if it works at it. I seem to recall the LP doing so on at least one occasion, possibly more than one.

    Given such a proof of concept, it seems like what happened in OK, WV, ME, CT, LA, and DC did not only involve onerous laws, a failure to adequately sue, and bad luck, but also resulted from organisational difficulties. M. Carling admits as much in his review of the situation.

    It is exactly his type of comments that I was looking for. I would also like to hear some of the ground truth from actual active petitioners in each of the states.

  7. paulie cannoli Post author

    Well, yes, and it won’t solve all the world’s problems either, but it’s the subject of this thread. If it doesn’t interest you, you may wish to read/comment on something else.

    Some people find some value in ballot access and want to discuss practical details. This is the place for that.

  8. VirtualGalt

    The Maine requirement is, signatures of Maine residents,

    “at least 4,000 and not more than 6,000 voters”

    That doesn’t seem so onerous to me.

    The requirement for Governor and Senator is the same.

    Are we saying it is simply impossible and beyond the realm of reality to think we can get 4000 signatures in Maine in 2012?

    Well, probably it is impossible if we don’t have a plan, and somebody charged with and accountable for doing it.

  9. VirtualGalt

    Yes it would be onerous to go through the whole municipal caucus, one per county thing I am sure.

    But the immediate objective (at least in ME) is 4000-6000 signatures by August 8, 2012.

    Maybe I’m looking at this too corporately… but what is to stop ______ (don’t know who) from saying, ____________ is in charge of getting the 4000 signatures and is to report back to _________ (LNC?) by such and such date with a plan and a budget.

  10. VirtualGalt

    I can see how OK and WV would be hard given their laws… but the rest of these should not be an issue, IF the right people have a little discipline and put their minds to it. We’ve got 3 1/2 years, surely at some point in that timeframe we could have solid plans for ME/CT/LA/DC, and point people.

  11. Spence

    @Paulie:

    That wasn’t particularly apt of you at all. Besides hotlinking traffic to your blog, which IS a better place for “that”, I see no other firmly designated area to discuss ballot access other than at BAN.

    Furthermore, ideas and facts are not spread through segregating those whose interests differ. So your suggestion that I go “elsewhere” because I find ballot access and all the comments here excusing themselves for a lousy round this time laughable is pretty null. If you wish to pursue this course of action, and use it as a perpetual scapegoat every 2 years, be my guest. But can’t say I didn’t tell you so.

  12. Trent Hill

    Spence,

    Perpetual negativity is pretty much all I see from you. If this site is so beneath your standards, why do you still visit? You are welcome to start your own news blog. We’d be happy to stomp your traffic-rates into the ground. You can also JUST visit BAN or JUST visit TPW.

  13. Spence

    Don’t be so vain, Trent. That’s pretty much all I see from YOU and anyone you attack. I’d surely start my own newsblog – provide me the capital. Sometimes, it’s a bit impractical to just “get out” and do as you suggest, Trent. The world’s not as black and white as you like to make believe.

    IPR only benefited from the election year and the fact that TPW was seized in a coup, and soon it will start to show.

    The comments section here is the only decent part about your site, and the sad fact is even that’s making headlines and selling points for you guys now.

    In closing, stop trotting out your stupid “go elsewhere” argument. It doesn’t hold up in real life. You’re pretty fortunate that you’re an inelastic service at this point, otherwise this site would be utterly destroyed.

  14. Trent Hill

    “I’d surely start my own newsblog – provide me the capital.”

    This blog was started with VERY little capital, less than $100. Why should I fund your competitive newsblog? Stop being a leech. If you do not like the site, you do not have to come to it. That isnt an arguement, it is fact. No one makes you come to this corner of the Internet. If you do not like it—go away.
    This isnt an unrealistic arguement. All it takes is for you to NOT type in our URL.

  15. Trent Hill

    Oh–and to criticize the writing of the people here is pretty unwise. Peter Orvetti writes for a living. So do I. So does GE.

    Your writing, at Nolan Chart, is pathetic. So let’s not compare,alrighty?

  16. Spence

    First off, I was trying to put things in perspective for your still-as-of-now arrogant mind to comprehend.

    You never properly address the reasons why I occasionally respond, and if you notice, it’s not like I frequent this site. The discussion is the only reasonable part of this site, and even that’s in post-election disorder, which means what was before a small minority, now pretty much everyone is patting themselves on the back and excusing themselves for poor jobs done.

    Now let’s see. You think I compare myself to you? I admit that you guys are totally out of my field. This site reports, what I do is commentary, and also – get this- I actually give suggestions. I don’t do cotton candy articles saying “we must end the Fed” or “Ron Paul is my god”.

    For a paid writer, you sure are not that analytical. And if your only measure of success is saying you’ve sold some words, I can provide you to things I’ve had published too. Please, stop being a vain fuck and deliberating on all of your faults and saying “at least this” and “better than you”. As I said before, it doesn’t hold up in the real world, past 4th grade and the school playground.

    Unfortunately, you still don’t know that yet.

  17. Trent Hill

    “I don’t do cotton candy articles saying “we must end the Fed” or “Ron Paul is my god”. ”

    I don’t really do political content for money. I do business-content articles, professional blogging, stuff like that. Peter Orvetti does press releases I believe. GE does financial and economics commentary.

    “You never properly address the reasons why I occasionally respond”

    List them without the vitriol and i’ll take a look, see what I can do. But I’ll say again–no one forces you to come here. Several thousand people do so, of their own volition, every day. Roughly 15,000 unique visitors come here per month. If we did a sucky job, like TPW, we wouldn’t be so popular—that is how the Free Market works. You are one of two people to voice negative thoughs on this blog…still–I’d love to hear your specific reasons for thinking this blog is sub-par.

  18. Trent Hill

    “IPR only benefited from the election year and the fact that TPW was seized in a coup, and soon it will start to show. ”

    As for that—-obviously. Any election website will benefit from an election year. And any election website would benefit from less competition. Ours is a niche audience, though, and I dont expect traffic to decrease dramatically.

  19. Catholic Trotskyist

    Yes, Trent is absolutely right and Spence is pathetic, although I appreciate his kind words about the comments section, which most likely referred to my stellar contributions. IPR will continue to grow in prestige and traffic, and within the next year will become one of the top 10 blogs in politics, as it benefits from the glorious endorsement of God and the archangel Gabriel, amen.

  20. paulie cannoli Post author

    I can see how OK and WV would be hard given their laws… but the rest of these should not be an issue, IF the right people have a little discipline and put their minds to it. We’ve got 3 1/2 years, surely at some point in that timeframe we could have solid plans for ME/CT/LA/DC, and point people.

    Oklahoma is the only one that is hard given non-retarded planning. Still doable – LP got Oklahoma in 80, 92, 96 and 2000.

    Louisiana is an absolute gimme. Doesn’t even take signatures.

    WV is moderately hard, but there is plenty of time and substitution is allowed. LP got it 04, 00, 96 and 92, and 80 for sure; I ‘ll have to check on the other years.

    The New England States are even easier.

    DC is harder than the numbers convey, but nothing insurmountable.

    West Vi

  21. paulie cannoli Post author

    Besides hotlinking traffic to your blog,

    Huh? I reposted an article by Jim Davidson from the group blog Next Free Voice.

    Next Free Voice is a place to discuss libertarian topics, some of which are political party related and some are not. IPR is a place to discuss all alternative parties and independent candidates regardless of ideology.

    which IS a better place for “that”,

    What are you talking about?


    I see no other firmly designated area to discuss ballot access other than at BAN.

    Um…pay attention Spence, please? This particular thread is about the details of ballot access. There are now well over 2,000 other threads on IPR to discuss if there are other topics you find more interesting. There are countless other websites out there if nothing on IPR interests you. And if that’s still not good enough, you can start your own and talk about whatever you want, in any way you want to, as much or as little as you want, and at absolutely no cost to you.

    Do you make it a habit of going on a message board for DeLorean automobile collectors, go to a thread about transmissions, and talk about how much better it is to ride a skateboard? Or maybe about how a transmission is not enough to get your car running? Duh.

    Ballot access concerns libertarianism, since at least some libertarians find electoral strategies that involve smaller parties and independent candidates to be of some interest. And of course it is a discussion that belongs here. It also concerns the subject matter of this site, although not the only subject; that’s what we have those 2,000+ other threads for.

    Ballot Access News does cover many related subjects, but it also covers some topics that we don’t at IPR, or NFV. It also does not do general strategy discussions like this.


    Furthermore, ideas and facts are not spread through segregating those whose interests differ. So your suggestion that I go “elsewhere” because I find ballot access and all the comments here excusing themselves for a lousy round this time laughable is pretty null.

    Spence, pay attention again. This thread is not about making excuses for this round. It’s about discussing the technical details of what can be learned on the ballot access front, which is one very specific part of what smaller parties and independent candidates do, and what can be done better next time. I realize this is not a subject that interests everyone, and that it does not address many other problems that exist in the world. It is not intended for that purpose.
    It’s to discuss a very specific subject of interest to a select group of people, of which you are not one.


    If you wish to pursue this course of action, and use it as a perpetual scapegoat every 2 years, be my guest. But can’t say I didn’t tell you so.

    Scapegoat for what, Spence? We’re here to talk about optimizing transmissions for DeLoreans, not about why you you want a Camry or a bicycle.

  22. paulie cannoli Post author

    I’d surely start my own newsblog – provide me the capital. Sometimes, it’s a bit impractical to just “get out” and do as you suggest, Trent. The world’s not as black and white as you like to make believe.

    Cry me a river. WordPress.com and a number of other sites provide space to start your own blog at zero cost to you. If you absolutely have to have your own domain name, you can have it for about $10 a year or less. What “capital” is it that you need? We don’t get paid to write here. You have the same opportunity we do.


    IPR only benefited from the election year and the fact that TPW was seized in a coup, and soon it will start to show.

    Maybe, maybe not. LFV was seized in a coup, but I have yet to out-compete it with NFV. That will be the hard part.


    The comments section here is the only decent part about your site,

    So…start…your…own.

    http://www.iwannabitchandmoan.com/

    appears to be available. And you can get in for free on wordpress if the ten bucks is too rich for your blood.


    and the sad fact is even that’s making headlines and selling points for you guys now.

    Eh?


    In closing, stop trotting out your stupid “go elsewhere” argument.

    The only thing that is stupid is that you are still here. Don’t you have anything better to do?


    It doesn’t hold up in real life.

    Sure it does. I go into a club. There’s a band playing. I don’t like them. I leave.

    I pick up a hooker. She wants too much money and and does not look as good as she looked before I picked her up, and she smells nasty. I don’t give her any money and I go pick up another, or just go back to the motel and watch porn.

    I go to a restaurant. I’m in the mood for salmon, so naturally I don’t order a hamburger and then bitch about why I did not get salmon, when salmon was on the menu. If I go into the taco stand across the street I don’t complain to the Mexicans that they don’t have salmon. The restaurant right across the street has salmon, and so does the river they are both next to.

    This works pretty well in many different aspects of real life.


    You’re pretty fortunate that you’re an inelastic service at this point, otherwise this site would be utterly destroyed.

    Prove it.

  23. paulie cannoli Post author

    Additional comments at NFV

    #
    Jim Davidson


    My bad, I meant agreement. There was an agreement with Phillies to substitute in Massachusetts, where, by the way, the Secretary of State had explicitly agreed in advance that substitution would be permitted, and then reneged.

    There was no agreement with Phillies, nor with the New Hampshire authorities, to substitute in that state.

    George makes the point on IPR that there was also no point in the LP suing when they chose to do so – after ballots had been printed and distributed. It was a bone headed move. There are seasons for everything.

    The season right now is for getting state legislators to propose changes to the ballot access laws. That’s this month and next month. Much later, and it tends to be the wrong legislative session, or too late to affect the 2010 races. So, let’s get on the ball with that, shall we? (No reason we can’t work together on legislation that hampers us all.)

    The season for suing over substitution is before the ballots are printed and distributed, as they were in New Hampshire. I don’t know if anyone has pursued that suit, since it is entirely mooted by the actual election. It does seem like a dues paying member of the LP (which I’m not) would ask why spend money on a suit in NH which could not possibly have succeeded. Nuts.

    Kind of like the Barr campaign. A petitioner like Angela O’Dell who did her work in West Virginia and was repeatedly promised to be paid by Shane Cory and others in the Barr campaign, must wonder why there were funds for a $15K air conditioner for an office space that was leased, and funds for $18K of limo rides, and funds for tens of thousands of dollars in political consultants, but she can’t be paid for her work. What a bunch of ass wipes.

    No, scratch that. They don’t rate that high. Jac wipes.

    on 2008.11.22 at 07.21.25 M Carling


    Jim Davidson: “There was no agreement with Phillies, nor with the New Hampshire authorities, to substitute in that state.”

    Indeed. Dr. Phillies was repeatedly asked by many LP leaders, on the State Chairs’ Discuss List and elsewhere, whether or not he would cooperate in substitution if someone else were to win the nomination in Denver. I’ve worked for two US Senators and his answers were the most weasely statements I’ve ever seen from any politician. For example:

    On June 18, 2007, Dr. Phillies posted to the State Chairs’ Discuss List: “There is no credible path that will actually lead to there being two different Libertarian Presidential candidates being on the New Hampshire ballot, or that leads to the candidate chosen in Denver being blocked from ballot access by what the LPNH is doing. I agree you can spin bizarre hypotheticals, but those in my opinion will not come to pass.”

    On July 19th, Dr. Phillies posted to the same list: “The New Hampshire acceptance statements cannot be filed until after the National Convention, because they have an acceptance window. It is therefore _impossible_ for _anyone_ to file the paperwork and then lose our national convention, because the two events happen in the opposite order. It can’t be done.

    To repeat, I can’t imagine any path that will lead to there being two libertarian Presidential candidates on the New Hampshire ballot. Certainly, there is no path that involves me.

    I have already promised repeatedly that if I lose at the convention I am going to work vigorously in support of our next Presidential candidate, no matter which person is nominated, and I intend to keep that promise.”

    Indeed, Dr. Phillies filed his acceptance papers with the state of NH after Bob Barr won the nomination in Denver. Clearly, there was a path to there being two libertarian Presidential candidates on the New Hampshire ballot. Clearly, by signing an acceptance of nomination document after Bob Barr was nominated, Dr. Phillies did not keep his promise to work vigorously in support of our Presidential candidate.

    Jim Davidson: “George makes the point on IPR that there was also no point in the LP suing when they chose to do so – after ballots had been printed and distributed.”

    The point of the lawsuit, as has been repeatedly expounded from the beginning, was to win a clear right of substitution in NH for future elections.

    on 2008.11.22 at 12.22.21 Jim Davidson


    If there is a continuing point to the lawsuit, it might be wise to have someone from the LP’s side of the suit to make the judge aware of the fact that future elections would be affected.

    From the materials you quote, it does look like George made some moves here that were not completely kosher. I’ve no idea of the context of any of that material, nor whether it was authored by George, though I suppose it was.

    There is certainly evidence that George supported the nominee, Barr, in Massachusetts. Equally, he did not, in New Hampshire. Since Barr was such a worthless specimen, and incompetent in getting on the ballot in a number of other states, I don’t regard it as a big deal. It certainly seems no worse than having Neil Smith and Vin Suprynowicz on the ballot for the LP in Arizona back in 2000.

    In the end, it seems to have cost, at most 550-600 votes in New Hampshire which, given what an evil troll Barr is, probably were not available to Barr anyway.

  24. VirtualGalt

    Oklahoma is the only one that is hard given non-retarded planning. Still doable – LP got Oklahoma in 80, 92, 96 and 2000.

    Louisiana is an absolute gimme. Doesn’t even take signatures.

    WV is moderately hard, but there is plenty of time and substitution is allowed. LP got it 04, 00, 96 and 92, and 80 for sure; I ‘ll have to check on the other years.

    The New England States are even easier.

    One of the objectives of a particular state party, ought to be to get on the ballot for that cycle.

    They ought to be charged with coming up with a plan. If they’d done it before… is it unrealistic to think that a “cookbook” could be prepared for how to do it?

    What resources are needed/what it would cost/time needed?

  25. paulie cannoli Post author

    But they haven’t done it before. In most cases, it has been national. Some states have made significant contributions to their own ballot access; others pretty much do little if anything. Only the very easiest states do it completely on their own. And even those, this year national wanted to take over and screw it up (case in point Louisiana).

    As a ballot access petitioner, I can tell you that in 2008 national wanted to micromanage everything. In 2000 and 2004 a lot more states were doing their own hiring of petitioners, cutting checks, etc.

    There are certainly a lot of states that would not get on the ballot without national help.

  26. VirtualGalt

    Well I don’t mean to belabor the point, I just know that in more than one failed access state there were people and resources available (financial and manpower), that the “powers that be” knew were available, and were not called upon. “Someone” should ask “someone” what will be done to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

  27. paulie cannoli Post author

    For starters, don’t piss on experienced petitioners who have actually done LP ballot access all over the country more than once and are actual party members/movement activists, and then fire and blackball us. Then, listen to our advice, don’t nickel and dime (especially when paying mercs more), allow us to subcontract, don’t play games by keeping willing and able petitioners from working, cooperate with other parties/candidates whenever possible (unlike what was done in WV until it was too late).

    Don’t rely on hiring locals who are not experienced petitioners when you are facing a looming deadline.

    Those should be a good start.

Leave a Reply

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