Libertarians in Suffolk County, NY lose ballot status on technicality

from Ballot Access New
New York Libertarians Lose Ballot Status for Suffolk County Slate on a Technicality

October 6th, 2009

On October 6, a New York Superior Court in Suffolk County, New York, ruled that the lawsuit Kosin v Geier should be dismissed. This means that none of the Libertarian candidates for county office in that county will be on the November 3, 2009 ballot. The case was dismissed because the Libertarian Party plaintiffs failed to serve notice of the lawsuit on one of the people who had challenged the party’s petition.

As a result, the voters of Suffolk County will only have one candidate to vote for, in all the races for countywide executive positions. The five qualified parties of New York state all agreed to support all of the incumbents who are running for re-election, so all the races are one-candidate elections.

Note about the challenge: While the challenge benefited both major parties, and candidates who were Republicans and Democrats, the challenges to the Libertarian petitions were made by Democratic Party Committee Member Rosemary Marchlowska, as noted at a Libertarian website: here.

Note about the Libertarian response: A flier circulated by Libertarian candidate Chris Garvey suggests that Suffolk County voters write-in the following names for office:

For Suffolk County Treasurer: Audrey Capozzi

For Suffolk County District Attorney: Christopher Garvey

For Suffolk County Sheriff: Steven Kosin

15 thoughts on “Libertarians in Suffolk County, NY lose ballot status on technicality

  1. Mike Indiana

    Robert,

    Do you honestly believe that ‘ANY’ candidate who embraces your “Progressive Libertarian Alliance Strategy” will win (or can win) regardless of who the candidate is and how qualified they are for the office.
    In 2006 Kevin Zeese (who was an especially qualified candidate compared to other third party candidates) was nominated for the United States Senate, by the Maryland – Green, Libertarian, and Populist Parties (appeared on ballot as a Green). Despite being the nominee of three parties and seeking both the Progressive (Green) and Libertarian vote received 27,564 votes for only (1.55%) .
    According to your “Progressive Libertarian Alliance Strategy” he should have received at least 26% of the vote (13% =Progressive (Green)/13%=Libertarian). Do you believe that the reason he didn’t do better was because he didn’t call it the “Progressive Libertarian Alliance Strategy”? OR is it because he didn’t hire you (lately, you have claimed the importance to your strategy of campaigns hiring you and other notable people such as Richard Winger, etc.)

    While Winger and other (truly) notable third party/independent political figures would certainly help a campaign, but if the candidate is not particularly qualified and accomplished the impact would be negligible. Also what makes you notable. Besides your campaign for the LP presidential nomination (which had microcosmic support) , you seem to have accomplished little politically (or professionally) besides making comments on websites about your strategy and talking about running for offices which you are not qualified – such as governor (while legally qualified – professionally you are not). Often you have proclaimed how you should be invited to speak at meetings (2009 Green Party national meeting) and that groups should pay for your travel and accommodation’s. Why should they do that and listen to you? Are you still unemployed? Is that why campaigns should hire you, despite the lack of political experience (within a campaign – excluding your one man effort) ?

    Finally I have to ask you how much of my taxes dollars have paid for your life the last few years (unemployment, medical bills, etc.)? In the past you have mentioned receiving government assistance and ungratefully mentioned how you feel that the assistance is not enough. How do you reconcile you desire for a hand out (its not a hand up – after a couple of months), with your stated Libertarian beliefs?

  2. Aroundtheblockafewtimes

    Yet another petition drive, and challenge, goes down in flames because of some technicality the LP failed to observe. All the hard work and money that goes into these things and then to lose because of a failure to notify one of the parties to the lawsuit!

  3. Robert Milnes

    Mike Indiana @4, I see that you are a skeptic, critic and/or detractor and are starting to dog me at IPR comments. You are evidently fairly well informed and intelligent and have asked a legitimate question or two here, so I will offer a response. I know about Zeese, ok? true, he had multiple party endorsement. But it was too passive. At this stage to just get the party endorsements, which in itself is unusual & remarkable perhaps leaving the voter with more questions than answers of what to do? What is this? Why is this candidate on one ballot but has multiple endorsements? Is somebody cheating? Has someone made a mistake? etc., doesn’t automatically translate into votes. We have to deal with voter inertia, accustomization & unfamiliarity with the Strategy & what it means. i.e A LOT of voter education is involved in the Strategy. & your numbers are a little off. I have estimated the maximum progressive vote at 27%. The Libertarian Vote by the Cato Institute found the maximum libertarian vote to be about 13%. The idea is to get the maximum of both & ADD them as complementary voting blocs not have them competing hence minimizing both. & yes, if a candidate or party wants to get serious about winning, they should field the best staff possible and that would include Richard Winger & me. Instead of not listening to me & taking Richard for granted. That way ballot access AND Strategy is subject to very good direct daily consultation by all. & ideally the Strategy should be endorsed & actively pursued by both parties & all candidates. Not by just one unusual candidate. It is going to take a inclusive, coordinated “robust” to use a Bush word, effort by all. Not a lackluster, uncoordinated, disorganized effort by a few. To be cont.

  4. Robert Milnes

    I stand by my comment @3. The suggestion by the Libertarian candidate for district Attorney for a write-in response is valid under the peculiarly strict circumstances. I merely added that it could win too, if the Strategy were applied. In this case there is no Green competitor also. To be cont.

  5. Robert Milnes

    Now as for me personally & professionally. My sister is a County social services worker for many years. She has said “They all lie.” I can see how she would come to that conclusion. The government assistance route is very difficult at best. I personally am on SSI which is a below poverty level subsistence program for the impoverished AND disabled. My disability is 100% due to severe depression. If I work ANY I risk being declared NOT 100% disabled anymore. There are rules for working which I believe are up to 90 hours a MONTH(think about that) after which deductions to the assistance begin. etc. I know several people on SSI & I assure you it is not easy. This is one reason I am not regularly seeing a psychiatrist and/or taking medication. I have questions about its effectiveness and expense to the taxpayers. I am very interested in changing my financial circumstances. But my best chance of buying my father’s rental duplex I was cheated out of by a crooked fire insurance adjustor and convicted slumlord lawyer buddy. I had no access to legal assistance pursuant to NJ law. See http://www.njls.org That would have been a very slow, slim margin for error effort, losing medical insurance etc. So when I ask for political contributions for my campaign expenses, that is EXACTLY APPROPRIATE. & since I’ve gotten NONE, you don’t see me campaigning much, do you? & last year MOST of the Libertarian campaigns were poorly contributed to, including Steve Kubby. Possibly due to Ron Paul sucking the air out. & you wonder why I resent Ron Paul A REAL LOT.

  6. Robert Milnes

    By the way, Winger and I corresponded about attending the Green Annual Convention. He expressed an interest. But we were turned down for speaking by the Party. The excuse was requested for too late & not enough facilities. Reality is there could have been alternative facilities and accomodations. The whole convention was pretty much a no-show disaster.

Leave a Reply

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