Libertarian Party Convention Seats Reeves’ Oregon Delegation

There has been a good bit of conflict in the Libertarian Party of Oregon over who is the real set of officers and who controls the future of the Libertarian Party in that state. Now, Marc Montoni has reported that the Credentials Committee of the Libertarian Party has ruled in favor of the Reeves delegation over the Wagner delegation.

It is unclear, as of yet, why the Credentials Committee made this decision and what factors were considered.

78 thoughts on “Libertarian Party Convention Seats Reeves’ Oregon Delegation

  1. Steven R Linnabary

    The vote was 4-3 with one abstention.

    The Reeves faction PROMISED to work with the Wagner delegation.

    We’ll see.

    PEACE

  2. Jill Pyeatt

    How condescending.

    First the Reeves group sent out that ridiculous letter, which made them look like fools, and now this?

    Do they really think bully tactics are the way to go right now?

  3. NewFederalist

    How will this affect the ticket which appears on the Oregon ballot?

  4. Richard P. Burke

    All,

    With reference to @1, the Reeves Oregon delegation chair committed to fill vacancies in the Oregon delegation with people from the Wagner delegate list. Emails have been sent to Wagner with this information and I have conveyed it to Jeff Weston personally, Wagner’s delegation chair.

    I spoke to the credentials committee for about 90 seconds. Wagner’s side declined to do the same, rather impolitely in an email to Emily Salvette.

    Richard P. Burke

  5. Seebeck

    So the Credentials Committee has decided to ignore the Judicial Committee ruling. Nice.

  6. Seebeck

    The Reeves delegation was illegitimate to begin with and therefore was in no position to make such an agreement.

  7. Steven R Linnabary

    IMHO, both factions are illegitimate.

    OR is allowed 15 delegates. The Wagnerfaction presented a list of 15, the Reeves faction a list of 14. 4 people were on both lists.

    M. Carling said he would join the NY delegation since he is a life member there as well as OR.

    If the Reeves faction does work with the Wagner faction as promised, say take on 3 of the folks on the other list and drop a couple on their list, a floor fight might be avoided.

    And the floor delegates simply do not have the time to waste on this frivolous debacle. I know I am tired of reading about it here on IPR.

    PEACE

  8. Jill Pyeatt

    Mr. Burke, how polite do you expect Wes Wagner to be ??? Don’t pretend to be Mr. Nice Guy, give us a break .

  9. George Phillies

    I have arrived in Vegas. My room is 19108. I expect to have events every evening, though there is some need for volunteers to run the card key elevator to get people up here.

  10. Robert Capozzi

    Despite Wes “Flaming Middle Finger” Wagner’s habitual rudeness, this move looks compulsively dysfunctional on its face.

  11. Oranje Mike

    Reeves’ letter arrived in my mailbox on Monday. It made for interesting reading but I was curious about the argument for the other side. The letter stated delegates might end up voting for which delegation is seated. Glad it didn’t come to that. I don’t see how anyone outside of the Oregon circle could vote any other way than “abstain” or “present”. I don’t want to meddle in the melodrama from another state.

    In other, more pleasant, news…I will be headed up from Arizona tomorrow. Look forward to meeting other folks in the LP.

  12. Jill Pyeatt

    OM @ 12 : I’m of the opinion that this kind of meddling into state’s business will continue if it isn ‘t stopped. I think the fight put up by Mr . Wagner wasn’t expected , and he’s done a big favor to the other states by not giving in.

  13. Thomas L. Knapp

    SRL and OM,

    There are many things about the Oregon situation which are controversial.

    There is one thing which is not “controversial” in the sense of being reasonably arguable/disputable:

    The “Wagner faction” is the Libertarian National Committee’s only affiliate in that state, and therefore the only organization which is “legitimate” for purposes of delegation credentialing.

    The credentials committee’s action was as “legitimate” as if it had seated a delegation from Minnesota which was submitted by the Farmer-Labor Party instead of the LPMN.

  14. David Colborne

    I’m still completely bewildered by the handling of the LPO fiasco. The simplest solution would have been, after the failed convention last March, for the LNC to “vote to disband” the LPO, effective July 1 (or the closest Saturday), with an immediate motion to hold an organizing convention immediately following the vote. Then, let the organizing convention draft fresh bylaws, elect new officers, and go on their way. They could have even honored lifetime memberships from the “previous” iteration of the LPO, only this time being a little clearer about what convention quorum was. Problem solved, everybody goes home happy. As far as Oregon’s SoS would have been concerned, it would have just been another amended certificate of existence to process.

    It’s not like either faction is in line with their bylaws or Robert’s anyway. Robert’s is clear – bylaws can only be amended by a convention unless expressly specified otherwise in the bylaws. Both sides “got around that” by finding loopholes and committees that are supposedly “empowered” to amend or adopt bylaws, but I somehow doubt they were. So, everyone gets to decide whose “solution” was the most “elegant”, along with high school grade he said-she said drama.

    Blah.

  15. Brian Holtz

    bylaws can only be amended by a convention unless expressly specified otherwise in the bylaws. Both sides “got around that” by finding loopholes and committees that are supposedly “empowered” to amend or adopt bylaws

    No, only one side claimed the power to change the LPOR bylaws outside a convention.

    It’s possible that the Credentials Committee consulted the LPUS Bylaws in considering this matter. If so, they would not find a sentence that said “Each state-level affiliate party shall determine who shall be its delegates to all Regular Conventions.” Rather, they would have found a sentence that said “Each state-level affiliate party shall, in accordance with its own Bylaws and these Bylaws, determine who shall be its delegates to all Regular Conventions.”

  16. Brian Holtz

    I predict the delegates will tomorrow morning embrace whatever alternative put before them that is the most inclusive in terms of credentialing Oregon Libertarians who have come here in good faith seeking to be delegates.

  17. Oranje Mike

    Can anyone direct me to an unbiased account of this fiasco? I’d like to see the points of both sides delivered via an unbiased source.

  18. Brian Holtz

    Can anyone direct me to an unbiased account of this fiasco?

    Don’t believe anyone who says they can. My own bias is that Libertarians should follow the rules they’ve agreed to.

    But if you ignore a few editorial comments, then the first 3 pages of this LNC brief lay out a series of facts that the Wagner group does not dispute. Rather, they argue that 1) government law allegedly authorized what they did, 2) the ends justified the means, and 3) their opponents are The Bad Guys.

  19. LISTEN anytime 24/7 to the T-Rex of Talk Radio

    Same ol same ol. FIRE the 4 who voted to seat the WRONG delegation. So much for ballot access in OR. Got to start weeding out the trouble making enemy agent provocateurs within the LP so we can start making a difference in national politics.

    Each of you need to pay close attention to what is going on around you. Watch how people vote, act and talk ! Watch for THE JUDAS GOATS: THE ENEMY WITHIN. They are here among us!!!

    Yes paid to block our progress !!!

  20. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    How will this affect the ticket which appears on the Oregon ballot?

    Hopefully it means the Oregon LP ticket will not have whoever becomes the LP presidential nominee.

    It’d be good to establish (once again) that state parties are independent of the LNC’s control. The LNC is not the boss of the state parties, but a servant.

    The LNC and LNCC should be disbanded, all employees fired, the office closed, and replaced with a National Convention Committee whose sole purpose would be managing the national conventions every two years.

  21. Steven R Linnabary

    @14

    It was a roll call vote, the only one of the afternoon.

    Yes: Gary Johnson, Scott Lieberman, Jo Coleman, M Carling

    No: Steve Linnabary, Vicki Kirkland, Emily Salvette

    Abstain: Mark Bodenhausen

    PEACE

  22. Trent Hill Post author

    Allowing M. Carling to vote on the issue seems inappropriate. He should’ve recused himself.

    And I say that as someone who has no interest whatsoever in this conflict.

  23. Alan Pyeatt

    DC @ 15: “The simplest solution would have been, after the failed convention last March, for the LNC to ‘vote to disband’ the LPO, effective July 1 (or the closest Saturday), with an immediate motion to hold an organizing convention immediately following the vote.”

    I agree 100%. But since that didn’t happen, it seems unconscionable to me that the Credentials Committee would seat the Reeves faction, when the Judicial Committee recognized the Wagner faction.

    We should be setting the example for how political parties should function, but instead, a lot of people seem to be emulating their example of trying to impose their will on others through political maneuvering, instead of acquiescing to the will of the membership. Seems pretty hard to justify asking for people’s votes in the general election if we’re going to act like that.

  24. fred

    There seem to be a lot of people from outside Oregon who have opinions about how the LNC should handle the dispute. There seems to be a question about who owns the LPO–is it the Reeves faction, The Wagner faction, or the LNC? It is none of the above. The owners of the State party are the registered Libertarians of Oregon.
    It has been suggested that Libertarians should follow the rules that they agreed to. In the case of the bylaws of Oregon they have been out of line with state law for some time and have been adopted by various sets of people with out knowledge or consent by most of the registered Libertarians in the state.
    The LNC may have a right to decide who is seated at its delegation. (I am on the delegate list for both factions) but it is the Oregon voters who own the ballot access in Oregon. That is only subject to be changed by the state of Oregon.

  25. Nate

    @24 and 25:

    Yes, M Carling should definitely have recused himself. Possibly Gary Johnson as well. Being able to select which people will be allowed to vote for or against you as candidate for POTUS seems like a bit too much power to me. Not that I think it would make much difference in the vote total, but it’s more a matter of principle. I find it kind of strange that someone seeking the nomination for POTUS would be on a credentialing committee at all.

  26. Robert Capozzi

    24 srl, wait a sec, Gary Johnson is on the credentials committee? Really? If so, how’d that happen?

  27. Seebeck

    fred @30:

    Don’t confuse “ownership” with “administrative rights.” Under both the JC ruling and the state law, as Knapp has explained, the latter is vested with the Wagner group. The CredCom is bound by the JC ruling, meaning that the Wagner delegation is the one legitimately elected by LPOR, and the Reeves faction has zero standing.

    This also means that for the Reeves faction to be considered legitimate and be seated, the delegates need to overturn the JC ruling under Rule 6 after the rules are suspended by 2.3 vote to even bring the issue up.

    Now OTOH, *if *the CredCom is not bound by the JC, then the logical follow-up question is, “Is any committee under the LNC bound by the JC at all?” I for one reject that position as fundamentally absurd. If the answer is “no”, then there is a serious problem within the LP structure and more specifically, within the minds running it, and they need to be replaced with people who understand the basic structural components of an organization, why those components exist, and more importantly, why the operational duties are explicitly limited and few.

    Else, it’s a free-for-all and there’s no reason to even have any rules at all.

  28. Steven R Linnabary

    lol

    The Gary Johnson on the Credentials committee is the REAL Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Gary Johnson. He is a long time activist from TX.

    PEACE

  29. Brian Holtz

    Is any committee under the LNC bound by the JC?

    CredCom is a convention committee, not an LNC committee. The actions of conventions and their committees are not subject to JudCom review, with only two exceptions. Credentialing is not among the exceptions. (The two exceptions are about resolutions or platform planks that conflict with the SoP.)

    The recommendations of convention committees have no real effect unless and until those recommendations are approved by the delegates. The delegates don’t answer to JudCom. Rather, they elect JudCom to ensure that the Bylaws are enforced when the delegates aren’t around to enforce the Bylaws themselves.

    Else, it’s a free-for-all and there’s no reason to even have any rules at all.

    Like in Oregon.

  30. Thomas L. Knapp

    DC@15, AP @ 29,

    The LNC has no power to “disband” an affiliate organization.

    The LNC’s powers are limited to severing the affiliation — it has no authority within that organization itself.

  31. Richard P. Burke

    @26 and @ 31,

    I find it amusing and ironic that you believe that M Carling should have recused himself from the Credentials Committee vote, even though he is seated with New York, not Oregon.

    Where were you during the infamous Judicial Committee ruling when Lee Wrights, as a declared presidential candidate at the time, voted on a matter that had the potential to impact who would be voting for presidential candidates? What goes around comes around.

    Richard P. Burke

  32. Marc Montoni

    And that, Richard, makes it OK when you guys do the exact same thing?

    This is exactly why the situation in your state blew up.

    M was one of the aggrieved parties, as he was supposedly a life member of the Oregon LP supposedly disenfranchised by the Wagner faction’s actions. So, yes, he has a direct interest in the matter being voted upon and should have recused himself.

    This is exactly how a Registered Parliamentarian should NOT act.

  33. Losty

    Will the Wagner delegation (Save the 4 in Reeves, which makes it weirder, if that’s possible) be seated?

    If Not, and the lawsuit is decided in Mr. Wagner’s favor, Why on earth would he consider placing the Nominee on the ballot when he did not have a right to vote for or against the nominee?

    If the Reeves faction wins the suit, that’s moot of course.

    However, If I was barred from having a vote on who was the nominee, I would be disinclined from honoring the results of that vote–even if I supported the candidate who won the vote.

  34. zapper

    M Carling should have recused himself.

    This astonishingly arrogant flaunting of an improper relationship, cronyism and influence peddling should cause the delegates to overturn the credentials committee action.

    It also disqualifies M Carling from any LP party position in the future. He has demonsrated that he has a total lack of morality, no guiding principles, no integrity, no qualms about violating his fiduciary duties to the organization he pretends to represent.

  35. ATBAFT

    I’m not paying $94 to witness this tempest in a teacup. Seat no one from Oregon until the suit is settled.

  36. Thomas L. Knapp

    RB@37,

    The difference between Wrights and Carling is that Wrights’s “conflict of interest” was entirely speculative and mostly imaginary (he is seeking the collective nomination of parties from 50 states and DC, and it was marginally conceivable that his vote on the Judicial Committee might have some minor effect on as many as 15 of more than 600 votes likely to be cast for that nomination), where Carling’s was plain and indisputable (he was by his own account an aggrieved party in a dispute between two organizations, and was choosing between which one of those organizations to favor — in fact, if he was behind the choice being put to the credentials committee in the first place, the conflict started there insofar as the Reeves Gang had precisely zero standing to be considered as eligible to choose a delegation).

  37. Daniel Wiener

    Lee Wright’s major conflict of interest was obvious and egregious: He lives with Mary Ruwart, who not only submitted a brief to the Judicial Committee in support of the Wagner group, but was one of the principal proponents of the Wagner group during oral arguments at the Judicial Committee’s teleconference hearing.

    This is analogous to a judge hearing a case in which the lawyer arguing the case for one of the parties lives with the the judge. Is there anyone who would seriously contend that was not a conflict of interest (or at the very least the blatant appearance of a conflict of interest) requiring the judge to recuse himself?

    If Mary Ruwart had merely expressed her opinions separately, and not injected herself directly into the Judicial Committee hearing, most people (myself included) would have given her the benefit of the doubt that she’d perhaps skated close to the edge but not crossed the line. But by acting as a participant in the hearing and by Lee Wrights not recusing himself as a result, that inescapabably tainted the JC ruling (which would have gone the other way on a 3-to-3 tie vote).

    As such, the deference normally given to a JC decision is not warranted in this case. The convention body was therefore fully justified in making its own determination with regard to the Oregon delegation, irrespective of the defective JC ruling.

  38. Carol Moore

    So does oregon have to collect signatures to get on the ballot?

    With the exclusionary floor fee under the guise of TANSTAAFL I think a lot of libertarians may now have as their slogan TANSTAAFS — There ain’t no such thing as a free (ballot access) signature (??)

  39. Thomas L. Knapp

    Daniel,

    Hmm. Hadn’t heard it put that way (“Wrights’s conflict of interest is his ADDRESS”) before.

    Or the complaint that “we could have got away with ignoring the bylaws, by golly, if it weren’t for that meddling Ruwart,” either.

  40. ralph

    So, the Convention which naturally tends to follow the CredCom seats one state party while the LNC must recognize the other (along with the state DOE) unless over-ruled by the Convention. Yes?

  41. Brian Holtz

    By electing him to the JudCom, the 2010 delegates entrusted Lee Wrights to both interpret the Bylaws and to recuse himself if he had a conflict of interest. The LP is too small to hope that we can have seven seasoned LP members who won’t have any associates involved in the cases that come before JudCom. We can’t grow JudCom members in a test tube. (My 18-year project to grow three new Libertarians is only at the halfway mark.)

    Wrights’ declining to recuse himself doesn’t make JudCom’s opinion non-binding on the LNC — even if the opinion created a new rule for the LP that has no textual basis in its Bylaws or parliamentary authority. However, the convention and its Credentials Committee are not the LNC, and JudCom has no actual authority over them. (The only exceptions are that JudCom can veto a resolution or platform plank as conflicting with the SoP, but 3/4 of the delegates can override the veto.) A JudCom is for enforcing the Bylaws when the delegates are not assembled and so cannot enforce them themselves.

  42. Daniel Wiener

    Brian @ 47: That’s exactly right. The LNC had to abide by the JC’s decision, despite Lee Wrights’ refusal to recuse himself. Mark Hinkle tried to skirt around it by still not listing the Wagner group on the LP website and not sending them the membership data, but that was quickly reversed. The LNC subsequently expressed it’s very strong opinion regarding Mr. Wrights’ actions, in a resolution which passed by a 2/3 vote and stated in the concluding paragraph:

    “Be it further resolved, the Libertarian National Committee finds the decision was particularly tainted by the fact that the deciding vote on the Judicial Committee was cast by one person with a conflict of interest so blatant that in any other venue of jurisprudence such a person would have inescapably had to recuse himself.”

    The Libertarian Party National Convention does not answer to the Judicial Committee; just the reverse. The Convention was under no legal or moral obligation to give credence to a JC decision which would have been decided differently if Mr. Wrights had behaved in a proper manner.

    It’s pretty open knowledge that Mary Ruwart is Lee Wright’s “significant other”, and nobody has any objections to their personal relationship, whatever it exactly consists of. (For myself, I’ll note that I cohabited with Sandi Webb for 28 years before we finally got married 6 years ago for tax and insurance reasons.) But even if that relationship consisted of nothing more than sharing an address, the appearance of a conflict of interest would require Wrights’ recusal. Going back to my analogy, would any one of us be okay with being put on trial for a criminal case, or contesting a civil case, where the opposing prosecutor or lawyer “merely” shared the same address as the judge?

  43. David Colborne

    @30: That’s pretty common in the LP, actually. Most LP affiliates are too small to effectively communicate with all registered Libertarian voters in their jurisdiction on a reliable basis. This is a chicken-and-egg issue; on the one hand, if registered Libertarians took a stronger interest in their state parties, that would happen less. On the other hand, if their state parties contacted them more regularly, registered voters would take a stronger interest. However, you do raise a point, which brings me to…

    @36: Fine, but the issue here is that nobody can seem to agree on who “the organization” actually is, much less who’s responsible for arbitrating disputes when two (or more) groups decide to claim they are “the organization”. This is where the LNC could have had a positive effect – if they did a scheduled “sever/reattach affiliation” and brought their resources to bear on contacting every registered Libertarian voter in Oregon, they could have returned the LPOR back to its owners (i.e. all registered Libertarian voters interested in establishing and maintaining ownership of the organization) instead of following the fool’s errand of “recognizing” one of two small splinter groups based on who followed their misbegotten bylaws better.

  44. Jill Pyeatt

    So, since Lee Wrights didn’t recuse himself from one decision, it was okay for M Carling to vote to seat the Reeves faction yesterday? Jeez.

  45. Jim Duensing

    The Convention made two really bad decisions. One was not seating the Oregon delegation – the Wagner one with ballot access. The other was not overturning Hinkle’s rediculous decision that the Judicial Committee decisions cannot be reviewed or overturned by the delegates assembled.

    @ Jill – please check your facebook messages

  46. Thomas L. Knapp

    DC@50,

    “the issue here is that nobody can seem to agree on who ‘the organization’ actually is”

    That’s incorrect. There’s no question whatsoever on who the organization actually is — if by “organization” you mean “LNC affiliate.” There’s a binding Judicial Committee ruling in place that leaves no doubt on the matter.

    Now, as to who the Oregon Libertarian Party is, that’s a different question, and one that the LNC, the LNC’s executive committee, the credentials committee and the convention delegates have neither any need to answer nor any power to exert control over.

  47. wes wagner

    cm@55

    some members sat with the delegation that stole the slots … however the other three board members who are present with me do not interpret the situation as a delegation having been seated from the Libertarian Party of Oregon.

  48. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    I suggest the Oregon LP nominate Ron Paul for president (should he wish it).

    Otherwise, perhaps they might nominate the Boston Tea Party’s candidate — under the Oregon LP ballot name, of course.

  49. Carol Moore

    At some point Oregon state Party WILL have to have another election won’t it? Maybe elect all NEW people and settle the dispute that way…

  50. Robert Capozzi

    It would be interesting to hear the REAL rationale for the CredComm’s decision to seat Reeves and not Wagner. Presumably, there’s a greater risk of LPO not including the national LP candidate – most likely GJ – on the OR ballot. Why take that risk? Is the narrow, procedural argument more important than having a national ticket in as many states as possible?

    Of course, given LPO’s erratic behavior, perhaps the calculation is that the Wagner-led group might have nominated “Elmer Fudd” anyway….

  51. Robert Capozzi

    53 tk: There’s a binding Judicial Committee ruling in place that leaves no doubt on the matter.

    me: No doubt? Isn’t there a pending lawsuit?

    I certainly agree with the idea of abiding by the JC decision, but to say “no doubt” seems to miss important developments in the matter….

  52. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@60,

    “No doubt? Isn’t there a pending lawsuit?”

    Yes, there’s a pending lawsuit, but:

    1) Like you said, the lawsuit is “pending.” If the outcome of the lawsuit changes the situation, then the situation will be changed. But until it does, it hasn’t.

    2) The pending lawsuit is not over which organization is the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon, it’s over which organization is the Oregon Libertarian Party. The two things are not the same thing.

    BH@61,

    You can quibble all you like, but the facts remain that:

    1) LNC affiliate status is decided by the LNC in accordance with the bylaws (if necessary enforced by Judicial Committee rulings), not by the credentials committee; and

    2) It is the task of the credentials committee to credential delegations from LNC affiliates, not from random groups of non-LNC-affiliate applicants.

  53. zapper

    When it comes to who is logically correct, Knapp has this one 100%.

    BH is usually clueless and illogical anyway. This can be seen in his rantings on numerous issues.

  54. Robert Capozzi

    62 tk: But until it does, it hasn’t.

    me: True dat. OTOH, if the house next door is on fire, flames raging, and your house is not of fire, it’s true that your house is not of fire. I’d say it would be indicated to respond to the facts in an appropriate manner, and to adjust your “normal” behavior.

  55. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@64,

    You may be right, but the credentials committee’s version of “responding to the facts in an appropriate manner” in your analogy would be pulling out several five-gallon cans of gasoline and pouring them out along a path connecting your house to the house next door, with one on your own roof for good measure.

  56. Thomas L. Knapp

    zapper@63,

    Holtz is certainly not “clueless.” He knows exactly what he wants to achieve, and why.

    Nor is he precisely illogical. He’s aware of logic, he just thinks that everyone else is stupid and that if he can explode enough chaff around the logic, they’ll be distracted by it.

  57. Robert Capozzi

    65 tk, yes, while I’ve not seen CredComm make their case, it looks like a deeply dysfunctional move to me on its face. It may be another in a series of hyper-technical moves that miss the big picture, and in the process creates unnecessary ill will. It doesn’t flow for me, not at all….

  58. paulie

    My conversation with Wes Wagner was that his group is highly unlikely to put the LP’s national ticket on the ballot, although he has not completely ruled it out.

    I also asked him whether this would make the national LP a party to the litigation. He said it would actually do something much worse to the national LP which he did not elaborate; I got the feeling he may intend for whatever it is to not be public yet, but I may be wrong.

    Someone please put that up as a post since I don’t know how long I can stay online and would rather not start making a post I don’t finish.

  59. Thomas L. Knapp

    @68,

    Is there any particular reason to believe that the Oregon litigation will wrap up in time to affect the ballot access situation?

    There are various deadlines, ranging from turning in signatures and/or naming nominees, to the point at which ballots have been printed and courts would deem it too late to change them.

    My guess is that realistically speaking, the LNC has three options:

    1) Run a signature campaign for ballot access for their ticket as Independents, on the likelihood that there either won’t be a court disposition in time or that that disposition may not be in their favor;

    2) Take very large steps to reconcile with its Oregon affiliate, the Oregon Libertarian Party (it would be helpful if the culprits on LNC were deposed in this weekend’s elections) and ask them nicely to consider nominating the LNC’s ticket;

    3) Continue being assholes and hope for the best.

  60. Robert Capozzi

    68 P, did Wagner indicate whether he’s still a candidate for Chair? I would think that a candidate for LNC Chair would be foursquare for the national LP candidate being on his/her state’s ballot, yes?

  61. zapper

    The current LNC has screwed up ballot access in Maryland, Oklahoma and now Oregon. What a team.

  62. NewFederalist

    What is the ballot access count now? 47 states and DC max? Not exactly the 50 states Gov. Johnson has been touting.

  63. paulie

    No state is yet impossible. Oklahoma would have to win a lawsuit.

    Oregon now looks like they will have to petition if they don’t want a different candidate than the national candidate. The petition may or may not succeed and may or may not cause other drives to fail by tying up petitioners and other resources. Even if all states get on the ballot there will still be a cascading effect on costs. Especially with AE in the hunt.

    Maryland made it on over a year ago.

  64. paulie

    TLK There is no reason to believe the litigation will be done before November. Wagner et al will almost certainly still be in charge of ballot access that is existing. LNC will pay for petition now unless they convince Wagner et al to put their candidate on, which Wagner said is unlikely but not impossible. I doubt the LNC will even try.

    TLK 69 – I agree with you…did you think I disagreed?

  65. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie, @77,

    No, I didn’t think you disagreed.

    I was just asking if you had any knowledge as to when the litigation might be decided in some way, predicting that it would not be in time for the LNC and the Reeves Gang to steal the Oregon LP’s ballot access, and musing as to the LNC’s other options.

    The best outcome at this point would be for the evildoers to fail of re-election to the LNC, for the new LNC to issue a heartfelt apology to its Oregon affiliate, and for that affiliate to magnanimously agree to nominate the same slate as as the LNC convention nominated.

    Bonus points if it can be demonstrated that including the illegitimate votes of the Reeves Gang “delegation” and illegitimately excluding the votes of those delegates who were prevented from voting for refusing to knuckle under to Bennett’s extortion racket did not affect the nomination outcome.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.