Press "Enter" to skip to content

Wagner et al Unlikely to Put LP National Ticket on Oregon Ballot

In conversation with Wes Wagner, he indicated that while he has not completely ruled out putting the Libertarian National Ticket on the Oregon ballot, he does not believe that it is at all likely that his group, currently recognized as the ballot qualified party by the state, would do so.

There is a lawsuit to challenge that qualified status, but several attorneys present here have told me it is extremely unlikely to switch control of Oregon ballot access in time for the election. Thus, the national LP will almost certainly have to petition to get its ticket on the Oregon ballot (13k valid), which they would not have had to do had Wagner et al been seated as the Oregon delegation.

I also asked him whether his team would now make the national LP a party to that lawsuit.

He said it would in fact mean something “much worse” for the national LP but did not say what. It seemed to me that he did not want what that would be to be public yet, but maybe I was jumping to conclusions.

About Post Author

34 Comments

  1. NewFederalist NewFederalist May 4, 2012

    Perhaps they will do a Milnes/Ogle ticket! That would send a message.

  2. Carol Moore Carol Moore May 4, 2012

    http://www.lporegon.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=122:constitution-and-bylaws&catid=51:documents&Itemid=126 See in 2013 there’s a convention to choose officers. I prefer yearly elections myself. But since it only takes 1% of membership to call convention why don’t people just get signatures instead of suing each others???

    Didn’t feel like reading enough to figure out how presidential candidates chosen. If they have to collect signatures or Committee chooses or what.

  3. TANSTAAFLUSA TANSTAAFLUSA May 4, 2012

    Is it up to Wagner to present the LP ticket to the Oregon Sec State? I thought the issue was whether the sec of state would recognize the LP national as the same party as the Wagner group if they weren’t seated.

    If it is up to the Wagner group and they decide against it, it looks bad for them. Hurting the entire party for their own reasons.

    It seems Reeves at least reached out a bit by offering to sear Wagner delegates.

    I haven’t met either, but if Wagner does as he indicated, it is pure selfishness. Your issue is with the LNC and maybe those that voted at the convention. Not the 13,000 Oregon voters or the entire national body of libertarian voters who will lose out on a chance to maybe get some of the presidential funds.

  4. Trent Hill Trent Hill May 4, 2012

    I agree that it seems like Reeves reached out and was willing to accommodate a bit.

    If Wagner doesn’t put the national ticket on the ballot, he’ll look very selfish indeed. He doesn’t have a legal obligation (as Knapp will soon be along to point out), but it’ll just be silly.

  5. paulie paulie May 4, 2012

    SOS and LNC (per JC) recognize Wagner et al. Credential Committee and delegates recognized Reeves et al.

    Only Wagner or Oregon Court will change that.

    Wagner won’t, and Oregon courts almost certainly won’t before November.

    Oregon SOS will not change anything based on what national LP does. Wagner et al still have the ballot access.

    Wagner’s position is that since the delegates did not seat them they are not bound by what happens here and owe nothing to the national LP. He further clarified that they are unlikely to put the same candidates on the ballot as are chosen here for the national ticket.

    Oregon voters may still have a presidential ticket billed as LP but it will probably be a different ticket than the one on the ballot in other states.

    They may also have the national ticket on the ballot, but only if a petition drive succeeds for that purpose.

  6. NewFederalist NewFederalist May 4, 2012

    Shades of Arizona 2000.

  7. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp May 4, 2012

    TANSTAAFLUSA @3,

    “Is it up to Wagner to present the LP ticket to the Oregon Sec State?”

    It is up to the Oregon LP to present its ticket to the Oregon Secretary of State.

    “I thought the issue was whether the sec of state would recognize the LP national as the same party as the Wagner group if they weren’t seated.”

    No, that’s not the issue at all.

    Oregon’s secretary of state has no dog in the hunt of whether or not the Oregon LP is the LNC’s national affiliate, participates in its convention, or chooses to nominate the same presidential slate.

    All she does is ask whom the Oregon Libertarian Party is running for president.

    “If it is up to the Wagner group and they decide against it, it looks bad for them. Hurting the entire party for their own reasons.”

    There is no “entire party.” There are 50 state LPs who get together to co-nominate a presidential ticket. The Oregon LP has been excluded from that process this year. When you’re excluded from the process, you’re not bound to that process’s results.

    “It seems Reeves at least reached out a bit by offering to sear Wagner delegates.”

    Stealing your stuff and then offering to share a little of it with you isn’t “reaching out.” It’s “adding insult to injury.”

  8. George Phillies George Phillies May 4, 2012

    @6 Readers who do not recall Arizona 2000 may with to reread my book “Funding Liberty” (on the net at CMLC.org, especially Chapter 17.

  9. TANSTAAFLUSA TANSTAAFLUSA May 4, 2012

    “Stealing your stuff and then offering to share a little of it with you isn’t ‘reaching out.’ It’s adding insult to injury.”

    No, there is a serious dispute about legitimacy. That is not the same ad stealing. I have doubts about Reeves legitimacy, but I also have serious doubts about Wagner.

    Let’s be honest, Wagner tried to fix a problem that needed to be fixed, but then used that opportunity to extend their terms of office on their own. Reeves may have issues of their own, but Wagner made no attempt to be inclusive. Why not offer to hold a new vote after fixing the problems with the by-laws?

    What if the nominees win by more votes than he Wagner delegation held? Can they seriously claim that the seating matters in supplying the LP ticket to the SOS? They will still be the current party EC and have not lost anything when it comes to the LP nominees.

    Also, it does say something that a majority of the delegates present did not vote to undo the ruling of the credentialing committe. Stop using the theft argument, it is a dispute. Recognize that and try to work out a compromise. If not, then it is obvious their positions are more important than representing the Oregon LP voters.

  10. bruuno bruuno May 4, 2012

    Isn’t this basically what happened in AZ a couple of elections back? Did Browne get on the ballot on another line anyway that year?

  11. ralph ralph May 4, 2012

    @7 ‘There is no “entire party.” There are 50 state LPs who get together to co-nominate a presidential ticket. The Oregon LP has been excluded from that process this year. When you’re excluded from the process, you’re not bound to that process’s results.’

    I can also see where they might take the position not to run the candidate who voted to screw them over in their eyes at the Convention Credcom.

    Not saying I applaud, but I would understand where some in the OR LP might feel this way.

  12. paulie paulie May 4, 2012

    Browne did not get on. they did a drive and failed. LPAZ ran L Neil Smith

  13. Catholic Trotskyist Catholic Trotskyist May 4, 2012

    According to a comment on a previous thread, there was actually a different Gary Johnson on the CredCom.

  14. paulie paulie May 4, 2012

    Correct. both Gary E. Johnson too, ironically.

  15. George Phillies George Phillies May 4, 2012

    @13 Paulie, my own recollection was that most of the petitioning period for AZ was prior to NatCon, and no effort was made by anyone to petition Browne or Gorman or whoever, pre-convention, onto the ballot.

  16. johncjackson johncjackson May 4, 2012

    Can never have enough Gay Johnsons.

  17. paulie paulie May 4, 2012

    LP National stubbornly assumed the AZ faction with ballot access and without LNC recognition would do whatever national told them until it was too late. Not smart. Will they learn from that mistake this time?

  18. David Colborne David Colborne May 5, 2012

    Interesting how you don’t see the Nevada GOP threatening to, say, not put Romney on the ballot, or the Vermont Democratic Party threatening to, say, not put Obama on the ballot. It’s almost like major parties understand that the entire point of being part of a national party is you’re part of a national party, which means that, when push comes to shove, you work together nationally. If you don’t want to be in a national party, create your own state party and call it something else. Otherwise, you’re engaging in deceptive marketing practices by representing yourself as something you’re not.

    I also think it’s a little rich that either faction thinks they speak for the majority of libertarians in Oregon. Seriously – both factions have, what, 20-30 people? Somewhere in that range? If they held a primary among all registered Libertarian voters in Oregon immediately following the convention, who does each faction think will end up on the ballot in Oregon? Or is it more important to prove the other side “wrong” and make esoteric political points than to actually represent their constituents?

  19. Darryl W. Perry Darryl W. Perry May 5, 2012

    @19 “Interesting how you don’t see the Nevada GOP threatening to, say, not put Romney on the ballot, or the Vermont Democratic Party threatening to, say, not put Obama on the ballot.”

    In 1912, 1948 & 1968 some State GOP’s & Dem’s did NOT list the GOP or Dem candidate.
    1968 George Wallace was listed as Democrat in Alabama; Humphrey was “National Democrat”.
    1948 Strom Thurmond was “Democrat” in Alabama & Mississippi, Truman not on the ballot in AL, “National Dem” in Miss.
    1912 Teddy Roosevelt was the GOP candidate in California & South Dakota, Taft not on the ballot in either State.

    1964, no Dem Presidential candidate on the Alabama ballot.

  20. George Phillies George Phillies May 5, 2012

    18 Experimentally, no.

    I have not heard what happened with Oregon and region formation, for example which person and delegation may have signed a region formation form and claimed they were qualified to do so.

  21. Readers should recall that the seating of the Oregon delegation, choice A or choice B, was in the end made by the full convention, not by the Credentials Committee, the decision to refuse to seat Wes Wagner and (if I heard correctly) Jeff Weston was made by the full convention, and therefore, in defense of Mark Hinkle (and on down the line), the decision to seat to Reeves faction is not the fault of the old LNC. The delegates made that decision themselves, and must wait to learn the consequences.

  22. Nicholas Sarwark Nicholas Sarwark May 8, 2012

    Even so, nothing is gained for the Libertarian Party or the linertarian movement by Wagner’s group not putting Johnson/Gray on the ballot.

    If nothing else was learned from this last convention, it should be clear that the membership will not tolerate obstructionism for petty advantage, especially when it holds the Party back.

  23. Matt Cholko Matt Cholko May 8, 2012

    I agree 200% with Sarwark’s comment @25. We’re gonna have to learn to play nice if we ever hope to accoplish anything substantial, whether inside the party, or in society in general.

  24. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp May 8, 2012

    NS@25,

    “Even so, nothing is gained for the Libertarian Party … by Wagner’s group not putting Johnson/Gray on the ballot.”

    That’s not necessarily true.

    If it serves as a teachable moment that assists future LNCs / credentials committees / convention delegates in correcting similar cranial/rectal inversion problems, that might be more valuable than whatever vote total Johnson would have racked up there.

  25. Chuck Moulton Chuck Moulton May 9, 2012

    TANSTAAFLUSA wrote (@3):

    It seems Reeves at least reached out a bit by offering to sear Wagner delegates.

    Richard Burke said that to the delegates right before they voted on whether to amend the credentials report to seat the Wagner faction instead of the Reeves faction. Nice rhetoric… but where was the execution? Without execution it seems like a ploy to get more votes against the amendment.

    Wagner and others in fact were not seated in the Reeves delegation. They sat at the back of the convention hall not voting for the entire convention. Additionally later there was a vote to seat Wagner and others somewhere else. There was a call for division of that from the others being seated (iirc by Burke, but I may be wrong about that). Wagner and others from his faction failed to achieve the 7/8 vote — and it was very clear that the Reeves faction voted against seating them.

    So nice rhetoric, but I don’t buy it.

  26. Nicholas Sarwark Nicholas Sarwark May 9, 2012

    @28: It was Burke’s motion for division and Burke’s unsuccessful quorum call.

  27. Wes Wagner Wes Wagner May 9, 2012

    I have been in communication with Neale about this issue and am working with him to try to ensure that Johnson/Gray are listed. There are potential legal difficulties that I would not wish to publish in public, but we are trying to work cooperatively through them.

  28. Trent Hill Trent Hill May 9, 2012

    Wes–great news. Keep up updated.

  29. Brian Holtz Brian Holtz May 9, 2012

    Wagner and others from his faction failed to achieve the 7/8 vote — and it was very clear that the Reeves faction voted against seating them.

    It was also very clear that the LPOR delegation was nowhere close to tipping the vote from the 7/8 threshold. NOTA and vote-whipping-during-a-challenge-repoll had made the convention so suspicious that, by a wide margin, they even rejected the 3 innocent non-Oregon delegates whom CredCom had recommended for seating.

  30. Wes Wagner Wes Wagner May 9, 2012

    TH @31

    I will try as much as I can to keep this issue as transparent as it can be without jeopardizing the possibility of Johnson/Gray appearing with a giant LIBERTARIAN next to their names in Oregon.

  31. Jill Pyeatt Jill Pyeatt May 9, 2012

    We certainly are having an opportunity to look into each individual’s true character lately, that’s for sure.

    Good for you, Wes!

  32. fred fred May 14, 2012

    There has been a lot of misinformation and rhetoric going around about what is happening in my state.
    The issue does not only involve the LPO bylaws but also Oregon laws.
    The right to who is placed on the ballot as a Libertarian candidate in Oregon is OWNED by one group of people–Those registered (as Libertarians) to vote in Oregon.
    I have no doubt, that if given the choice, Oregon Libertarian voters will choose to place Gary Johnson on the ballot.
    The question shouldn’t be which one of these factions speaks for the Oregon voters–but rather how are either of these factions determining what is the will of Oregon Libertarian voters?

  33. Ad Hoca Ad Hoca May 14, 2012

    Well, I’m guessing Gary Johnson will be on the ballot then.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.