Press "Enter" to skip to content

Forced to nominate 2016 candidates a full year before the election, Ark. LP to hold Special Nominating Convention


via the Libertarian Party of Arkansas:

LPAR 2015 Special Nominating Convention – October 24, 2015

In order to meet the early nomination deadlines that have been imposed by recent legislation, the LPAR must nominate it’s candidates for the 2016 general election by convention before the first week of November 2015. Consequently, we will be holding a SPECIAL NOMINATING CONVENTION on Saturday, October 24, 2015.

It is important for all prospective candidates and members of the Libertarian Party to attend. We will be selecting the candidates that will publicly represent our Party and present Libertarian alternatives to the policies of the other two parties. Please plan to be there if you can.

All members of the party are invited to attend the nominating process and vote without restriction or cost, but we do ask all attendees to make a donation of $50 to cover the cost of the lunch and meeting facilities.

The convention will be held at:
Wyndham Riverfront Little Rock
2 Riverfront Place
North Little Rock, AR 72114

If you’re coming into town and would like to book a room at the Wyndham, we have a special rate of $99/night. Our group discount reservation page is here.

This is due to a new law, as explained by Richard Winger at Ballot Access News:

The Arkansas Libertarian Party expects to file a lawsuit against the new law (passed in 2015) that says it must choose all its nominees by November 2015 for the election that is a year away. The Libertarian Party nominates by convention for the 2016 election. The two major parties nominate for all office in March 2016, in a primary, so the law’s timing is highly discriminatory. No state in U.S. history, until now, has ever required any type of party to choose all its nominees in the odd year before the election year. It is difficult to imagine how Arkansas will defend the law. 

About Post Author

Andy Craig

18 Comments

  1. Richard Winger Richard Winger October 10, 2015

    The lawsuit will be filed on Tuesday, October 13.

  2. Andy Craig Andy Craig Post author | October 10, 2015

    If the lawsuit succeeds, can they hold another convention to nominate additional candidates prior to whatever the new deadline is?

  3. Darryl W. Perry Darryl W. Perry October 10, 2015

    How is this going to impact the Presidential nomination process?

  4. Andy Craig Andy Craig Post author | October 10, 2015

    It doesn’t. Just every other election.

  5. Caryn Ann Harlos Caryn Ann Harlos October 10, 2015

    Whoa this is crazy

    Gotta love the state

  6. Steve Scheetz Steve Scheetz October 11, 2015

    Republican and democrats do not like competition. they will craft whatever they need to craft in order to alleviate any sort of hassles third parties might bring to the table, (like discussing real issues, for example..)

    They cannot defend this, it is indefensible. A republican or a democrat judge might hear the case, and might decide in our favor by saying that this law is unconstitutional, but then we have the enforcement issue…. We have this going on in PA. A judge ruled that the laws, as passed in 1937, are unconstitutional and represent an undue burden on third party candidates, YET, this has not stopped R’s and D’s from continuing to challenge third party candidates, because no matter what, until the rules are changed, it does not matter what a judge says. (at least that is how things have played out here…) In theory, the Voter’s Choice Act would help candidates, but Like the Judge’s decision, it is merely one step in the right direction.

    Good luck LPAR, you will need it, but I hope you can stick it to them!

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  7. Mike K Mike K October 11, 2015

    The first question I had was the one Daryl Perry asked, how does that affect the Presidential nomination. Also, is this for all partisan races statewide and for federal offices?

    I guess the state delegation will have to choose candidates for statewide offices, even if those particular delegates don’t live in those state house/senate districts.

    It stinks to have to work so early in advance, but at least it’s by convention rather than primary.

  8. paulie paulie October 11, 2015

    That was already answered. It has nothing to do with the presidential nomination, but it does with every other office on the ballot for state, local or federal office.

  9. Wang Tang-Fu Wang Tang-Fu October 11, 2015

    “Gotta love the state”

    The state’s love is mandatory.

  10. Caryn Ann Harlos Caryn Ann Harlos October 11, 2015

    Wang,

    ==The state’s love is mandatory.===

    You win the internet today.

    The state is terrible lover btw.

  11. Richard Winger Richard Winger October 11, 2015

    If it weren’t for federal judges, Arkansas would be horrible for ballot access. In 1971 the legislature passed a law defining “party” as a group that either submitted a petition signed by 7% of the last gubernatorial vote, or one which had polled 7% for governor or president at the last election. Also back then it was impossible to be an independent presidential candidate. Independent candidates for other office needed a petition of 15% of the last gubernatorial vote. All those laws were thrown out by federal courts.

  12. Mark Axinn Mark Axinn October 11, 2015

    7% is incredibly high! That would be almost 300,000 votes in New York.

  13. Wang Tang-Fu Wang Tang-Fu October 11, 2015

    “If it weren’t for federal judges, Arkansas would be horrible for…”

    …more than only…

    “…ballot access.”

  14. Andy Craig Andy Craig Post author | October 11, 2015

    5% of the relevant electorate is the current max. that been’s upheld for a petition, iirc. The courts don’t really ever articulate a bright-line on these matters, it’s often just “this is too burdensome” or “this is reasonable.”

  15. Matt Cholko Matt Cholko October 11, 2015

    I hope that LPAR will just nominate anyone who is contemplating a run. If they decide not to go through with it, they can just drop out later.

  16. Andy Andy October 11, 2015

    The primary reason that this was passed by the D’s and R’s to was to prevent Libertarians, Greens, and any other minor parties from targeting districts where one of the major parties did not file a candidate, or where both of the major party candidates are weak.

  17. paulie paulie October 12, 2015

    It’s pretty obvious what they did here. Clearly it has nothing to do with printing the ballots. It’s not even a sore loser law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.