Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party Clarification of our September 2015 Ruling February 20, 2016
All six of the questions asked in Libertarian Party of Oregon’s Request for Clarification of our 2015 ruling turn on two more fundamental questions: a) Did Wes Wagner have the power to cancel the May 21, 2011 meeting of the LPO convention, which had been called by the convention itself? and b) Did five members of the LPO, not meeting in convention on March 31, 2011, have the power to replace the Constitution and Bylaws of the LPO? If the answer to either or both of the above questions is No, then the answers to the six questions in the Request for Clarification follow directly. Likewise, if the answer to both of the above questions is Yes, then the answers to the six questions in the Request for Clarification follow directly.
We are not the first body to consider these questions. The Libertarian National Committee (LNC) decided No to both questions in 2011. The Oregon Secretary of State’s office decided in 2011 that it would not decide these questions, that these questions could only be decided by the Libertarian Party or by a court of law. Three Oregon judges have considered these questions. The first two determined that the answer was likely to be No to both questions and that the case should proceed to trial. The third judge did not answer Yes to either question, but opined that even if five members of the LPO were to have the power to replace the Bylaws, that they certainly could not have replaced the LPO’s Constitution outside convention. Counsel for both sides stipulated that the LPO’s Constitution was not replaced in 2011. The third judge then ruled that the questions before it should be decided by the Party, not by the courts, and denied all of the motions for summary judgement submitted by both sides. The Judicial Committee of the LPO considered these questions in 2013 and answered No to both questions. In 2012, the highest body of the Libertarian Party, the delegates assembled in a National Convention, implicitly answered No to these questions by seating the Reeves/Epstein delegation rather than the Wagner/Hedbor delegation. No authority inside or outside the Libertarian Party has ever determined either that Mr. Wagner’s purported cancellation of the May 21 meeting of the convention was valid or that the alleged Constitution and Bylaws, purportedly adopted by five members of the LPO outside convention on March 31, were in any way valid.
Therefore the answer to the two questions above is plainly No. The 2007 Constitution and the 2009 Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon in effect throughout 2011 do not provide for any possibility to amend the Constitution or Bylaws outside convention nor do they grant the power to cancel a meeting of the convention, called by the convention itself, to any power outside the convention. This has been stipulated by both factions. No authority inside or outside the Libertarian Party has ever found merit in the counterargument based on Mr. Wagner’s interpretation of Oregon state statutes. However, even if Mr. Wagner’s interpretation had merit, we would be forced to reach the same conclusion because counsel for both sides stipulated in court on May 16, 2013 that the LPO Constitution could not have been replaced outside the convention.
Any one of the above reasons forces us to answer the questions in the LPO’s Request for Clarification as follows:
1. This is the wrong question. The next question is the right question.
2. No, the National Chair is in violation of Article 6.5 of our Bylaws by sending membership data to persons other than the officers of the LPO who were elected by the members of the LPO in convention
and by linking to a website other than the website under the control of the duly elected officers.
3. This is a question for the LNC, not the Judicial Committee. The LNC has the power to enforce its own decisions upon the Chair.
4. The National Chair should comply with Article 6.5 of our Bylaws by sending membership data to the officers of the LPO who were elected by the members of the LPO in convention and by linking to the
website under the control of the duly elected officers.
5. The current Chairperson of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, PAC 622, is Ian Epstein.
6. The current Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, PAC 622, are the Bylaws adopted by the members of the LPO at the March 9, 2013 convention, the last convention at which they were amended.
M Carling, LLM (Chairman), Rebecca Sink-Burris, Dianna Visek, Andy Wolf, Esq.
Here is the document that lists the questions that are being answered as well.
But what did GJ12 and OAI promise Wes Wagner and the Oregon Party?
Joe,
I believe it is the case that no matter which side wins the Oregon lawsuit that the LPO will have ballot control for this year’s elections. The question is which group of people can sign the state papers.
George
Nicholas Sarwark @ February 24, 2016 at 14:13
Wrote:
“You really shouldn’t use the word “lied” unless there’s a lie. . . . In the last Presidential election, they put the Libertarian Party nominee on the ballot, in spite of the actions of the LNC and convention delegates.”
Yes they did, in reliance, in part, I believe, on various commitments made by the GJ2012 campaign to them.
But having been lied to once, why would you expect them to rely on any promises made to them now, or more importantly why would you rely on them to behave as they have in the past? This seems to be overconfidence to me.
“The Libertarian Party of Oregon has ballot access as of today. They will continue to have ballot access through the 2016 election.”
While I think this is a more reasonable assumption, this too is not guaranteed, yes? The Appeals Court has yet to render its final verdict on Oregon, I believe.
Perhaps I am wrong on the above, but I am intimately aware of the lies told to Wes during the summer of 2012.
Nicholas Sarwark @ February 23, 2016 at 22:35
wrote
“The Libertarian Party of Oregon has ballot access. In 2012, they used that ballot access to place the national Presidential ticket on the ballot.”
Yes they did. They are people who kept their word to the campaign. They are people who I believe can be relied upon to keep their word in the future.
Unfortunately, at least in my experience, the same cannot be said for GJ2012, nor for OAI.
Promises made by that 2012 campaign to the Libertarian Party of Oregon were NOT KEPT. I was tasked with communicating those commitments, which proved to be unreliable, and in the end (which is perhaps my nature, and a character weakness) RESIGNED from OAI over it.
Specifically, and among the most egregious of many broken commitments, Richard Burke remains OAI’s State Director for Oregon.
https://www.ouramericainitiative.com/oregon.html
Nothing has been updated on that website regarding OAI’s activities in Oregon in over 10 months. Back in July 2012, Wes Wagner, then serving as LPO Chair suggested SEVERAL ACTIVE Libertarians, some relatively neutral, who were willing to serve as the State Director for GJ2012, and/or for OAI.
Rather than take a neutral position, as opposed to say having a party to the lawsuit against Wes and the other LPO officers as their State Director for both the campaign and the PAC, Governor Johnson and his team clearly chose sides in this fight.
A desire for 50 state ballot access in 2016 did not seem to be a concern when those decisions were made, nor does that seem to be a concern today. There may have been an early over reliance on the repeated SCAM (Starr, Carling, Alicia Mattson (yes, this one is too easy)) promises that the lawsuits would be ruled in their favor imminently.
What I respect about those Libertarians from Oregon who I have met over the past 4 years is their commitment to principles and actually fighting for LIBERTY in the tradition of our Founders. They will, I believe, actually leave the decision regarding who to place on the ballot for POTUS in Oregon up to a vote of the actual Libertarians in Oregon.
If I were a candidate seeking those votes, I’d be acting accordingly.
As far as I can tell Austin Peterson and Gary Johnson are not actively seeking those votes/they remained aligned with the SCAM organization there, perhaps hopeful their promises regarding “winning” from four years ago may actually come to fruition this year.
Makes me sad The over optimism regarding 50 state ballot access, or any optimism regarding Oregon ballot access, from members of the LNC seems unreasonable at best.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/OAI-Oregon-Page.jpg
Steve Scheetz said: “Yes, it is true, Andy and I spoke, and at the end of the conversation, I told him that I was sold on the idea of petitioning here in PA in Mid February.”
I don’t blame Steve Scheetz here. Steve really wanted to get the ball rolling immediately. Richard Schwartz also said that he’d ideally like to get started immediately as well. The problem is that the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania is in bad shape right now (guys like Steve and Richard have been a big part of the glue that has been holding that state party together, and if not for Libertarians like them, the LP of PA would be in even worse shape than it is), due in large part to several years of internal dysfunction. The Libertarian National Committee is really not in that good of shape either. If we had a national party that really “had its act together,” they’d have been in communication with the LP of PA months ago getting things in place to start the petition drive on February 17th, and they’d already have all of the money, or at least most of the money, to cover the expenses for the drive.
“Chuck mentioned that it was doubtful that the LPPA could raise $20,000. Well that much might not be possible, but Richard Schwarz, LPPA Treasurer has an idea for fundraising, and while it is not my place to say what it is, he was assured that we could get $10-15,000 which is not nothing.”
Pennsylvania is the 6th most populated state in the country, and there are, relatively speaking, a lot of Libertarians in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania actually has one of the highest numbers of registered Libertarians (as in people who checked the Libertarian Party box on their voter registration form) of any state. I think that there are over 40,000 registered Libertarian voters in Pennsylvania.
I recall the LP of PA having $20,000 plus in the past. This was before the years of internal dysfunction (like when Tom Stevens was the Chair). The potential for the LP of PA, is much, much higher than that.
“If the board votes to hand over the money in its treasury earmarked for ballot access, it will at least get the ball rolling, and March 19 will easily be the earliest PA has EVER started pushing in a meaningful way for ballot access. Just bear in mind, that the soonest we have started to petition in the past decades, has been toward the end of April.”
This is actually not accurate. I was in Pennsylvania in 2008 for the petition drive to place Ron Paul on the ballot in the Republican primaries. I contacted an LP of PA state party official and told him that I was in the state, and he sent me the Libertarian Party petition in mid February, a day or two after the major party primary petitioning period ended, and I proceeded to collect a bunch of signatures for the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania in February and March, before they had their state convention. I would have collected more, but there was some confusion of the stand in candidates, so I stopped working for like a week or two, but then when they had their convention they ended up not changing anything on the petition (which means I stopped working for no reason), and I resumed my signature gathering efforts. Between myself, and another person with whom I was working, we gathered over 8,000 signatures, and we would have gathered a lot more than that if not for the interference of then LP national Political Director, Sean Haugh. We ended up quitting the drive because of Haugh, and after we left, there were no paid petition circulators who worked outside of the Philadelphia area, which meant that nobody was helping to qualify the district office candidates outside of Philadelphia, and this resulted in some of them failing to qualify for the ballot. Prior to quitting that drive, we qualified a Libertarian Party candidate for US House in the most rural US House district in the state. We were in the process of qualifying a Libertarian Party candidate for State Senate in south central Pennsylvania, but before we finished this, we quit the drive because of Haugh, and the Libertarian Party candidate for State Senate for whom we were gathering signatures in south central PA ended up not qualifying for the ballot. I know that there were other Libertarian Party candidates for district offices in central and western PA that failed to qualify for the ballot that year (2008, and again in 2012), because I was told by more than one LP of PA official that they asked the paid petition circulators who were working in Philadelphia is they’d hit some other parts of the state, and they refused.
TK, I would agree, that there is evidence of infighting in the R and D party, but the authoritarians within those parties have made it clear that anyone speaking anything other than the party line will be tossed like moldy bread… Therefore, I believe that they are less public about their infighting.
BALLOT ACCESS…
“I contacted three LP of PA start party officials prior to this to urge them to get started that day. Unfortunately, they are in such a disorganized state right now, that the earliest they will be able to start would be after their state convention, which is on March 19th. They they will have wasted a little over a month of the petitioning time period, and they might end up wasting more if they are still not ready to go immediately after their state convention.” – – Andy Jacobs
Yes, it is true, Andy and I spoke, and at the end of the conversation, I told him that I was sold on the idea of petitioning here in PA in Mid February. The PROBLEM, is one of funding. Chuck mentioned that it was doubtful that the LPPA could raise $20,000. Well that much might not be possible, but Richard Schwarz, LPPA Treasurer has an idea for fundraising, and while it is not my place to say what it is, he was assured that we could get $10-15,000 which is not nothing.
On the 19th of March, we will be having our convention. this much is true. While we could not organize a board meeting in order to secure SOME money for petitioners, (because the reality is that while we would love to have petitioners petition, petitioners do not work for free.) March 19, (the end of that day), we will have a board meeting with the new board, and that will be on the agenda.
If the board votes to hand over the money in its treasury earmarked for ballot access, it will at least get the ball rolling, and March 19 will easily be the earliest PA has EVER started pushing in a meaningful way for ballot access. Just bear in mind, that the soonest we have started to petition in the past decades, has been toward the end of April.
While I have a great many opinions regarding various other aspects of previous messages involving ballot access in PA, I am going to stop typing now.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Oh yes.. nothing says we want to reach out to the future of the liberty movement by electing the most hackish dessicated old white fart that the SCM cabal has left to grab onto his coattails and ride this train off the rails and down the chasm.
I have determined that the Judicial Committee did not vote on this issue.
One member sent out a letter, asking for signers. Four people signed.
As a result, the document is an open letter from some Judicial Committee members, but in the absence of a vote it is not a decision.
In other news, Mark Rutherford has announced that he is running for National Chair. http://www.mwrutherford2016.com/
I am inclined to suspect that he is joining Nick Sarwark and Brett Pojunis.
Chuck Moulton said: “There is practically zero chance the LPPA will raise $20,000. The LNC seems very hesitant to allocate $70,000 to Pennsylvania and probably won’t have the cash anyway. The LPPA is holding its convention in late March, which sets them back 2 months in the volunteer / paid drive.”
The first day that the LP could have started gathering petition signatures for 2016 ballot access in Pennsylvania was Febrary 17th. I contacted three LP of PA start party officials prior to this to urge them to get started that day. Unfortunately, they are in such a disorganized state right now, that the earliest they will be able to start would be after their state convention, which is on March 19th. They they will have wasted a little over a month of the petitioning time period, and they might end up wasting more if they are still not ready to go immediately after their state convention.
I’m not sure where this “near zero” chance of having our POTUS candidate on the ballot in Oregon comes from. Even Wagner has not indicated that. It appears to me that the Oregon situation is very much up in the air.
I’d be glad to help with phone calls for commitments….
George Phillies wrote:
Yes, I highly doubt the presidential candidate will be on the ballot in Pennsylvania. That concerns me greatly because I’ll probably be voting in Pennsylvania this November.
There is practically zero chance the LPPA will raise $20,000. The LNC seems very hesitant to allocate $70,000 to Pennsylvania and probably won’t have the cash anyway. The LPPA is holding its convention in late March, which sets them back 2 months in the volunteer / paid drive. I’ve seen no sign of a coordinated candidate recruitment drive (PA can stack candidates on 1 petition, so more candidates means more volunteer signatures). I’ve seen no evidence that Redpath intends to hire high validity petitioners rather than low validity mercenaries — and I’m not inclined to donate another month of my life to defending the petition if national hires bad petitioners again. This is all despite my repeated pleas to avoid these mistakes.
On the bright side, national put Carla Howell in charge of getting PA on the ballot efficiently. However, it’s not clear to me that Carla or anyone else intends to do what is necessary to make that happen: 1) call every LP member in PA on the phone to recruit as many candidates as possible, 2) call every LP member in PA on the phone to get commitments for several hours (or a full day) of primary day petitioning (at a near 100% validity rate because they are all registered to vote at the given precinct).
NS: Except you’re watching from way up close and don’t bother to do anything to help.
me: I did give it a shot. I voted with the super-majority in Portland to at least delete an insane clause from the SoP. Sadly, the 89’s 7/8ths hurdle proved insurmountable.
If the family ever decides to build on a higher elevation away from the river, I may reconsider. There’s no help that I can imagine giving when the family perpetually builds in a flood zone.
Ballot access?
Chuck, Caryn,
You are straining at a gnat (Oregon, which really is up in the air) while swallowing a camel (the LNC is too broke barring serious change which could happen to pay for 50 state ballot access).
Note Redpath demanding or begging (choose one) that the Presidential campaigns chip in for ballot access prior to the convention.
George
Nicholas Sarwark wrote:
You’re parsing words. I don’t like being deliberately misled either and won’t donate time or money to an effort based on deliberately being misled.
You know perfectly well the chances of the LP presidential candidate being on the ballot are almost zero based on the actions of the JC.
Nick, the JC is doing everything it can to flush it down the toilet. The fact is that while technically we do have Oregon access right now… that is only because that chicken has not fully come home to roost. On paper and by decision, we have lost it.
“I assume it was to prevent the LNC from taking action at this LNC meeting”
Probably.
The SMC cabal prefers to make things happen before they really get noticed.
That’s why they got the LNC’s executive committee to pull its attempted illegal disaffiliation on a conference call instead of doing it openly through the full LNC, for example.
Presumably they’re planning to pull the ol’ “use the credentials committee to slip in fake delegates and get a positive floor vote before anyone’s the wiser” trick that they’ve already done twice (in variant forms) now.
You really shouldn’t use the word “lied” unless there’s a lie. What about what I said was inaccurate?
We have a plan and a budget to get ballot access in the 19 states that we don’t have it as of today.
The Libertarian Party of Oregon has ballot access as of today. They will continue to have ballot access through the 2016 election.
In the last Presidential election, they put the Libertarian Party nominee on the ballot, in spite of the actions of the LNC and convention delegates.
So I stand by my statement that the Libertarian Party is poised to have 50-state ballot access. Could that be changed? Yes. Has it changed yet? No.
Jill Pyeatt wrote:
I assume it was to prevent the LNC from taking action at this LNC meeting rescinding the LNC and EC’s past resolutions that the JC decision relies on.
Thomas L. Knapp wrote:
I strongly agree.
Nicholas Sarwark wrote:
Thomas L. Knapp wrote:
Nick,
I hate to interrupt such a productive fundraising pitch, but we are poised to lose 50-state ballot access for our Presidential candidate in this 45th year of the Libertarian Party’s existence.
The judicial committee has flushed 50-state ballot access down the toilet. Oregon is extremely unlikely to put the LP nominee on the ballot after being screwed over by national convention 2 (soon to be 3) national conventions in a row and abused by LNC members and a rogue judicial committee.
I’m a big fan of 50-state ballot access and have donated time and money to that end in the past. On the other hand, being outright lied to in a fundraising pitch is a big pet peeve of mine. I won’t be donating any money or time toward ballot access if national lies like that.
Your time would be better spent figuring how to get the LNC to recognize the actual Libertarian Party of Oregon and to make clear that the fake PAC Republican front group is clearly told to shove it.
Perhaps it had been released earlier, George, but I had been asking for it for a few weeks.
Mutual defense of ballot access is the only real reason for any formal confederation to exist in my opinion.
While I wish that all states had permanent ballot access, the reality is that we have to spend huge amounts of money each election cycle. The LNC has to have 50 states as a goal, regardless of how difficult it may be. Giving up is not an option.
“It just seems to me very strange that it took 7 weeks for M’s response to the letter he wrote on New Year’s Eve to be released.”
Jill, the vote may have been more recent. George
Except you’re watching from way up close and don’t bother to do anything to help.
I agree, but until recently major hotels have been clinging to extra internet charged. When we discussed the hotel, which was four years ago, wifi was included. I have no idea what happened, since I left the LNC shortly after the decision was made.
I believe that the decision to use an agency, forced on us several years earlier, is a big part of the problem. This came from Knedler, who convinced enough people that we hired them. I did not like it.
tk: Whining about the fact that the LP is a NAP party isn’t “questions about the advisability and wisdom of the NAP.” It’s just whining about the fact that the LP is a NAP party.
me: I guess I can see that from your perspective. From mine, it’s like watching from a distance over the years when a family builds their house in a flood zone, and every year the river swells and the house is ruined. The family keeps wondering why their house gets destroyed, year after year.
Compassionately reminding the family that building in a flood zone is unwise seems like the right thing to do.
Wes,
You impolite? Perish the thought! LOL
I suspect that Oregonians will likely vote on the ballot access issue to take an action far more favorable to the LNC if our boycott is respected than if it is not. Of course it may be that the past offenses have been so egregious that you might just get a figurative flaming middle finger no matyer what.
On the other hand, our bylaws require that a presidential candidate be a member of any national affiliate be belong to. Therefore if it is decided that the JC decision is effective, that will likely be regarded as a disaffiliation and this make it impossible for us to have a presidential candidate until we affiliate with a new national organization.
I know our temperment out here is not entirely culturally understood by the rest of the nation, but in my experience Oregonians are some of the most passive aggressive people on the planet, on average.
If ever I was impolite, rest assured someone else started it.
I don’t have any special knowledge, George. It just seems to me very strange that it took 7 weeks for M’s response to the letter he wrote on New Year’s Eve to be released. I’d be willing to bet the clarification letter was either already written, or at least it was done shortly thereafter, the New Year’s Eve date. Why would he wait so long to present this clarification letter which he probably initially thought would bring the Oregon situation upfront again? Was he trying to build support for it behind the scenes, or was the request for clarification ridiculed so much he lost his enthusiasm for this move?
I think everyone is really, really sick of the Oregon drama. Even people initially on the Burke/Carling/Starr side are probably realizing that the case is essentially over. Enough already! It’s not like the Oregon LP has been floundering over that past few years.
Stewart,
Logical Question #1 for a convention venue is “do you have a big enough room?”
Logical Question #2 for a convention venue, for a decade or so now, has been “is wi-fi included in your bid?”
“No” to either of those questions should be an automatic venue disqualifier, no exceptions.
We can live without wifi on the floor.
“Perhaps he knows something we don’t. He certainly was able to notice the mood of the attendees of last weekend’s meeting.” Jill, please expand on this. I must have missed something. I was, of course, busy typing a liveblog.
It appeared to me that the JC was unlucky, in the limited specific sense that its report showed up too late to have been read or considered by meeting attendees last weekend..
All good points. He could rule it out of order, then the issue will be sustaining the ruling of the chair.
Might be messy, and could tie up a lot of time, but I agree that he will be prepared. I will certainly have me delegation ready.
I just want the Oregon stuff to end. Not worth losing ballot access over.
“Or the high-cash contested elections this year for Massachusetts State Committee.”
Ummh, That was the *Republican* state committee, where $300,000 has by rumor been raised by Governor Baker in an effort to blow up his party.
While I am sympathetic to Nick’s desires for 50 state ballot access, it appears that 50 state ballot access will cost someplace between a quarter (optimistic) or a shade under a half (pessimistic) million dollars, and it is entirely unclear that there is any possibility of the LNC being able to do this without needing to jettison access in some number of expensive states. LNC finances have been sinking for some time, with such interesting costs as $38,000 for doubtless brilliant editing, an extra $20,000 over 5 years for a $10,000 printer, $8000 for moving expenses, an extra $30,000 allegedly now needed for wifi access in the NatCon hall, generous staff bonusses, and at some point a tipping point is crossed and things just stop working.
Well, it does occur to me that Mr. Sarwark is uniquely placed to forcefully confront any attempt to seat a bogus Oregon delegation in Orlando.
Presumably if carefully and loudly informed from the stage that they were about to vote on whether or not to seat a fake delegation from a fraudulent affiliate, the delegates would vote no. And if they did that, the real LPO might be inclined to put the convention’s presidential nominees on its ballot line.
With the possible candidates I see from the D & Rs I suggest strongly that we not screw this up. It could be an interesting year for the LP. Let’s go get ’em.
Perhaps he knows something we don’t. He certainly was able to notice the mood of the attendees of last weekend’s meeting.
Jeff, that is correct, but the counter-argument is that they only said that because the LNC refused to give an opinion, and in light of such an opinion they may change their mind.
I am not at my regular desk, but if needed I can post the SoS letter.
I do not think the counter-argument has any weight btw, and I believe the SoS will say, “That’s nice, go away.”
Therefore, I love Nick’s enthusiasm, but it is the JC that blew the potential for 50 state ballot access for us and no amount of money will cure that. Let them pay to get OR access back if they are so determined to blow it.
I love it! Customized ballot access ad from the chair!
50 states. Never thought I’d see that.
Hello Stewart –
You said, “And when the party goes to the SOS with a newly formed affiliate, who knows what will happen!”
I think that has been answered by the SOS’s office itself: nothing. Someone else can find the links more quickly than I can, but I’m sure they have said more than once that absent a court decision there will be no change in which group the recognize. Caryn, et. al. – is that right?
The Libertarian Party of Oregon has ballot access. In 2012, they used that ballot access to place the national Presidential ticket on the ballot.
Nick,
I’d love to see 50-state ballot access. Unfortunately, the previous LNC executive committee and current Judicial Committee seem determined, and likely successfully so, to ensure loss of ballot access in Oregon for the LP’s presidential ticket. So unless there’s a rush move to make Puerto Rico a state, probably not gonna happen.
I hate to interrupt such a productive discussion, but we are poised to have 50-state ballot access for our Presidential candidate in this 45th year of the Libertarian Party’s existence.
If you could take a break from your discussions for a moment to give generously to the ballot access fund, it would be greatly appreciated. https://www.lp.org/ballotfund
Whining about the fact that the LP is a NAP party isn’t “questions about the advisability and wisdom of the NAP.” It’s just whining about the fact that the LP is a NAP party.
dfr: Yes, Tom, I remain mystified why no one has started the Queasy Libertarian Party for non NAPsters.
me: This is your setup, which you are of course welcome to, but it is not true. Perhaps you believe that the NAP is “strong” and non-NAP-isms are “weak.” But isn’t it possible that non-NAP L ideologies are simply different, employing a paradigm different from deontological NAPsterism?
You could say that TK himself started a “queasy” LP, the BTP. IIRC, it employed far less-Byzantine rules but it mostly attracted anarchists. As you learned, starting a political party is not an easy matter, and starting one that’s consequential is even more so.
I do note that NAPsters, when confronted with questions about the advisability and wisdom of the NAP, seem to fall back to the position, “Well, if you don’t like the NAP, leave and start your own party.” Charming way of saying, My way or the highway.
“It is true, there is not as much public infighting within the Republican and Democrat party members.”
Apparently someone hasn’t watched any recent Presidential debates. Or the high-cash contested elections this year for Massachusetts State Committee.
Meant “or”. 🙂
Anyway, there is also the “fear factor”. I can’t count the number of times I have run into people who agree with us, but don’t vote for our candidate (usually for POTUS) because they are afraid that if they don’t vote for “X” then “Y” will win.
If even HALF of the people who feel that way just voted with us we’d have double-digit results. Do that one time and the next time the other half may join in.
Agreed. A majority of the opposition I find in the general public is one of two things:
If they agree with us on economic issues, they frequently fail to realize why freedom extends equally to social issues.
of
If they agree with us on social issues, they want the government to control the economy and “big business” and tax them to do social “good”.
Obviously a wide generalization, since the social exceptions are usually a small number of things like marriage or drugs. And of course the economic objections are equally as narrow.
RC the non aggression principle has little or nothing to do with why the LP is not growing. There are many other contributing factors.
Yes, Tom, I remain mystified why no one has started the Queasy Libertarian Party for non NAPsters.
sf, LOL!
And they only stop driving when the convention achieves a 7/8ths vote for it.
We should make both groups put on hats and have a race around the convention floor in tiny cars. Five laps and the winner is the recognized affiliate.
And by not being present, they only add to the chance of being replaced. There will be no one with “standing” to argue for their side.
So right or wrong, Wanger’s group gives up the political high ground by failing to show. I’m guessing that if they fail to put the party’s nominee on the ballot for November that they will be disaffiliated (for cause) and replaced. Only a guess, but I think it is possible.
And when the party goes to the SOS with a newly formed affiliate, who knows what will happen!
tk I’d either get used to the funny hat and tiny cars or NOT JOIN THE FUCKING SHRINERS.
me: When you buy software or do online transactions, do you read all the fine print disclosure? Newsflash: Most people don’t.
If the Shriners were ineffective and shrinking, and they found the reason for failure and shrinkage was the funny hat and tiny cars, should the Shriners at least consider losing them for the greater good? Even if the leadership of the Shriners personally loved wearing the hats and driving the cars, it may well be in their interest to pivot.
Plumbliners should consider dropping the plumbline in order to advance it. They could be the drug pushers offering the drug for free to build their business over time. Once hooked, the lessarchist lites might decide to watch Long YouTubes and read up on Spooner.
That’s only the hats Stewart. Don’t be ridiculous.
And I think that the Shriners require a 7/8th super majority of all members (both dead and alive) to get rid of either the hats or the cars.
Stewart, its the spank that keeps on spanking.
No, I was only discussing what Wagner did. I didn’t want to go into all the rest of the details. I said neither was perfect, which is a polite way of avoiding saying that they are all a bunch of whiny children who break the rules (which started on both sides LONG before the incidents we are discussing).
What I was trying to point out is that he won. Right or wrong, he won. It is over. Dead. Ended.
But it goes on and on and on and…
And Tom nails it on both counts again.
re: Oregon, I came at it as a Party newbie, not knowing a thing about it, just going through the historical data and the governing documents, and came to the exact same conclusion you did.
Bob,
And I’d even go so far as to say that a funny hats and tiny cars caucus could co-exist with non-funny-hats and non-tiny-cars groups in the Shriners. But if the Shriners’ founders decided that put funny hats and tiny cars were foundational to their organization and made it hard to remove the funny hat and tiny car requirement, I wouldn’t sit around bitching about it. I’d either get used to the funny hat and tiny cars or NOT JOIN THE FUCKING SHRINERS.
Stewart,
I hate to wade back into the internal details of Oregon again since they are not the business of the LNC (for any purpose but a vote to disaffiliate) or the Judicial Committee (other than on appeal from the actual affiliate), but you’ve got it only half right.
Wagner’s faction attempted a coup. Burke’s faction attempted a coup.
Wagner’s faction succeeded. Burke’s faction failed.
No biggie. If the LNC had that much of a problem with it, all they had to do was disaffiliate the winning side and affiliate the losing side. Ballot access would have had to be re-earned and it would have been a bit embarrassing for the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon to not be called the Libertarian Party*, but at least the squalling wouldn’t have gone on for so many years.
* I still think one reason the LNC doesn’t take the matter on directly like that is that they want the name “Libertarian Party” but are afraid to press their fraudulent trademark claim because they know that claim wouldn’t survive 30 seconds in court.
It won’t happen. I’ve been saying for years (literally) that neither side was perfect. Wagner admits to having committed a coup. The other side has used every available means (including lots of cash) to convince judges that it happened the way it actually did (I’ve heard Wagner admit it).
But in the end, Wagner’s side is still in control. He won, regardless of how many times they get his delegation replaced at the national convention. Trust me, they will do it again, even though the ByLaws specify that a state must submit at least one delegate’s name in order for the state to be seated.
So will they “cheat” and submit their own list, even though they are not the “legally” recognized affiliate? My guess is yes.
I really hope the delegates to national will choose to seat no delegation of Oregon in ’16 until the assholes that live there agree to just have one organization, and until then leave Oregon to the Oregonians.
more…
I’d even go so far as to say that NAPsters would benefit from an inclusive LP, vs. the current NAP-as-gospel one. With more and more people being actively interested in liberty, a NAP caucus could co-exist with other Ls, making the case for NAP stances, NAP candidates, and NAP officers.
tk, I’m a L, so of course I certainly don’t advocate PROHIBITING 89 people setting up a political “party” in which they dictate NAPsterism on future members.
DFR claims that their decision has been “vindicated,” but he provides no real elaboration for his conclusion.
But I’d say the better question isn’t should it be allowed, but whether it was and is a good idea to sanctify NAPsterism as the superior, orthodox, and virtually unalterable ideology for a L party. Obviously, I don’t think so, based on results, and based on the crazytalk the 89 surrounded the NAP with in the SoP. By all indications, they weren’t thinking straight, unless the Ba’ath Party has become an additional threat to our liberties.
Bob,
The question is not whether or not there are “good Ls” who are “non-NAPsters.”
The question is whether or not people who form an organization should be able to decide, and act foundationally to preserve, the character of that organization.
They wanted to form a NAPster organization, and to keep it a NAPster organization in perpetuity, so they set things up that way.
In the 40-odd years since, there’s been nothing whatsoever to stop “good Ls” who are “non-NAPsters” from setting up an organization that’s open to being “L” without being “NAPster.”
Very few people have tried to do so — and when anyone has, the bulk of those complaining about the LP’s difficult-to-change NAP foundation have chosen to continue whining about that foundation instead of helping build the kind of party they claim they’d like to see.
dfr: the merit of the rule has been vindicated by time.
me “Vindicated” in whose eyes? I certainly can understand that you personally feel good about it, as you were sincere then and now.
What we can’t know is what might have happened to the institution had the ability to evolve it was not booby trapped. Had there been more flexibility, perhaps the party might have made adjustments and it might have been more inviting to more non-NAPsters. Maybe the early successes in AK might have been built on. Maybe the destructive events in 83-84 could have been avoided.
dfr: No temporary majority at a convention can substitute its judgment on the fundamental character of the LP.
me: Sounds kinda good, but that’s another way of saying that 89 set the “character” in perpetuity by booby-trapping their words. You and your youthful colleagues are still effectively dictating the “character” on those who have come (and gone) after, some of whom are non-NAPster Ls.
It set things up as a cadre/unwashed dichotomy. Did it occur to you then that there are “good” Ls who are not NAPsters? What was your attitude toward them?
Frankly, I concur.
“It is true, there is not as much public infighting within the Republican and Democrat party members.”
Every scrap of available evidence says the opposite.
It is true, there is not as much public infighting within the Republican and Democrat party members.
Why? It is not because they are above infighting, (they still do it) HOWEVER, each of the parties do a very good job of weeding out those who might disagree with the party line. For example. There have been pro liberty republicans who are literally destroyed the night before an election, because the party does not want them.
Democrats do the same thing. A woman in my area was running in the primary, but she did not follow the party line on one or two issues, so the party put up another candidate, one of their liking, in the last weeks before the petitions had to be in, and the party support helped him edge her out.. Nobody remembers his name since he lost in a big way to the Republican incumbent, but the point remains that if one is in the Republican or Democrat party, one is not allowed to have an unsanctioned opinion.
Libertarians have more infighting, because we are all free to voice our opinions about everything, AND WE DO!
Some would say this is a bad thing… Frankly I would rather deal with the infighting bullshit than deal with an authoritative party structure like the R’s and D’s are oppressed by.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Re: the other parts of the Bylaws. The heat and pressure was on everyone to get a skeleton organization stuck together. If only we could have pre-planned using the Internet back then… Alas, all we could do was follow David Nolan’s inspiration and give it all the shot we could and then trust the blood, muscle and dexterity would follow. 🙂
You are blamed now as well for bylaws you likely had nothing to do with btw. I am going now to print out historical bylaws to research.
Deeply grateful from the bottom of my heart. The LP would be long dead if not for that.
D. Frank Robinson @ February 22, 2016 at 18:26 wrote:
“As one of the principal instigators of the 3/4ths and 7/8th rules to entrench the SoP, I was then 29 . . .”
THANKS, thanks, thanks!
Joe
Re: “sanity nearly prevailed over the 89 20-year-olds profoundly arrogant 7/8ths booby trap.”
As one of the principal instigators of the 3/4ths and 7/8th rules to entrench the SoP, I was then 29 and I am now 73 and the merit of the rule has been vindicated by time. No temporary majority at a convention can substitute its judgment on the fundamental character of the LP. I had been around politics for a few years before I was Chair of the CB&R Cmte in Denver in 1972. I had studied the political platforms of all American political parties up to that time and that study convinced me that no party had ever looked beyond the next election for its reason for being. I and David Nolan and the other delegates in Denver debated and agreed that for the LP to a Party of Principle had to have a solid ideological anchor. The Sop has sustained the LP though many moments of passionate improvisation and still the Statement of Principles is more relevant today than when we adopted it in 1972.
Substitution statements for the SoP can and should be debated, and if persuasive to the supermajority, then so be it.
Michael H. Wilson @ February 22, 2016 at 12:49 wrote:
“Wes Wagner is actually a late comer to the problem. Maybe he hasn’t played it smart but he did not start this mess.”
It all depends on which game you see Wes playing (here’s a HINT: He is playing more than one) and IMO, when you see the game, you no longer question how smart he may or may not be.
Those who think he hasn’t played smart (HINT: Those who fail to see he won some time ago and the game they continue to play is, in fact over (and has been for some time and has already been won by Wes)) don’t understand the game.
Or so it seems to me.
IMO, the best candidate the LPO could nominate for POTUS in 2016 is . . . well, you know.
“Nobody has authority to discriminate here anymore. The house has been cleaned and all are welcome to participate.”
Thanks for letting me know.
Curry,
There is nothing to fight over in Oregon. Anyone registered can be involved in the party, run for office, be a representative to national (if we stay affiliated).
Nobody has authority to discriminate here anymore. The house has been cleaned and all are welcome to participate.
The only reason that national is waisting your time with the issue is because national hasn’t removed its authoritarian structure.
Oregon’s party isn’t experiencing the problem anymore. The LPO political party isn’t waisting your time– if the LP stopped trying to meddle and choose leadership, they could be done with it too.
“In what manner should “both” sides grow up? One side is the legitimate party, the other side is not. One side is the victim, the other is the wrongdoer.”
See, this is where the arrogance of factionalism in our party rears its ugly head. If you cannot see that both sides have done awful things to the other (and, thus indirectly, to the Party in general) over the past ~15 years, then you’re showing your bias and your being willfully ignorant to the subsidiary effects of the Oregon conflict on the LP.
At this point, it’s almost an academic exercise on who is the “legitimate” group in Oregon. At least one, possibly two, federal judge(s) has/have said that the LP needs to clean up its own house. I am in agreement with that. The “recognized” party by the Secretary of State can change, if necessary, or it can stay the same. I really don’t freaking care. If the LPO can’t do it by itself, then the LNC needs to get involved. If the LNC judicial body is rogue, then the delegates at the national convention need to have their say, once and for all, after rigorous discussion and information dissemination. Frankly, I wish we’d just do that and get it over with, in ANY case.
I just don’t think most of you grasp how utterly tired, exhausted, and disenchanted the rest of the LP is with Oregon. I moved out of Oregon partly because I was trying to get away from all of this. I’d rather see both groups violently burst into flames than to have to listen to it for one more millisecond.
(Alright, alright, that last sentence was a joke, but come on, guys. This was beyond absurd a decade ago.)
I’ve noticed Shane doesn’t have many positive things to say about anyone or anything. I wonder why he’s even bothering with us, if we’re all so incompetent.
Shane I was involved in the LPO for some years and this nonsense has been going on since the early 1990s. Wes Wagner is actually a late comer to the problem. Maybe he hasn’t played it smart but he did not start this mess.
Curry B. Taylor: I do not necessarily take sides with either Oregon faction. I honestly really wish both sides would grow up…
In what manner should “both” sides grow up? One side is the legitimate party, the other side is not. One side is the victim, the other is the wrongdoer.
Your silly statement makes it seem like this is some squabble in which both sides are equally wrong.
Bob,
I’ve spent plenty of time in non-LP political enclaves, and my report is that people of all political persuasions engage in petty in-fighting over matters with little or nothing at stake on a regular basis.
One time I watched the labor subcommittee of a county Democratic Party committee argue for nearly half an hour over whether to use a semicolon to split something into two clauses, or a period to make the two clauses into separate sentences, while crafting a statement to be read into the record of the next party committee meeting — not to any effect, just to be on record on some issue so trivial that I can’t even remember what the hell it was. The only thing that stuck with me was the goddamn semi-colon versus period fight.
One thing I’ve noticed is that many people who like to point to the socialists’ success in getting many of their goals adopted are among the same people who claim that the LP’s problem is its infighting. If you think the LP is bad about that, check out the socialist movement some time. Or just watch the Life of Brian for the fun take on it. How often does the LP’s in-fighting get bad enough to create a new splinter party, let alone one that persists for more than an election cycle or two?
tk, it’s funny to me how much people pick facts to support their prejudices. (I do it too, of course, but I do work very hard to keep an open mind.) SC has been to the R and L camps, and his reporting makes intuitive sense to me.
The futility of L infighting when there are no stakes is amazing to me.
And, as another example of selective perception on your part, is that there was a national convention 10 years ago in which 3/4 voted to delete the patently insane CotOS language. The Chair had to recount, as sanity nearly prevailed over the 89 20-year-olds profoundly arrogant 7/8ths booby trap.
Being way out on the fringe, the pent-up energy of Ls is to turn on one another, since they must know unconsciously that their ideas are of little-to-no consequence. It’s no wonder that “L” means RP1 and RP2 in the public’s mind.
Humans naturally are inclined toward conflict, and the lawyers only care about who gets the bill for their time. That is American politics.
Voters never win.
R’s and D’s fight as much as Libertarians? Lol, not even close.
I’ve never worked in the Democrat Party but can tell you that GOP committees and state parties don’t come close to arguing as much as us. They even joke about the dysfunction of the LP.
They don’t have battles over minor contracts or even major ones. The loudest they get is over political matters.
From time to time there is a real scandal at the state level and they oust a chair or ED, but that typically has to do with money.
So don’t kid yourselves thinking this is normal. It is not. In the case of Oregon, Wes Wagner is a straight up dick who refuses to walk away, then you have the covert meddlers who oppose him because he is such a dick.
It’s a ridiculous situation that has been going on for a decade. The LNC just needs to disaffiliate and form a new party. The ONLY thing the Oregon faction gets from national is the member database and they need to cut off feeding them new data if they haven’t already done so.
“The context of R and D infighting is entirely different.”
I wasn’t referring to the contEXT. I was referring to the contENT.
To the best of my knowledge, Libertarians don’t argue over whether or not there is a Cult of the Omnipotent State. One person complaining about five words in the statement of principles does not “infighting” make.
“evidence?”
Well, you might look here and here for a quick starter briefing on Democratic and Republican in-fighting.
But that’s really just the tip of the iceberg and is indeed related, however provisionally, contingently and tangentially, to policy. If you want to see what Democratic and Republican infighting at the more granular level looks like, attend or watch one of their meetings. They’re just as plagued by hobbyhorse riders, sea lawyers, etc. as we are.
tk, evidence?
Have they argued over whether there is a CotOS? Do they have a 7/8ths rule set by 89 20-year-olds 4 decades ago?
Have Ls been getting elected regularly, holding legislative majorities and minorities.nationwide?
No. The context of R and D infighting is entirely different.
Nah, the Rs and Ds infight over the same kinds of things we do.
tk: We don’t fight among ourselves any more than the other guys do. It’s just that the same noise seems louder when it’s made in a smaller room.
me: That’s one way of putting it. When the Rs and Ds infight, it’s over matters of consequence — jockeying for position to make policy and law.
Ls argue for control of a fishbowl, or to demonstrate ideological superiority.
Thanks Jill.
“It is poor leadership and one hell of a waste of money that could have been used to support the message. I hope that someone will bring this part of the issue to the delegates attention at the national convention when and if it comes up. If you want incompetent people running the party, then that is what you will get.”
You had me at “it” LOL
Excellent summation, Mr. Wilson.
Are these meeting actually recorded for later listening?
Regarding the conspiracy theory. It has been obvious from the mid 1990s that someone in the LPO is cuddle buddies with the someone of the major parties. That person even invited candidates from that major party to LPO events more than once (pardon me but I just had to use the phrase cuddle buddies. It makes a great picture).
The really sad part of this is that if Mr. Burke and Mr. Carling were serious about gaining control of the party the least expensive way to do so would have been to elect a slate of delegates to the LPO executive committee or whatever name it goes by these days. Instead over $100,000 has been spent on a law suit and from what I have heard that is on both sides. This is a prime example of poor managerial decision making. It is poor leadership and one hell of a waste of money that could have been used to support the message. I hope that someone will bring this part of the issue to the delegates attention at the national convention when and if it comes up. If you want incompetent people running the party, then that is what you will get.
Regarding Oregon’s role in the 50-state ballot access concern, at our last LPO board meeting, we voted to refer the following two questions to our membership as part of our primary election (which is held by mail):
1) Who should be our nominees for President and Vice President of the United States if the Libertarian National Convention honors our boycott by not seating an Oregon delegation?
2) Who should be our nominees for President and Vice President of the United States if the Libertarian National Convention does not honor our boycott by seating an Oregon delegation?
The options for both questions are the same, and votes are by IRV (ranked choice):
A) The winners of our primary election
B) The nominees of the national convention
C) No one
Thus, we are leaving this matter up to our membership. The behavior of the delegates at the convention may affect the contents of the Oregon ballot in November.
We are accepting argument statements for publication in our Libertarian Voters’ Guide regarding these and other referrals, any member of the LPO (by voter registration) may submit one; see section III.J (second-to-last) of our primary election rules for details: http://lporegon.org/index.php/2016-elections/2016-election-rules
(Note that the rules currently require arguments to be “in favor” or “in opposition”, which doesn’t make sense for a question that is not yes/no. I’ve made a motion to remove that requirement for questions like these that are not yes/no.)
I would say the infiltrators are more likely from the FBI or CIA. It
On the infiltrator David Nolan was seeking to out, I suspected a fellow named “Ed” and his cult of “Monitors” that appeared at the Cleveland confab in 1973. My view. Dave reserved judgment for lack of evidence.
We don’t fight among ourselves any more than the other guys do. It’s just that the same noise seems louder when it’s made in a smaller room.
This is undoubtedly going on, and probably has been for years.
I recall hearing that David Nolan was aware that a member of the small group at the beginning of the Libertarian Party contained an infiltrator. I don’t believe he ever found out who it was.
Reason number 73 why libertarians rarely win office. We fight too much amongst ourselves.
Of course as a conspiracy theorist I tend to think the major parties insert troublemakers to incite such things.
A critical point has not been focused on it this controversy. The state-sponsored political parties use ballot access laws as a legal weapon to manipulate supporters of alternative political movements. Ballot access is used as a carrot and a stick to waste human thought and physical resources and besiege competition. Some of the issues raised would be moot to the national LP were it not for the confusion sown trying to kow tow to ballot access laws written by the damn Republican and Democratic politicians to infect all challengers to their assumed authority.
Ballot access, when “granted” is a useful privilege. It is a monopoly privilege. Privileges from the statists are used for control.
In this particular case in Oregon, I would suggest that it is up to Libertarians in Oregon to think more radically and keep state (R & D) officials as far from their affairs as possible. Run your candidates and apply your efforts to campaigns addressed to the general public and don’t forget to attack D & R assumed privileges. Slip free from the statist’s snares.
Okay Jill, well I am fine with my title. Unlike the prior article in which recusal was explicitly part of the article (i.e. quoted several emails of people asking him to recuse), that wasn’t the focus or a part of the main piece, and I feel would add editorial content not warranted by the piece itself but if someone edited it, I would not complain.
Fred is correct.
“Resource draining drama”
Great quote, I’ll make sure the registered Libertarian’s in Oregon are aware they are drama and not a resource.
Excellent point, Fred.
Jill,
While I fully understand your desire to censure Carling and others, I would highly recommend we don’t go down that path.
The struggles in Oregon were allowed to continue because there were positions of authority to fight over. Through rules and power structures the factions tried to gain authority and kick members of the other faction out.
The feud ended in Oregon (but not in the national LP) when the only authority the state committee was granted was the functions of putting people on the ballot and keeping the party running.
The faction that is still fighting has nothing to gain by holding power in the current LPO party– which may be why they don’t just run for office in the LPO.
The problem isn’t just that M Carling wants to control other Libertarian’s– the problem is that we’ve given authoritarians the ability to gain centralized power in a party that opposes centralized authority of power.
We don’t need to limit people, we need to limit authority
“I have to admit, it’s fun to watch. I can only speak for myself, but I’m pretty certain most of our membership could care less what national does at this point.”
I would guess 95% of the national membership doesn’t understand the Oregon situation either. And is it worth taking the time and effort to sort through it again? The Oregon Sec. of State recognizes something as the official Libertarian Party. Those unhappy with that can work locally to take over that entity if they so wish. If that entity refuses to put the nominee of the Convention on the ballot, then so be it. Maybe they will put someone else on or no one. Somehow I doubt NBC or Fox or whomever is going to make any kind of point about the nominee of the Convention not being on the Oregon ballot. I doubt Oregon’s electoral votes are going to be in play in 2016! It simply isn’t worth the time and resource-draining drama.
Caryn said:
I’m not going to change your title. It’s one of those respect issues I have as a writer regarding another writer.
Ian Epstein of Oregon PAC Asks for Clarification Clarification
LP JC Meets Tomorrow to Reconsider Prior Decision Re: Oregon Affiliate Carling Will Not Recuse Himself
Guy,
Not to disagree.
I am not complaining that OR ballot access will cost $100,000, give or take. I am simply *saying* that it will cost $100,000 give or take, with “give more” from the LNC being not unlikely.
Some of the other people are indeed complaining, and you are right to take them to task.
George
For 8 years national, has been dumping on the vast majority of REGISTERED libertarian’s of the state of Oregon. Prior to that we had to wrestle away our OWN party, from 8 members that wanted to use it as a personal piggy bank, and republican side party.
Skip ahead, 2012 and the courts and Oregon SOS rule that we, the REGISTERED MAJORITY of Libertarian’s in the state of Oregon will control ballot access, and again National refuses our delegates, representing at that time 8500 registered Libertarian’s.
So here we are 2016, and the LPO now represents almost 20,000 REGISTERED Libertarian’s in a state of roughly 2.5 million people, and 700,000 registered voters. And I see you guys are still attempting your mental gymnastics to convince everyone that the 5-8 members that are left of the Burke group, should be running the show.
Additionally I hear people complaining about national not getting ballot access, due to Oregon, and costing National $100,000, and yet, we still get called “babies”.
I have to admit, it’s fun to watch. I can only speak for myself, but I’m pretty certain most of our membership could care less what national does at this point.
Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
I think you posted a few comments about the LNC meeting in the wrong thread (the JC thread).
Nicely said, Thomas L. Knapp @ February 20, 2016 at 23:51
“the impostor organization lacked standing to appeal to the Judicial Committee . . .”
EXACTLY.
I was asked recently for my advice on how one of the Presidential Campaigns could “solve things” in Oregon. I suggested, because they had been complicit in the problems since at least 2012, that they begin by giving the cash equivalent of all of expenses suffered by the Libertarian Party of Oregon (legal, emotional, related-to-legal) to the parties who suffered those expenses without condition.
Perhaps after doing that, and then 1) Apologizing profusely and 2) Making a firm commitment to behave morally going forward (perhaps with a cash amount put in a trust fund managed by a third party) then, and I think it’s a small chance, they might talk to you, and only then tell you what would have to be done.
But there is ZERO SENSE in trying to “solve things” until AFTER that just compensation has been delivered, without strings.
Or so it seems to me.
Redpath spoke against this particular slogan, and suggested “anything peaceful,” or “peace, prosperity, freedom.” Though he believes in uniformity.
Vohra spoke against saying it is an extreme level of micromanagement and that it is not a good slogan.
Johnson spoke that it has come up in the APRC. Carla keeps changing the slogan. He believes we should have a consistent slogan and likes this slogan.
Katz spoke about consistency of message not consistency of words. He went on about his peeves with management.
Extended for two minutes.
Ludlow spoke on a point of information. Was this slogan actually created during re-branded? He also does not like the micromanagement.
Motion fails. 3-1-12
Olsen brings up motion as some Colorado constituents requested to adopt Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom as the official slogan, to be consistent in our branding from one publication or another.
This is one of the reasons I left the party.
To imagine the illness of centralized planning coming home to roost is one thing, but to act as in utter surprise about the consequence insults everyone with half a brain.
The libertarian self-destructs AGAIN on the same issue.
But the bright side of these events playing out for so long is that it works as a great example as to why government does not work.
Anarchy 1….Centralized Planning 0
Jill feel free to edit my title. I don’t mind.
I would gladly be involved in an effort to censure those members of the JC who were involved in this overreach of authority, starting with Carling. The fact that he did not recuse himself when he’s so clearly a party standing to gain is outrageous. The fact that he’s a parliamentarian and should know better (although he certainly should have known better without this extra designation) makes it clear he can’t make appropriate decisions.
I really wish the fact that he didn’t recuse himself was in the title of the article so at least that info would be out there in the blogosphere forever..
Curry Taylor,
I agree that what you propose would be the fair way for the LP to decide which group it wants as its affiliate.
They have the authority to make that decision.
However, that would not change that outcome of which group is recognized by the Oregon SOS. The national LP has no authority to make such a decision. Oregon election law makes it fairly clear that a state political party is to be run by those registered to vote in that state party. This is the central difference between the LPO political party and the PAC that shares the same name.
If the LP chooses to affiliate with the PAC that is the business of the LP, but ballot access has been granted to the party by the SOS. Considering that the actions (though ill informed– as you suggested) of the LP at convention chose to not recognize the party — the LP in essence gave the party no representation. Without representation there is no obligation to abide by any decision of the LP
“The national convention–my memory says 2012–that accepted the delegation of the Reeves faction and ejected the delegation of the state party did indeed make a decision however stupic and ill-informed.”
I do not necessarily take sides with either Oregon faction. I honestly really wish both sides would grow up, albeit perhaps in different ways with respect to each. But to the point, as a regular national convention delegate, I do not appreciate how votes are being construed to have meant something more than simply seating a delegation.
Let’s be clear on what would have to take place in order to be able to claim that the national body has “made a decision” on which side of the Oregon dispute is correct. The body would have to be given all of the condensed history and background of the situation for the past ~15 years, verbally. Multiple representatives, and speakers pro/con on both sides, would have to get up on the mic and talk about their perspectives and opinions. This could go on for a while. The body would have to be told over and over again what they were being asked to vote upon, and what is at stake in their final decision. And, most importantly, the LNC needs to agree that the decision of the national convention body will override any decision made by any LNC judicial body, and the warring factions both need to agree that whatever the national convention body (i.e. the “highest body of the Libertarian Party”, so quoted) decides, then that is the end of it, forever, period. (If both sides can’t agree with that, then they probably, at the end of the day, don’t really recognize any leadership within the LP at all.)
In fact, let’s do it. Put it on the agenda for Orlando. It might take an hour or more, but I’m pretty sure most of us would give up an hour of convention time (or two, or three) in order to see this buried forever afterward.
I am often simply wrong… but I don’t think so here since I didn’t deny they made a decision. I don’t think they made a decision on the merits, which is what Carling is suggesting. Some of the delegates I spoke to sure didn’t. Some of them simply asked other people what to do since they had no idea what was going on.
Caryn, you are simply wrong. The national convention–my memory says 2012–that accepted the delegation of the Reeves faction and ejected the delegation of the state party did indeed make a decision however stupic and ill-informed.
Tom,
Roberts and the party bylaws are actually quite clear on this, whether you like it or not.
George
Curry,
You should — almost all delegates did — receive one or more issues of Liberty for America, which covered the matter regularly. LfA is a monthly newspaper covering Libertarian party internal politics. Perhaps I did not have your address.
Sorry if the word did not reach you.
George Phillies
“Quite adequate information was sent to every delegate that each delegate should have known that there was an issue about which they should inform themselves.”
I do not recall receiving any information as a delegate on the matter before I arrived in Ohio. Although I do not recall any flyer handouts about it, either, there probably were, given the atmosphere — but I hardly think that a handout passed out 15 minutes before session begins constitutes adequate notice or rigorous explanation of any subject, no matter what it is. Please note that I lived in Oregon for 3 years so I happened to be more informed than most delegates about the issue. That is why it struck me as to how little information about this situation the delegation had been given before it was asked to vote. It was one of the first things the new delegation had to vote on.
Let me repeat: It is more than a hasty generalization to presume that just because the body seated the Reeves delegation that they were making any other claims or generalizations about the Oregon situation whatsoever.
I can potentially accept the idea that Wagner didn’t have the authority to cancel the convention (although I would be negligent to not also mention that there was no reason to believe that the bylaws and constitution that were in place at the time of the convention had been created through legal or ethical standards).
But even if Wagner did not have that authority– there is no reason to accept that M Carling’s group had the authority to elect itself as officers to the party in a meeting they called immediately following the cancelled convention.
This isn’t a war between factions. Any one registered as a Libertarian in Oregon has the full ability to participate in the party.
This is a small group led by someone out of state who is attempting to gain power over Oregonians in the Libertarian party.
The solution Ken stated is one of the few open – though it sacrificed ballot access. What is not permissible is this JC pronouncement.
The comments by Carling that the delegates took sides is not even false. It is an outright fabrication of facts. It is like pointing to migrating geese and categorically stating they prefer the letter V.
The fact of the seating happened. Carling shifted the fact into a “why” which is unsupportable.
The LNC has no power to expel people from the “national party.” Not even if you capitalize the words as if they referred to something that exists.
With respect to 2012 (there was also an issue in 2014) the failure of the delegates to pay attention to what was happening in Oregon is not a defense. Quite adequate information was sent to every delegate that each delegate should have known that there was an issue about which they should inform themselves.
The National Committee has the alternative option of impeaching the offending members of the Judicial Committee, removing them from office, and expelling them from the National Party. That change would also solve the problem, and not cost the LNC $100,000+ in ballot access funding. (Curiously, I just happen to have witnesses that the current Judicial Committee Chair stated, under conditions when it was a considered statement, that the LNC can expel people from the National Party.)
The LSLA is an organization completely legally independent of the current national party.
In particular, it gets to decide who its own members are.
I predict that the impostor organization will send a delegation, and that that delegation will be seated. I intend to fight that, but I expect to lose.
Thomas, I intend to fight that as well, and I hope, for the sake of the party, that we do not lose.
On a side note, I was not disagreeing with the broader point regarding the JC and the LNC lack of authority, (apologies if it came out that way) I was merely stating that there was nothing new regarding the “clarification”
Regarding the Rodney King quote??? ARE YOU SERIOUS? On one hand, we have the impostor organization keeps shooting at the recognized organization, and on the other, we have people asking the recognized organization to play nice with the impostor organization…
I just cannot imagine how anyone can arrive there…. It truly defies logical explanation.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
“In 2012, the highest body of the Libertarian Party, the delegates assembled in a National Convention, implicitly answered No to these questions by seating the Reeves/Epstein delegation rather than the Wagner/Hedbor delegation.”
I take issue with this presumption. I recall this vote vividly, and there was no discussion at all about the Oregon situation or anything even discussing the details of why there were two different delegations. The body was simply asked to consider whether or not the Reeves delegation should be seated without much more information than that.
A typical, less-informed delegate to the national convention might simply vote in favor of the seating, in good faith, simply thinking, “Eh, why not? The more libertarians here the better. Let’s be inclusive.” I would make the claim that most probably voted with this thought in mind. This is quite different than presuming that the 2012 delegation was making any claims about the Oregon situation whatsoever.
Hi Ken –
As I understand it (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) your proposal wouldn’t help the LP get ballot access in Oregon. Ballot access is held by the political party known as the Libertarian Party of Oregon, chaired by Lars Hedbor. Nothing the LNC does can change that. Even this decision itself taken on it’s face does not say who the chair of the political party the LPO is; it only says who the chair of the PAC the LPO is. I don’t think that’s in dispute. Hedbor is the chair of the party, Epstein is the chair of the PAC. The JC recognizes Epstein as the chair of the PAC, and hopes that the state will recognize the PAC as the party. Until the state does that, though, the party is still chaired by Hedbor, and the party has the ballot line. What in your suggestion would change who holds control of the ballot line?
J Stryder
The relationship is owned by the legal entity, not who is perceived to be the rightful officers or process. When you deem one group of people who have no legal status within the boundaries of law in relation to the first organization to be the rulers of a secondary organization that lacks legal continuity .. what is that in relation to the actual first legal organization ?
Haven’t both LPO’s appealed to the JC on the basis of “constructive disaffiliation” by now? Sheesh. “Constructive disaffiliation” is not recognized by the LP Bylaws, so both rulings are meaningless and null. If there has been no 3/4 vote by the LNC under 6.6 disaffiliating an affiliate, there has been no appealable disaffiliation. Unless I am ignorant, no such vote has ever occurred.
If any members aligned with one side or the other served on the JC that heard either appeal – that’s just embarrassing.
Assuming for the sake of argument that there are two groups each with a colorable claim to being the sole legitimate affiliate, the LNC can recognize either one, as it pleases. But it cannot ever disaffiliate the one that it doesn’t recognize, because a group that is not recognized as being affiliated obviously cannot be disaffiliated.
All this means that if the LNC ever wants to disaffiliate one of the LPO’s, it must first recognize that LPO as its affiliate, and then vote under 6.6 to disaffiliate it at a time when the JC will not reverse. It’s not that hard, folks; its just requires having the right people in office when the action is taken. Recognize the affiliate you want to get rid of for five minutes, then disaffiliate it under 6.6 and wait for the appeal (if any) to fail. Or if you don’t want to be rid of either, then don’t be.
Given that the current LNC recognizes the Wagner affiliate, that will be the case until the LNC disaffiliates its recognized Wagner affiliate or a future LNC recognizes the other one instead. The only way the LNC can end this potentially perpetual game of musical chairs, absent a change to the bylaws, is by the way outlined above. The other way it can end is for the warring factions to reconcile, or for one of them to throw in the towel. There’s no such thing as constructive disaffiliation under the LNC bylaws.
Wes, et al –
I actually have studied the entire situation – far more than I ever wanted. In 2014, I was hit with the “which affiliate is the real LPO” issue as the first order of business with the LSLA. And all I wanted to do was help do vendor booths. (On that note, I refused to choose a side because LSLA does not determine who affiliates are.)
I studied the issue in-depth. I developed my own conclusion on the history of the situation. And I’m not going to weigh in on that, because they do absolutely belong with the state affiliate. The LNC should not dictate how a state party is run, nor should it have become as actively involved in internal LPO infighting in the first place. You can’t, however, un-ring a bell. And I’m not sure that the LNC staying removed from the situation would have even mattered — there were issues well before members of the LNC got involved in the convention quorum debacle.
In early 2014, with more court rulings, I had genuinely hoped that the faction war was over. This recent JC ruling, overturning a ruling made years ago, has set a new precedent. If the JC can just revisit a situation and overturn prior rulings, then it will never be over. Even if one faction wins the court battle definitively (and one faction says it already has), the internal party battle will rage on.
Meanwhile, LP National is a body of state parties. LP National has the ability to choose who its affiliates are. State LPs likewise voluntarily affiliate with National. LP National must act in the best interest of all parties involved, and must fall-back to protecting the interests of a majority of parties when impossible to apply protection to all parties.
At this point, it seems to be an inevitability that LPO will not put the candidate, selected at the national convention, on the ballot. The line’s been drawn by one faction, which controls the ballot line, and the line will be crossed by the other faction. The threat of not putting the LP nominee on the LPO ballot line has been made. And that does direct harm to the other 49 affiliates. That is direct harm to the campaigns. That is direct harm to LP National.
At some point, all of it must stop. Neither side will ever be able to work with the other. The continued, decade-plus-long legal battles in Oregon will never be resolved, and will continue to escalate in ways which include the abuse of the national party, so long as those who are involved are allowed to continue to be so involved. These two factions will never cooperate. They are oil and water. It’s sad, because I really believe that both sides actually need each other to be successful. But that’s just not even possible at this point.
That’s why I’ve come to believe that there is only one solution: dissolution. Not only should both sides be taken out of the LPO picture, but they should be completely taken out of the whole party — LP National and any affiliate at any level — for a decade. A “time-out” to let LPO get back up on its feet, and prevent those involved from doing the same thing to some other affiliate party in the mean time.
Hopefully, an LPO formed in its wake would be able to prevent the escalation of factionalization. It may not. At least with a new affiliate, with new blood, there’s a possibility. By contrast, the current factions would probably continue to go after each other, even if they’re both banished from the party. It’s become so personal, and I think the party is now just being used as a weapon against each faction.
I’ve been a state chair. And I fully understand the ramifications of what I’m proposing. I fully understand what it would mean for National. I still believe it’s the only course of action to stop this, once and for all.
That’s my honest thoughts on the matter, and in this forum my final take on the matter. I know that neither faction will like it. I’m sorry. It’s not personal. This is just my view on the matter.
“Can’t we all just get along?” — Rodney King
I concur with Thomas Knapp.
FW: Oregon
Jill Pyeatt 9:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Please do the right thing and do not support the ridiculous judicial committee decision and the subsequent “clarification”. The leadership issue in the Libertarian Party of Oregon has created a division in the LP for too long, and will cost the Libertarian Party ballot access.
I do not believe the revisit decision was appropriate at all, and the fact that Carling didn’t recuse himself just makes this whole dirty mess dirtier.
Please do the right thing for the national Libertarian Party and do not act on this.
Thank you,
Jill Pyeatt
Thomas…
good…
is anyone putting any fliers together to challenge seating any Oregon Delegation?
I would be happy to help.
Ken
You are either ridiculously ignorant of the facts on the ground or completely incapable of interpreting the natural consequences of external interference.
The issues in Oregon are a result on a long chain of national interference and meddling. Thinking that you need a paternalistic authority to safeguard your state is really beyond the pale.
You have no place in this cause.
Steve,
Well, the real LPO has already announced that it will not send a delegation.
Presumably if an impostor delegation is seated, the LPO will also decline to recognize the validity of the convention’s actions, including presidential and vice-presidential nominations.
I predict that the impostor organization will send a delegation, and that that delegation will be seated. I intend to fight that, but I expect to lose.
I’ll also be trying to get together a group of people to keep careful track of convention votes, so that anything which passes or fails by a margin smaller than that represented by the impostor delegation’s votes can be contested in various ways (e.g. if the LNC takes an action relying on some convention measure passed with the aid of the impostor delegation, an appeal of that action to the Judicial Committee).
The LNC can continue to ignore the JC and have a battle at the National Convention on whom to seat if anyone as the Oregon delegation.
Sorry, Ken, but state affiliate bylaws cannot create a new power for the LNC that its own bylaws deny it.
Wes,
A response in in the queue, awaiting moderation.
Wes,
This JC overturns a previous JC. Does the next JC overturn the current JC, since the precedent has now been set? Do we just get into an endless cycle of JCs overturning each other? Does this cycle have an end? It’s been a decade since the litigation began flying. It is beyond frustrating to see this continue only continue to escalate.
At some point, a warzone becomes so damaged and/or toxic that it requires completely rebuilding the landscape. To start, you must first remove the warring factions and their weapons of war.
It’s not personal. It’s all about stopping the madness.
Because of this whole mess, LPKY has provisions in its Constitution that specifically grants LP National the ability to repair, or if beyond repair then destroy, the LPKY as an affiliate. (And if it ever happens, whether because of a rogue LNC or because it needs to, I already have a Plan B ready to go. Always have a backup plan.)
http://www.lpky.org/state_newconst#preamble
http://www.lpky.org/state_newconst#article1 (Section 2)
http://www.lpky.org/state_newconst#article2
http://www.lpky.org/state_newconst#article3 (Section 1)
http://www.lpky.org/state_newconst#article6 (Section 9.B.ii)
Once again, Carling refused to recuse himself.
I wish that had been in the headline.
Dear Libertarian National Committee: Please continue to ignore the Judicial Committee’s revisit of a years-old decision re: the leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon.
If we refuse to play with the obnoxious neighborhood children often enough, sooner or later they’ll take their ball and go home.
Thank you,
Jill Pyeatt
==Well, yes, the points have been debunked at length. But we don’t need to reach that issue.
The LNC doesn’t get to adjudicate affiliate bylaws disputes.
Neither does the Judicial Committee.
The LNC’s sole remedy, if they didn’t like how things went in Oregon, was to disaffiliate the LPO and then, if it so chose, recognize a new affiliate organization.==
Nailed. It.
Steve,
Well, yes, the points have been debunked at length. But we don’t need to reach that issue.
The LNC doesn’t get to adjudicate affiliate bylaws disputes.
Neither does the Judicial Committee.
The LNC’s sole remedy, if they didn’t like how things went in Oregon, was to disaffiliate the LPO and then, if it so chose, recognize a new affiliate organization.
Instead the LNC’s executive committee tried to constructively disaffiliate the LPO and affiliate a new organization without admitting that that’s what it was doing and without the requisite vote of the full LNC.
On appeal from LPO, the Judicial Committee shut that attempt down, as it was clearly in violation of the national bylaws.
All subsequent Judicial Committee actions on the matter have been entirely without jurisdiction, and all subsequent appeals on the matter have been by parties without standing. And it is only those two facts which are relevant at this point.
subscibe
Haven’t these points been debunked at length?… Like over and over, again and again, ad nauseum??
I think they are… JUST SAYIN…
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Since the impostor organization lacked standing to appeal to the Judicial Committee (the bylaws say who can appeal, and non-affiliate party organizations aren’t identified as having standing) and since the Judicial Committee lacked jurisdiction to take up the matter (the Judicial Committee’s subject matter jurisdiction, which is explicitly laid out in the bylaws, does not extend to adjudicating cases arising under the bylaws of affiliate parties), this “clarification” is of no more relevance, and no more binding on any person or organization, than what toppings the Committee might have ordered on the pizza it might have shared if it physically met to discuss the matter.
It should be ignored as possible and ridiculed/dismissed/ruled out of order as necessary if brought up.
Did the minority write a report?
Mr. Moulton makes an excellent point about Libertarians in Oregon. The LNC may need to re-arrange their agenda to deal with this issue.
Ken
Your suggestion is like threatening to leave a wife who has already filed for divorce.
Any respect I had for you after Ohio is gone.
It’s a few more then 5. Last count we are almost 20,000 but I’m sure that doesn’t matter. I mean after all, it isn’t about representing Libertarian’s in the State of Oregon is it?
Now that 50 state ballot access has been flushed down the toilet, I wonder if they will still bother trying to get on Pennsylvania.
I notice also that the fundamental question of the LNC authority was never answered.
I’m so sick of this Oregon situation. Disaffiliate both factions and ban all those involved and their surrogates from participating in party functions for a decade. Done.
I see M Carling did not recuse himself in this decision. Nor did Rob Latham join.
Carling should have nothing to do with this ruling. He should have recused himself.
So much for fifty state ballot access.
The LP is simply self-destructive.