Nevada and Utah to LNC: Remote Participation Option or Disaffiliation

In similar, separate resolutions submitted earlier today to the Libertarian National Committee, the Libertarian Party affiliates of Utah and Nevada have demanded full participation by their previously elected delegates in the second sitting of the currently paused convention, with a remote option for those who cannot attend in Orlando in person on the currently scheduled dates.

The resolutions urge development and testing of that remote participation technology begin in a timely fashion to ensure its availability prior to the opening of the convention.

Should the in-person delegates not authorize remote participation, or should the technology not be immediately available should the in-person delegates authorize such participation, the language of the Nevada and Utah resolutions indicates disaffiliation would occur.

In a phone interview earlier today, Utah Libertarian Party Chair Barry Short explained, “If the delegates at the second sitting do not allow remote participation by every previously credentialed delegate who participated remotely in the first sitting, and who is unable to be present through no fault of their own, or if the convention organizers do not have the technology to allow for remote participation tested and in place, then you tell me — WHO has disaffiliated WHOM?”

The resolutions are reproduced in full below:

NEVADA
8 June 2020

GIVEN THAT, on Sunday, May 24, former Convention Oversight Committee Chairman Daniel Hayes drafted a motion, which was passed by the delegates of said convention, that the Libertarian National Convention:

Move to adjourn to Shingle Creek, Orlando, Florida on July 9th at 9am eastern time for the 2nd sitting of the 2020 Libertarian National Convention with all delegates being checked out upon close of the first sitting and final adjournment occurring on July 12th. If this time or date or location becomes unavailable, an alternate date and location can be selected by the call of the LNC.

Prior to the passage of this motion, Chairman Hayes announced that a remote participation option would be available for states legally prohibited from participating in the convention. This option, however, was not included in the drafted motion. Antecedent conversations with Chairman Hayes prior to the convention revealed that he does not deem Nevada’s restrictions as prohibiting since our Governor’s Directives merely “urge” Nevadans to self-quarantine and monitor their health for 14 days after arriving or returning to Nevada to help contain the spread of COVID-19 in Nevada;

GIVEN THAT there are many more impediments to participation other than travel prohibitions imposed by governments, ranging from far less inconvenient (sic) travel options to the financial impacts many delegates and their families have experienced due to business shutdowns. Most importantly, some individuals are more at risk from COVID-19 than others due to preexisting conditions;

GIVEN THAT, if there is one single commonality in Libertarian thought it is that the individual is not to be sacrificed to the majority — to insist upon such would be the greatest possible betrayal of our most deeply held belief. This is true for our own delegation and it is true for delegates from every affiliate. Taking every reasonable action to facilitate the participation of all duly selected delegates is our most fundamental duty;

THEREFORE, by the authority vested jointly in the national delegates representing the Libertarian Party of Nevada and the Libertarian Party of Nevada Executive Committee,

WE ARE HEREBY RESOLVED THAT:

If the Libertarian National Committee does not explicitly provide and prepare for remote participation in any in-person convention hosted in 2020, freely available for all delegates credentialed for the convention that took place on May 22nd to May 24th, the delegates representing the Libertarian Party of Nevada shall be disenfranchised. Consequently, the Libertarian Party of Nevada shall be required to disaffiliate from the national Libertarian Party, and shall refuse to submit to the Secretary of State the list of nominees for president and vice president selected by the national Libertarian Party or its delegates.

This disaffiliation shall be executed immediately on July 4 if satisfactory action to prepare for and implement remote participation has not been taken by the Libertarian National Committee, or otherwise on July 10 if the convention concludes its first day of business without allowing for remote participation by the delegates of the May 22nd to May 24th convention.

Should the July 9th through 12th convention be canceled outright and no subsequent 2020 convention be scheduled, this resolution shall be null and void.

UTAH
8 June 2020

WHEREAS, on Sunday, May 24, Convention Oversight Committee Chairman Daniel Hayes
drafted and introduced a motion at the Libertarian National Convention:

Move to adjourn to Shingle Creek, Orlando, Florida on July 9th at 9 AM Eastern time
for the 2nd sitting of the 2020 Libertarian National Convention with all delegates being
checked out upon close of the first sitting and final adjournment occurring on July 12th.
If this time or date or location becomes unavailable, an alternate date and location can
be selected by the call of the LNC.

WHEREAS, prior to the passage of this motion, Chairman Hayes announced that a remote
participation option would be available for states legally prohibited from participating in the
convention, but this option was not included in the drafted motion;

WHEREAS, there are at this time many more impediments to participation other than travel
prohibitions imposed by government, ranging from far less inconvenient (sic) travel options to the
financial impacts many delegates and their families have experienced due to business
shutdowns; and whereas some individuals are more at risk from Covid-19 than others due to
preexisting conditions, and others are in occupations which require scrupulous heightened
caution, and it is not within the capability of hastily done rule-drafting to properly determine
which causes for remote attendance are adequate and which are not;

WHEREAS, if there is one single commonality in Libertarian thought it is that the individual is
not to be sacrificed to the majority. To insist upon such would be the greatest possible betrayal
of our most deeply held belief. Taking every reasonable action to facilitate the participation of
all duly selected delegates is the most fundamental duty at this time;

WHEREAS, calling a second convention session with an altered roster of delegates would
constitute a separate second convention, not a second sitting of the convention currently
called to order;

WHEREAS, the Utah Libertarian Party is the second state-level Libertarian Party to have
formed, after that historic night in Colorado in 1971 and prior to the creation of the Libertarian
National Committee, and the association of the Utah Libertarian Party with the national
Libertarian Party is one which exists on a purely voluntary basis;

THEREFORE, by the authority of the Utah Libertarian Party Executive Committee,

WE ARE HEREBY RESOLVED THAT:

If the Libertarian National Committee, with its Convention Organizing Committee, as the
administrative body of the Libertarian Party, does not explicitly provide for remote participation
in any in-person convention hosted in 2020, freely available for all delegates who were
credentialed for the convention that took place on May 22nd to May 24th, the Utah Libertarian
Party shall disaffiliate from the national Libertarian Party; and will not be bound to any agreements of an affiliate, including the obligation to submit to the Utah Lieutenant Governor
the nominees for president and vice president selected by the national Libertarian Party or its
delegates, and will exercise its rightful authority to place upon the ballot those candidates who
it and it alone determines to be most likely to effectively advance the cause of Liberty.

In any circumstance, should there be a Libertarian National Convention called to order on July
9, 2020, which concludes its first day of business without accommodating remote participation
by all delegates credentialed for the May 23 convention, Utah shall consider this a rejection of
its delegation and will disaffiliate effective July 13.

Should the July 9th through 12th convention be canceled outright , and no subsequent 2020
convention be scheduled, this resolution shall be held in abeyance. Should the convention be
further postponed, the terms of Utah’s continued affiliation shall be amended to reflect the
appropriate change of dates.

47 thoughts on “Nevada and Utah to LNC: Remote Participation Option or Disaffiliation

  1. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Next Questions: Will other affiliates submit similar resolutions? or Will some other affiliate threaten to disaffiliate if remote participation IS authorized? and . . . What’s next? Will TTIOTSWTCAC happen? New restrictions with a second COVID wave? A hurricane? Alien Invasion? Could this year get any weirder?

  2. Thomas Knapp

    Affiliates are free to go their own way at any time and for any reason. I find this particular reason pretty odd, but that’s the way it goes.

    It any affiliates do go their own ways between now and November, I hope they’ll choose to make their presidential ballot lines available to the Jorgensen/Cohen ticket.

  3. paulie

    It any affiliates do go their own ways between now and November, I hope they’ll choose to make their presidential ballot lines available to the Jorgensen/Cohen ticket.

    Agreed.

  4. Barry Short

    Utah does not have to submit names for the presidential ballot to the state until August 31, so it is not necessary to make that determination immediately. That said, barring something unforeseen I would expect Dr. Jorgensen to be on the ballot.

  5. Ryan

    I don’t really see the problem with allowing remote participation given the circumstances, and they already did it once. Perhaps some qualifying thing of how the delegates remotely would be treated. Like they have to notify a person if they wish to talk and the person acts as a placeholder for their interest.

  6. Jill Pyeatt

    I have always understood that there would be remote access available for the second sitting. I didn’t realize this had become an issue. Wasn’t the result of the poll that the majority of delegates wanted full access?
    Who is making that a problem?

  7. Thomas Knapp

    “Who is making that a problem?”

    The delegates at the first sitting adjourned without making provisions for online participation at the second sitting.

    That means it’s entirely up to the delegates who show up in Orlando — if there are enough of them physically present to do any business at all* — to decide whether or not to allow virtual participation.

    * If the motion to “check out” all the delegates at adjournment of the virtual sitting was in order, the convention is over. If that motion was out of order, then a quorum to do business in Orlando would be 40% of the delegates credentialed for the virtual sitting.

  8. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Thomas Knapp wrote – * If the motion to “check out” all the delegates at adjournment of the virtual sitting was in order, the convention is over. If that motion was out of order, then a quorum to do business in Orlando would be 40% of the delegates credentialed for the virtual sitting.

    I agree with this but I am certain others do not. Some on the LNC, some bylaws experts, some not on the LNC . . . What are the arguments against seeing it this way?

    For example, I have seen some say, in effect, whoever shows up in Orlando will be the convention. The credentials committee is not limited to those previously credentialed, anyone who gathers there in person is, in effect, a new delegate and on we go. That’s why I’ve refered to it as TTIOTSWTTAC – That Thing In Orlando That Some Want To Call A Convention. Whether it will be seen as a convention – as valid – and its decisions unquestioned . . . we will see. I doubt this will end with the last flight home from Orlando. I hope it will. It’s worth a try. But I’m not giving it 100 percent odds.

  9. Thomas Knapp

    Joe,

    Article 10, Section 8: “A quorum shall consist of 40% of the total number of delegates registered in attendance at the Convention.”

    If the delegates were “checked out” at the end of the virtual sitting, there are no delegates and the convention is by definition adjourned sine die.

    If the delegates were NOT “checked out,” then they remain registered and a quorum — 40% of them — will have to show up in Orlando for the convention to do any further business.

  10. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Thomas,

    I agree with your logic 100 percent. Others are acting . . . illogically at best. I don’t believe they see this the same way and I’m hopeful someone who understands that point of view will share it here, and not wait to drop it like another bomb on TTIOTSWTTAC.

  11. Joe Buchman

    Paulie,

    It’s crickets. Like a “Biblical plague” of crickets …

    “SULPHURDALE, Utah — Like a Biblical plague, the crickets march across the fields at Amy Marshall’s family ranch. They devour crops. They cover the roads…”

    https://www.newsbreakapp.com/n/0PHWG0pK

  12. Anthony Dlugos

    If the delegates were NOT “checked out,” then they remain registered and a quorum — 40% of them — will have to show up in Orlando for the convention to do any further business.

    I’m lost here. Can’t the delegates who show up in Orlando vote to allow remote participation, thus satisfying quorum requirements via those remote participators?

  13. Thomas Knapp

    “Can’t the delegates who show up in Orlando vote to allow remote participation, thus satisfying quorum requirements via those remote participators?”

    Um, no. The whole point of a quorum requirement is that business can only be done when there’s a quorum present. Unless 40% of the credentialed delegates show up in Orlando, they can’t vote on anything at all.

  14. Wes Wagner

    Actually in the absence of a quorum certain actions are still valid, such as actions taken in an attempt to gain quorum (like directing a sgt at arms to round people up, or direct people to make phone calls to tell people to get there, etc.), motions to adjourn to another place and time, and some other procedural things.

    No substantive business can be considered, like say amending the rules for the quorum requirement.

  15. Thomas Knapp

    Shawn,

    Nothing especially nuclear about organizations placing conditions on their continued affiliations with other organizations.

  16. NewFederalist

    I wonder just whom Utah and Nevada would put on their ballots? Does either affiliate have a problem with Jo Jorgensen or Jeremy “Spike” Cohen?

  17. Jared

    TK: “It any affiliates do go their own ways between now and November, I hope they’ll choose to make their presidential ballot lines available to the Jorgensen/Cohen ticket.”

    Utah’s resolution suggests they are open but noncommittal. Nevada’s makes it sound like they would refuse to do so out of spite.

  18. Wes Wagner

    “For crying out loud, can we NOT escalate everything to the nuclear options?”

    For some people adjourning a convention to a remote location to limit attendance to setup a leadership and structural coup is already the nuclear option. What you observe is reciprocal force.

    The analog to this is whining about a few people burning down a target or police station in response to a few centuries of targeted mass murder. Exactly what is the reciprocal force to mass murder? To be honest people are getting off easy on that one.

  19. NewFederalist

    Jared- Perhaps this is THE moment Wayne Allyn Root has been living for… a chance to head the Libertarian ticket in his home state!

  20. paulie

    Jared- Perhaps this is THE moment Wayne Allyn Root has been living for… a chance to head the Libertarian ticket in his home state!

    Unlikely since he is a big Trump fan.

  21. Joe Buchman

    Wayne received zero votes from Nevada delegates for the VP nomination. The 2008 convention should have paid more attention to the Nevada delegates. The 2020 Libertarians at TTIO would be wise to listen to the Nevada delegates this time as well, I think.

  22. Anthony Dlugos

    I was not a fan of Root either, even though I supported him. Same with Barr.

    Its possible no Barr/Root, no Johnson/Gray (2nd best result ever), and no Johnson/Gray, no Johnson/Weld(best result ever), and no Johnson/Weld, no Amash flirting with an LP run.

    Legitimate candidates for higher office have to be convinced they are not dealing with a bunch of fringe lunatics before they are willing to associate with us.

    Would Johnson have decided to run in 2012 if he saw that fringe wacko Ruwart beat Barr in 2008?

    Maybe not.

  23. Thomas Knapp

    “Would Johnson have decided to run in 2012 if he saw the guy who publicly supported government provision of child porn on demand get beat by the fringe wacko who didn’t?”

    Fixed, no charge.

  24. Anthony Dlugos

    well, lets just leave aside the child sex angle and agree that someone with NO political experience beating someone WITH political experience could have likely kept future legitimately qualified candidates from even bothering.

  25. Thomas Knapp

    Sure, we can agree that IF Ruwart v. Barr had been a case of someone with NO political experience beating someone WITH political experience, that might have kept future legitimately qualified candidates from even bothering.

    But since that wasn’t the case, I’m not sure what your point is.

  26. Thomas Knapp

    I didn’t say Ruwart held office before. I said she had political experience. There’s a difference.

    As for being “legitimately qualified,” she was and is. We’ve discussed the qualifications before. Both the US Constitution and the voters disagree with you as to what constitutes being “legitimately qualified.”

  27. Anthony Dlugos

    alright, one held office and one did not.

    same difference.

    in the hypothetical alternate universe of a Ruwart 2008, any person who held office before that would have considered running for the LP nomination would have had to consider the reality that their previous experience means effectively nothing to us.

    Thats not good.

    The voters surely agree with me. As we can see by the background of who has been elected president. They are all more than MINIMALLY qualified, even Trump.

  28. Thomas Knapp

    “any person who held office before that would have considered running for the LP nomination would have had to consider the reality that their previous experience means effectively nothing to us.”

    I agree that having previously held elected office shouldn’t mean nothing to us.

    In MOST cases, it should mean “run in the other direction as fast as we can.”

  29. Anthony Dlugos

    In MOST cases, it should mean “run in the other direction as fast as we can.”

    welp, there’s where we disagree.

  30. Thomas Knapp

    Yes, it is.

    In an election for head of the Rebel Alliance, you would advocate nominating the Grand Moff Tarkin rather than Chewbacca, who has no political experience.

  31. George Phillies

    Readers who think Barr was a better candidate than Ruwart would have been, or that Johnson 2012 was a good deal, should read my book Surely We Can Do Better. In evaluating the Barr and Johnson, note that I say approximately nothing about their political stands or their vote counts, because as it turns out those are wrong metrics.

    smile.amazon.com/Surely-We-Can-Do-Better-ebook/dp/B01E9QPWM6

  32. Jared

    Did the Rebels have a purist faction opposed to Leia’s leadership role in the Alliance because she had been a member of the Galactic Senate? I get your point, but it is possible to go too far in the opposite direction.

  33. Thomas Knapp

    Jared,

    The opposition to Tarkin wouldn’t be because he had been a member of the Imperial government, but because of what he did AS a member of the Imperial government, and because he’d made no convincing case for having changed his colors and even, in certain respects, was running on a “Reform The Empire — Don’t Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater!” campaign platform.

    Most people think that Johnson was the better of the two between Barr and Johnson, but I don’t think a guy who grew government spending and government debt faster as governor of New Mexico than Obama did as POTUS, and whose campaign platform included putting every man, woman, and child in America on a cradle to grave monthly federal welfare check, was very “qualified” for our nomination.

  34. Losty

    Exactly what many thought at the end of the Remote Con.

    When they “Checked Out”, that’s what delegated do when they leave the meeting. The Provision that “Checked Out” all the delegates by definition ended the Convention. Period.

    Judicial as it is situated Stays, LNC Stays (Unless there is a provision that when the Regional members/Alts are only elected by their group and it does not require Convention Ratification.

    Sorry Nick,
    You’re Stuck there another year or 2.

    Hopefully they buy you a LOT more beer…

  35. Thomas Knapp

    IF the delegates were not all “checked out,” and IF a quorum (40% of the registered delegates from the virtual sitting show) up physically in Orlando, THEN the convention can continue.

    Otherwise, the convention is over.

    But that wouldn’t mean the LNC “stays.” LNC officer and at-large terms end when the convention does. If the delegates are all “checked out” (meaning the convention is adjourned sine die) or if a quorum doesn’t show in Orlando (ditto), then there will be a bunch of vacancies for the regional reps to fill.

  36. Losty

    Would there ever be a quorum of LNC if just the Regional reps?

    Or would the Regionals alone be able to vote on replacements by Email Ballot?

    And would they be allowed to vote Officers? (OK, Imagine so, would be interesting though.

    And I guess with Nick there, He may have to chair the crowd to declare the lack of a quorum and adjourn. Hope He gets the other 3 hotel nights back…

  37. Thomas Knapp

    “Would there ever be a quorum of LNC if just the Regional reps?”

    A quorum of the LNC is a majority of its members. If the officer and at-large positions are vacant, that would mean a majority of the regional reps. They would, under Article 7, Section 7 of the bylaws, “appoint new officers and members-at-large if vacancies occur.”

Leave a Reply

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