Addendum at bottom
The Libertarian Party of New Mexico formally severed ties with the Libertarian National Committee yesterday afternoon, asserting its identity as an independent entity.
“This letter serves to inform you that the Libertarian Party of New Mexico (LPNM) has terminated our affiliation with the Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (LNC) and all of its subsidiary bodies, effective immediately,” the Party said in a formal response to LNC members.
The Libertarian Party of New Mexico has recently been a topic of contention for the Libertarian National Committee. On July 23, 2022, members of the LNC met online to discuss a series of alleged violations committed by the Libertarian Party of New Mexico during its most recent July 12, 2022, Constitutional Convention.
Concerns outlined in that initial letter included multiple improper notices and LPNM bylaw violations, including using an electronic convention to conduct business. As a result, the LNC ultimately passed a motion concluding that the July 12, 2022, Constitutional Convention was null and void and recognized the official Constitution and Bylaws of the LPNM as those adopted on March 27, 2021.
“The LNC requests your acknowledgment that the governing documents adopted on March 27, 2021, are the operative Constitution and Bylaws by August 31, 2022, or the LNC may need to consider other options in order to protect our branding and preserve the rights of aggrieved members of the LPNM”, the Libertarian National Committee stated.
In response, the LPNM issued a press release asserting its independence as a state political party operating in the State of New Mexico and that it doesn’t recognize “any actions, directives, orders, commands, rulings, or any other interference” by the Libertarian National Committee. Tensions continued to escalate in the following days.
The full text of the most recent letter from the Libertarian Party of New Mexico can be read below:
To the Libertarian National Committee
c/o Angela McArdle, ChairThis letter serves to inform you that the Libertarian Party of New Mexico (LPNM) has terminated our affiliation with the Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (LNC) and all of its subsidiary bodies, effective immediately.
LPNM continues to operate as a recognized major party in the state of New Mexico. LPNM will no longer be participating in any LNC programs or procedures, including the election of Libertarian National Committee members, sending delegates to the LNC’s national convention, and participating in the nomination of the LNC’s candidates for President and Vice President, including placing those candidates on the ballot in New Mexico as LPNM nominees under LPNM’s ballot status.
To make the point perfectly clear: LPNM is no longer an affiliate of the LNC, just like we are not affiliated with the Republican, Democratic, Green, or any other party’s national committee. LPNM and the LNC are no longer, in any sense, part of the same political Party. All connections between us whatsoever are now totally and completely severed.
For now, LPNM is a New Mexico political party without any national party affiliation, in the long and vibrant American tradition of alternatives to the duopoly organized within a single state.
In severing our affiliation with you, LPNM is asserting our rights to freedom of speech, association, and assembly, as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the rulings of the Supreme Court regarding political parties, the laws and Constitution of New Mexico, and most importantly, the fundamental principles of freedom we defend as Libertarians.
We regret that it has come to this, but you have left us no choice. This outcome is entirely the result of the unprovoked, corrupt, and illegitimate attack on LPNM’s autonomy undertaken by the LNC in recent weeks, and the broader pattern of intolerable misconduct emanating from the LNC. In particular:
You have violated, repeatedly and deliberately, the Bylaws of the national Libertarian Party, and refuse to acknowledge any limits on your claimed powers over us.
You have attempted, without any just cause or legitimate authority and in violation of an explicit provision of your own Bylaws, to abrogate the autonomy of our state party.
You have conspired, with a faction inimical to the principles of libertarianism, to impose upon us officers and governing documents foreign to our rules, unchosen by our members, and unacknowledged by the laws of our state.
You have adopted messaging and communications hostile to the principles for which the Libertarian Party was founded, serving no purpose other than to antagonize and embarrass.
You have conducted the business of the National Party in a manner that is unprofessional, incompetent, and unworthy of support.
You have threatened us with false accusations, and attempted to imperil our legal status and ballot access under the laws of New Mexico by repeating these false accusations to the state government, attempting to enlist the state’s assistance in your corrupt scheme to violate our rights.
You have demonstrated a manifest hostility and unwillingness to serve all Libertarians, including openly making threats to withhold support from any Libertarian candidate who is critical of your faction, and disparaging other principled Libertarian candidates across the country.
You have denied, by word and deed, that LPNM is a voluntary organization which exists independent of its affiliation with the National Party, instead adopting the position that LPNM exists solely at your whim and subject to your complete control, regardless of the wishes of our members and the rules we have freely adopted to govern our own affairs.
You have conducted yourselves, both individually and collectively, in a manner wholly unfit to represent any organization with serious purposes and goals, and in so doing you demean and devalue the efforts and reputations of all Libertarians.
You have destroyed the system of free and fair internal elections for your own positions in the National Party, by refusing to seat national convention delegates from states hostile to your faction, thus calling into question the legitimacy of your own most recent convention, and have given every indication that you will repeat such offenses in the future, all for the purpose of illegitimately entrenching yourselves in perpetuity.
You have, by your malice and incompetence, made yourselves into such an unattractive employer that the accumulated talents of the Party are unwilling to serve in critical staff roles for the National Party, or for any state party which is affiliated with you.
You have rendered the National Party’s Judicial Committee a useless and ineffectual check on your violations and offenses, by stuffing it with members whose sole criterion for being chosen was their unwavering loyalty to the same faction which you serve over and above any interests of the Party as a whole.
You have hindered the efforts of LPNM to grow and succeed, by announcing and acting upon your intent to drive many existing Libertarians out of the Party and to repel vast swathes of the American people from ever joining.
You have purported to suspend our bylaws, declaring yourselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever, and to decide what our bylaws should be, who may vote at our conventions, how our conventions may be conducted, what changes we may make to our bylaws and how, how and to whom parliamentary appeals and points of order may be made and decided, who are the elected leaders of our Party, for how long a term they have been chosen, the timing of our next internal elections, and every other thing which is or may be provided for by LPNM’s governing documents.
You have, in short, presented us with a binary choice. Either LPNM must cease to exist as an autonomous affiliate within the national Libertarian Party, or we may continue to exist as an autonomous and independent Party which is not affiliated with you and your organization.
We choose to continue to exist.
In Liberty,
For the Central Committee of the Libertarian Party of New Mexico
/s/ Chris Luchini
A second letter was additionally sent by the Libertarian Party of New Mexico. The text of that letter is as follows:
Libertarian Party of New Mexico
8100 Wyoming Blvd NE Ste M4, #341, Albuquerque NM 87113
August 25, 2022
To the Libertarian National Committee
c / o Angela McArdle, ChairTo the Libertarian National Committee,
Given the repeated refusal of the LNC to cease violating Article V, section 5 of the Libertarian Party Bylaws, the Libertarian Party of New Mexico has removed the National Libertarian Party from the list of national organizations that LPNM affiliates with. This action is effective upon delivery of this letter to the representatives of the Libertarian National Committee.In Liberty,
For the Central Committee of the Libertarian Party of New Mexico
/s/ Chris Luchini
Addendum: Independent Political Report has learned that a group of National Party members in New Mexico, at least 15 in number, submitted a petition to the Libertarian National Committee, asking in accord with Libertarian Party By-Laws to be recognized as a new New Mexico affiliate. We are told that Caryn Ann Harlos, who is Secretary and not National Chair, rejected the petition because it was on the wrong form, which of course she had no authority to do. We are now advised that the petitioners or an adequate number of them have decided to drop the matter and do other things.
Editorial note: An addendum originally stated that Caryn Ann Harlos rejected the petition as a result of it being on the wrong form. Mrs. Harlos has since provided Independent Political Report with copies of messages verifying that she both accepted the initial petition and notified the sender of the adoption of a new form. 9/1/2022.
The claim of the LNC National Secretary to have contacted the members of the New Mexico Party was mistaken. She retracted it during the LNC meeting of September 11. National Secretary Harlos conceded during the meeting that the LNC did not know who the members of the state party were. The survey was sent out to some New Mexico national party members, but only members with email addresses. I have received a denial from one national party member that they received the survey. The claim of the LNC that it has standing to interpret the New Mexico state party bylaws is rejected by the Mew Mexico state party.
To be a delegate to the national convention you can be a state party member rather than a national party member.
The LNC has held that the committee that voted for disaffiliation had no authority under the NM bylaws to do so, but that it would have to include consideration from all their membership. They cannot therefore accept the disaffiliation letter from that view. They sent out a survey to the members of the NM party and received about 40 responses overwhelmingly against the disaffiliation action of the committee that sent this letter to the LNC. Many members also indicated that they had no knowledge that this was even happening in their name. The LNC has held a fairly consistent view that the board in NM has consistently violated the rights of its own members. On September 11 the LNC voted 14-1-2 to disaffiliate the current NM party which will mean they will consider petitions from members for a new affiliate for the state.
Interesting that in the very short time period between now and the general election in November that the LNC is talking about committing a sizeable percentage of its very limited budget to interfere in the internal politics of one of the state parties.
I have never accused the LNC of wisdom and given this transgression I may have been far to slow in not doing so.
I offer my apologies.
George, the chair already stated she was forwarding the original one sent. I was merely letting the LNC know the petitioner WANTED to submit a revised one.
Reading things that aren’t there and accusing people isn’t sound reporting.
While we are talking here, you further misrepresented things by claiming we did not rise out if executive session to adjourn. We did. You never bothered to ask before denigrating people in something that is not opinion but fact. The minutes show so. Everyone there will tell you. I recorded in video that less than thirty second motion.
Further you are objectively wrong that such is required by RONR. It is not. It certainly is our very longstanding custom which we followed.
You have my email address. For things that are objective, you should verify. I don’t care about subjective opinions. You are free to have them. But be responsible about objective facts.
BTW you don’t even have this part right – the Secretary CAN and DOES verify that submissions are in conformity all the time. In fact tonight you will see the FEC requires that in affiliation. As long as the Chair is aware of the Secretary’s determination and can overrule it is perfectly kosher. Every email I sent was with the Chair’s consent.
Our bylaws are plain- petitions must be on required form. The required form is in the policy manual. It is a ministerial duty to look at what was submitted and merely see if it’s on the form. Neither the Chair or I wanted it denied for something as trivial as a wrong form.
This pot shot at me was absurd on its face. You should know better.
I had a wonderful conversation with Jordan, and thank her for reaching out.
Thank you for clarifying your prior statement on the LNC Board “I’m awaiting a revised petition from Ms Malowney as the one presented did not confirm to the bylaws. I also made her aware that there is a motion regarding the legitimacy of the claimed disaffiliation so she may decide to wait to see how that goes (she did not say that however so right now I’m expecting a revised petition).”
Reporters should ask for comment. I did not reject the petition – I let them know it was on the wrong form but said I would submit it as is if that is what they wished. The petitioner thanked me and asked me for the form. The chair was cc’d on every email and we had an extensive phone call where she approved my emails.
This could have been easily verified.
Here is a copy paste quote my from email to the petitioner:
=== I will though transmit your petition. ===
I understand the obvious slant this site now has, and that’s the owner’s prerogative, and there are legitimate disagreements but basic objective facts can should be verified before denigrating someone. There is plenty of opportunity to denigrate via subjective opinion than to make a stretch on verifiable fact.
Knapp: “…Republican entryists whose mission is to make the LP so toxic that its candidates don’t cost GOP candidates votes in close elections”
The irony that traditional LP candidates have tended to draw pretty evenly from Republican and Democratic leaners, but now, despite continued disingenuous claims by people such as Dave Smith, an admitted fan of Hoppe, to offer up a politics that is beyond and above Left and Right, they will draw almost exclusively from disaffected right-wingers who believe the GOP has been compromised by deep-state leftists.
The “Mises” (Hoppe/Rockwell) Cucks are far right or alt right radicals, not libertarian radicals. They are not purist libertarians when it comes to social issues like abortion, immigration, gender and sexual minorities, and any other hot button culture war issues. In many cases they are one foot in MAGA GOP and against “spoiling” the races where GOP run MAGAs and it could conceivably be close. They do enjoy macho flash libertarian extremism being shocking for the sake of attention, even when most of the attention is negative. They invent creative ways of pretzeling libertarian radical and far right or alt right radical ideas together to make them sound as if they are compatible, coherent, and even one and the same. The “Mises” “Caucus” is a shell or front for the “Mises” PAC, which is a private dictatorship and financial support/slush operation of former Paul/Rockwell GOP operative Michael Heise of Pennsylvania. It has a GOP branch as well, with some people alleging that their ultimate goal is to promote an ultra-MAGA Hoppean PAC inside the GOP after they finish wrecking what is left of the LP, allegedly with political advisors such as Steve Bannon and perhaps Roger Stone.
RTAA,
“You’re saying the Mises people are neither the old Purists/Radicals nor the Pragmatists/Refomers?”
Correct.
The Mises people consist of two groups:
1) Republican entryists whose mission is to make the LP so toxic that its candidates don’t cost GOP candidates votes in close elections; and
2) Their useful idiots, who, to the extent they tend to represent any ideological faction, represent the paleocon/Ron Paul movement rather than any past “radical/purist” or “moderate/pragmatic” factional lines.
Thomas Knapp, I admit to being somewhat confused about this latest LP infighting.
In California in the 1990s, the local LP Yahoo groups pitted Purists against Pragmatists. In the 2000s, it was Radicals vs. Reformers. Essentially the same factions, with different names. Those who publicly promoted in-your-face undiluted libertarian principles vs. those who were wanted to downplay the “scary stuff” in order to win elections.
I’ve heard the Mises Caucus referred to as “radicals.”
You’re saying the Mises people are neither the old Purists/Radicals nor the Pragmatists/Refomers?
Joseph Knight- Yup… embarrassing. She’s in favor of a wall on the southern border as well. This is the sort of thing that happens when you are big enough to have major party status but small enough to be invaded by interlopers who can bring in enough supporters to overwhelm a convention. Another reason state parties must be vigilant in recruiting true libertarian candidates to have any chance of warding off such attacks. Just my $0.02 worth.
Meanwhile, the LPNM candidate for governor is running on a MAGA platform – and after New Mexico finally got rid of qualified immunity, she wants to restore it.
Root’s Teeth are Awesome: You say “Aaron Starr, Alicia Matthson, M Carling, Wayne Allan Root, among others, were similarly control freaks…”
In the early 2000s, Aaron Starr was state Chair of the Libertarian Party of California. I was Chair of the Riverside County Libertarian Party, which
had been quite active from 1992 through 2000. Then the leaders of the RCLP in the desert area around Palm Springs, Palm Desert wanted to form a separate local group, so they could get the dues kickback from the LPC for members in the desert area; I supported their effort, until Aaron Starr ruled that if they split, the Riverside County Libertarian Party would have to be declared inactive, with the RCLP Treasury split between Western Riverside County and the Desert Area Group.
RCLP had $1800 in the bank. That balance had been built up by contributions from people in Western Riverside County, and careful management of our expenses. I did not object to giving money to the Desert Area group, but I objected to declaring the Riverside County Libertarian Party inactive. We had developed some familiarity in Western Riverside County for the RCLP through years of activism.
In the event, the LPC declared RCLP inactive, but neither the Desert Area group nor the remaining members in Western Riverside County ( I dropped out after RCLP was declared inactive) were able to create an organization. The Desert Area Group did not even open a bank account, ever after we gave them a check out of RCLP funds.
Then the LPC decided that the McCain-Feingold Act required that the LPC only recognize county-wide organizations. I spent a year getting RCLP reactivated, and we provided initial funding in 2006 for the Art Olivier for Governor campaign. But RCLP never regained the footing in the community that it had.
Thanks, Aaron Starr!
It’s funny how McArdle says this letter “alleges disaffiliation,” like she denies they have that authority, while Harlos brushes off the letter as defamatory and “manufactured drama”—particularly rich coming from the queen herself. Are all paralegals insufferably ignorant and opinionated?
NF: “The only good thing about predators like these is that they eventually eat their own.”
I’m constantly surprised Caryn Ann hasn’t woken up in a crate in Timbuktu. The Caucus reinstalled her as Secretary because they owed their “den mother” a solid for championing their interests in NH, but jeez, the board’s patience must be wearing thin.
Floyd Whitley- Article 1, Section 9, Clause 20 of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America… “Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.”
Really? Candidates are supposed to know the Confederate Constitution? I would guess the vast majority don’t even know the United States Constitution.
RTAA,
The Mises PAC aren’t “the radicals.”
The lengthy letter to the LNC was also sent, if I understand correctly the LNC Chair in a post on the LNC business list, to all other Libertarian state chairs.
Wow. Well, when it gets to be time for the LP-NM “unaffiliated regional party” to put presidential candidates forward to the 2024 general election, maybe they should consider the ballot qualified presidential primary of CP-Idaho.
There is no litmus test, per se. Declare, pay the State’s filing fee, campaign in Idaho, stand at public debate in Idaho with other primary contenders on the same stage (one primary debate, perhaps two with interest). Independent voters are allowed a primary ballot as are Constitution Party of Idaho registered voters. Candidate with highest vote return (March 2024) is endorsed at state convention and passes through to the printed November 2024 ballot.
Debate questions, incidentally, are weighty. It ain’t red meat pabulum stuff.
Ex. What is your plan to get rare earth elements out of federal lands and into the national civilian economy and national security market? What is your plan to get water to the west? What about Article 1, Section 9, Clause 20 of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America? How do you fix a dilapidated US power and transmission grid? What are you going to do to resolve the now systemic international trade imbalance and produce at least one positive trade year balance? Etc.
Lemons, this news about LP-NM. Yes, but that’s what you make lemonade with.
Let’s hope the Mises (Leninist) caucus folks understand what they have done. Many believe they FULLY understand what they have done. They have attempted to kill off a 50 year old party with great ballot access. The only good thing about predators like these is that they eventually eat their own.
the NMLP has clearly stated the issues that Libertarians have with the so-called “Mises” Caucus and its attempt to impose Leninist Democratic Centralism on the Party of Liberty.
Not the first time the LNC attempted Democratic Centralism. Back in the 2000s, the so-called Reform faction, which included such people as Aaron Starr, Alicia Matthson, M Carling, Wayne Allan Root, among others, were similarly control freaks who were worried about the Libertarian “brand” (which they considered a trademark).
The so-called Radical faction preached local autonomy from the LNC.
It’s ironic that the Radicals are now the new control freaks.
INNNteresting. And, while opposing it, not supporting it, though now a former Green, since 2020, there’s been noise about people in some states starting “independent” state Green parties to replace the GP National certified ones.
Bravo to the New Mexico Libertarian Party, which has “declared its Independence” to borrow an old Libertarian Party slogan. More important that the act of disaffiliation, the NMLP has clearly stated the issues that Libertarians have with the so-called “Mises” Caucus and its attempt to impose Leninist Democratic Centralism on the Party of Liberty.
The Neo-Confederates in the LNC and “M”C can hardly argue against secession, and the LNC will have no standing in a New Mexico Court if they challenge the disaffiliation.
This declaration of Independence is an important short term strategy to show the costs of attempts at Centralized control, As a long-term strategy, leaving the Libertarian Party leaves the Looters of the “Mises” Caucus in control of the National Headquarters, paid for real estate in the pricey Washington DC area. Over the long term it will be necessary to defeat the Looters & Losers who took control of the Libertarian Party at the 2022 National Convention.
Heck, not even six months.
Thinking of the new LNC, I am reminded of the dying George V’s comment about his wayward son (who became Edward VIII): “After I am dead, the boy will ruin himself in twelve months.”
I’m not going to renew my National membership when the time comes. I want no part of the LP 2024 campaign debacle.
Not even a year, and the Mises Caucus has already lost 50 state ballot access.