Earlier this week, Libertarians for Kennedy proposed a strategic plan to co-nominate independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and place him on certain state ballots. Independent Political Report has since received information clarifying how the organization would enact such a proposal.
An email conversation between Libertarians for Kennedy and the Libertarian National Committee shared with IPR details how the organization, which initially sought to nominate Kennedy at the Libertarian National Convention, would enact what it calls its “Grand Bargain.” According to the email, the co-nomination process involves suspending the current presidential and vice-presidential ticket of Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat through a three-fourths vote of the LNC. The LNC would then appoint Kennedy and Nicole Shanahan to fill these vacancies with a two-thirds vote. They argue that the process is supported by the party’s bylaws and Robert’s Rules of Order, which allow for committee nominations and do not explicitly prohibit co-nominations.
For this strategy to work, the current presidential ticket would need to voluntarily participate in the bargain and not contest their suspension. This would then enable the Libertarian National Committee to co-nominate Kennedy and Shanahan alongside the official Libertarian ticket of Oliver and ter Maat in this scenario. The aim, as the group stated in an earlier press release, is to secure future ballot access in the face of potential dissent from members while ensuring Kennedy’s participation in the presidential debates, potentially increasing the party’s visibility and viability.
Additionally, they mention that state authorities have the power to place different candidates on the ballot, citing an example from the 2008 election cycle. In that year, Prof. George Phillies appeared on the ballot in New Hampshire in addition to Bob Barr, who was chosen at the Libertarian National Convention. However, it’s worth noting that Phillies collected enough signatures to appear on the ballot ahead of Barr’s nomination.
The full text of the email can be read below:
Actually, the Green “crackup” is more of a “fizzle,” if you will.
Party elders first recruited Cornel West because candidates filed up to that point were craptacular. So, when he spit the bit, Stein jumps in to become a three-time retread (and reportedly help pay off 2016 debt caused by that adverse FEC campaign finance ruling).
Seriously, half the people running against Stein in one or more states, or more than half, don’t meet the GP’s eligibility requirements.
Otherwise? Howie Hawkins never was interested, and other leaders like Margaret Flowers never jumped in. Dario Hunter didn’t from 2020, either. Jesse continues to make noises outside the tents of all parties, but wants a nomination handed him on a platter. (As did West, to some degree.)
There was also the post-2020 “Independent Green” movement by the likes of William Pounds. I think it largely fizzled by 2022 midterms, but it probably provided a few knicks to the national GP.
Setting aside New York and not being on the ballotthere, I doubt Stein will get 80 percent of the popular vote that Hawkins did.
This seems highly unlikely to be implemented, and the LP already planned to fail in NY, Illinois and DC – that is, the national party was not going to help them get on the ballot, which is usually the vast bulk of the effort – may be a year ago, from what I read here. That’s in addition to whatever states they may lose due to faction fights in the party, different states putting different presidential tickets on the ballot (I doubt any of them will be Kennedy, and certainly not 22 states in a coordinated national plan), and some ballot drives may be sabotaged or simply fail through ineptitude due to all the faction fighting.
The L.P. is certainly cracking up, but this part is almost certainly a minor tangent.
What crackup of the Greens? From what I saw, Stein has the nomination locked up. Do they have a faction which will put other presidential candidates on the ballot in some states, like the right wing minor parties are doing?
This is both hiliarious and stupid. Combined with the LP not getting on the NY ballot, can we have the full crack-up of both it and the Green Party this year? (My current plan remains Claudia de la Cruz via write-in.)
I wouldn’t be surprised if someone wrote this nonsense TO the LNC or among a couple members but AINT GONNA HAPPEN.
Just today they were discussing just sending someone to support RFKjr. suit to get on ballot in NY state with ballot access GURU and LNC member and Treasurer Bill Redpath involved.
So no fainting spells please.
Years ago I proposed a by-law to allow us to lend ballot access and clarify that states can nominate on their own and as well fusion ticket. I reminded the LNC of this option. Why did they not do this at the Convention?
Why should the party do it?
For future ballot access in regions where the Oliver-ter Maat ticket is not expected to gain a sufficient number of votes.
It’s a nutty idea alright, but it might just work if Oliver & ter Maat, the LNC and the state LPs are all willing to go along with it.
They obviously are grasping at straws and not reading both the Bylaws or RONR correctly, not to mention not understanding the post-Convention activities of many states to make sure the LP nominee is on the ballot in their states.
RONR 46:9 Nominations by a Committee. In the election of officers of an ordinary society, nominations often are made by a nominating committee. Usually in such cases a nominating committee is chosen in advance to submit nominations for the various offices for which elections are to be held at the annual meeting.
Note that is for election of officers, not nominations of candidates. In this case, there is no nominating committee anyway. The closest thing to one is the group that signed his petition and submitted it at convention, but again, a Presidential nominee is not an officer of an ordinary society.
As for 46:1, those nominations were closed on Sunday at convention. The blank was filled after 7 rounds of voting. RFK got 19 votes and was eliminated on the first ballot.
Plus, they ought to pay attention to Article 14, Section 4: “The National Committee shall respect the vote of the delegates at nominating conventions and provide full support for the Party’s nominee for President and nominee for Vice-President as long as their campaigns are conducted in accordance with the platform of the Party.” That vote was Oilver first, NOTA second, and Rectenwald third for President, and ter Maat first, Russell second for Vice-President.
Note that is silent about things said or done before the nomination. It is only if that Section 4 is violated after the nomination is won that Section 5 can be invoked.
And let’s be realistic: Oliver and ter Maat aren’t likely to step down. So, let’s say that Chase does something to cause a Section 5 vote, let’s say such a motion to suspend passes, and he appeals, and loses, then ter Maaat becomes the nominee per Article 14 Section 3. Then the same process would have to happen if ter Maat did something on his own to cause a Section 5 vote. Let’s say that motion to suspend passes, he appeals and loses.
The requirements of Section 4 indicates that the next non-NOTA candidates up, Rectenwald and Russell, would have to be nominated by 2/3 of the LNC in accordance with Section 3 in order to then best respect the vote of the delegates. NOT Kennedy, who, remember, was eliminated in the first round with 2.07% of that vote.
That’s a lot of “ifs” that have to happen–8 by count, plus a possible Bylaws violation (and a LNC decision that would also likely be appealed to the JC).
There is no appetite on the LNC to do any of this. It’s just wishful thinking on the part of the Kennedy camp. It’s also terrible optics all around.
One last thing: some states do not allow substitution of candidates on their nomination petitions. If there was a replacement, they would have to start over. And if that replacement were to happen after their state’s submission deadline, then the replacements are out of luck.
All in all, it’s a ridiculous idea with ramifications that are far-reaching in the negative and little if any positives.
People are upset that Oliver won with a clean majority. How would it look if instead Kennedy was put in there after only earning 19/923 votes?
This plan is delusional. You cannot elect two people to one position.
I believe that individuals who are members of The Libertarian Party have the right – as individuals – to support candidates of other parties. Hopefully such libertarian activists will only support pro-freedom candidates. If individual libertarians want to support RFK Jr, that is their right as voters, and as Americans.
But right now, it is premature to put any Libertarian Party organizational support behind candidates who are not our nominees. It would be even worse to give LP organizational support behind a candidate who is as pro-government as RFK Jr.
The LP giving any organizational support to RFK Jr is nutty, but not “the nuttiest idea that…-ever heard proposed to the Libertarian Party.” The Nuttiest idea would be backing Donald Trump, as apparently Angela McArdle intends to do: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2024/05/libertarian-national-committee-chair-delays-2024-endorsement-highlights-potential-trump-cabinet-role/
“According to the email, the co-nomination process involves suspending the current presidential and vice-presidential ticket of Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat through a three-fourths vote of the LNC. The LNC would then appoint Kennedy and Nicole Shanahan to fill these vacancies with a two-thirds vote. They argue that the process is supported by the party’s bylaws and Robert’s Rules of Order, which allow for committee nominations and do not explicitly prohibit co-nominations.”
This is about the nuttiest idea that I have ever heard proposed to the Libertarian Party. Why should the party do it?