A leaked document shared on Friday reveals that several Libertarian Party delegates have taken the steps to initiate a legal challenge to decertify Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat as the party’s presidential ticket, alleging ineligible delegates participated in the selection process.
The document was first published by the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire via social media, stating it was leaked by “a party member concerned about the integrity of the Libertarian Party.” It’s not yet known who the specific members are behind the document; however, it was sent on their behalf by Carl Anderson of Rock Spring Law Group in Washington, D.C. It includes a letter sent via email to Libertarian National Committee Chair Angela McArdle, along with supplemental documentation such as certification paperwork for the ticket in Nebraska, earlier LNC bylaws, and a memorandum submitted by the Libertarian Party of Florida to the LNC earlier this month.
According to the document, several delegates who participated in the recent Libertarian National Convention are questioning the integrity of the convention results. They raise concerns that ineligible voters were allowed to participate in the voting process, potentially influencing the results of several party elections. Specifically, they allege that delegates from Michigan, Oklahoma, and Washington were added without meeting the necessary voting thresholds outlined in the LNC Bylaws. Additionally, concerns are raised about several delegates from New Jersey and Minnesota based on their respective state bylaws.
These actions, the document argues, were influential enough to question the validity of the presidential nomination of Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat, as well as Mark Rutherford’s election to the vice chair position. While those votes did not exceed the final margin between Oliver and then-candidate Michael Rectenwald, they potentially skewed perceptions of support. In the vice presidential race, contested votes surpassed the margin of victory for Mike ter Maat over Clint Russell, indicating a potentially different outcome. Similarly, Mark Rutherford’s victory in the first round of voting for LNC vice chair becomes contested and likely would have required additional rounds of voting. However, the document disputes claims that the LNC secretary race was affected by the contested votes, asserting that their exclusion widened the re-election margin.
If left unresolved, the document warns that the Libertarian National Committee invites the risk of potential legal actions aimed at protecting the integrity of party elections and rights of Libertarian Party members. It calls on the LNC to promptly and transparently address the outlined allegations, suggesting the Committee can appoint the same ticket by a three-fourths vote, as well as vote to fill the vacancy created for LNC Vice Chair by a majority.
As of this article, the Libertarian National Committee has not publicly addressed the document on the LNC business list. However, Chair Angela McArdle added “potential litigation” to the executive session email list on June 25.
Come out and say what? There was never any doubt that the election was stolen. Everyone was quite clear about that the moment ter Maat pulled his little stunt. Try and keep up will you, Dungfly.
Nuña, it’s OK to just come out and say the election was stolen. That’s what you seem to think. Libertarian election trutherism, eh?
==
Otherwise, on the big picture, I’ve long envisioned that Libertarianism in general believes lawsuits replace government regulation, so why should individual Libertarians bemoan lawsuits within the party?
Yeah, that’s not going to happen. Additionally, if you’re starting a new competing party, why do you care? If anything, you should be rooting for them to do the exact opposite, so as to drive more people your way. You’re working at crosspurposes to yourself.
I do not disagree with Seebeck on the “proper” process. But of course this LNC over 2+ years doesn’t do anything properly so why start now. I simply suggest they vote to re-affirm the choices for President, Vice President, all LNC Officers & At-Large. It’s a very simple motion that is just to show their unwavering support for the folks elected by the delegates at the convention. This vote of course should be unanimous. But 2/3-3/4 should put the kibosh to any rumors about how they do not support these choices. Of course it should still strongly discourage anby affiliate from placing someone other than Chase on their ticket.
Motion: We, the LNC, strongly affirm our unwavering support for the Chase campaign & all other officer & at-large positions as determined by the delegates at the convention. Any challenges should have properly been brought up before the close of the convention. We also strongly warn any affiliate which does not place Chase on their ballot that they will me met with harsh consequences including dis-affiliation along with immediate loss of support of any kind from National including access to data.
It should be added that if legal recourse is pursued and it does not get dismissed, it would likely take up all of the election season and beyond, which could make the case moot in the eyes of the court. If that’s the case, then it’s all a waste of time to little or no effect.
Bottom line is really this: if the delegates didn’t want Oliver, then they should have campaigned better and had their acts together regarding delegates and votes.
Note these comments offer no opinion on any merits of any claims, but are only made upon the processes involved.
“The LNC can resolve the controversy by appointing the same presidential and vice-presidential candidates by a three-fourths vote of the entire membership of the National Committee. The LNC can also vote to fill the vacancy created for LNC Vice Chair by a majority vote of the National Committee.”
It’s not that simple.
First, to do such appointment, per Article 14, Section 5, the LNC would have to suspend the nomination of Oliver by a 3/4 vote. Per Article 14, Section 3, ter Maat then becomes the nominee. Another 3/4 vote would be required to suspend THAT nomination. Only then could the LNC vote by 2/3 re-appoint.
Oh, and BTW, once ter Maat becomes the nominee, the Vice-President nomination becomes vacant, and that can cause another 2/3 vote, to fill with someone else, and that also can be appealed, which can further gum things up.
In the meantime, Oliver can and probably would appeal to the Judicial Committee, claiming Article 14 Section 4 and Section 5 grounds, which sets off that process. ter Maat would likely do the same. Reappointing them would not likely make the original motions moot, either. And BTW, the reappointments could be appealed, too, also claiming Article 14, Section 4 grounds. The Judicial Committee would have jurisdiction over any of these per Article 8, Section 2, subsections d and g.
As stated before on these pages, it would take 8 separate steps and take up the majority of the election season. And that doesn’t factor in other problems, such as state signature and certification deadlines so they can print their ballots, plus putting the candidates’ Electors in each state into flux–not to mention whatever could occur with the FEC.
There is no enthusiasm on the LNC to even start down that path.
And the alternative is legal action that is likely dismissed because all internal remedies have not yet been exhausted.
As for the Vice-Chair vote, the convention adjourned sine die. The vote is done, and the only way to redo it is to have a special convention, and that’s not happening. Should the LNC choose to remove the Vice-Chair, he can appeal, and once again, here we go again.
In all of those cases, an immediate re-appointment cannot be grounds to deny an appeal, either.
It always helps to think through the process to determine if a solution is a good one, and especially before one makes legal threats. It doesn’t sound like the party who came up with this letter thought things out that way.
The individuals making this challenge have alot of nerve. People who were not involved in The Libertarian Party until they decided they didn ‘t like it, talk about integrity?
In past conventions, more than one candidate pursued the nomination. After it was decided, sometimes members left, or declined to support the ticket. But no losing candidate intentionally undertook actions to undermine the national campaign. Probably because in the past, the people participating in the national convention were people committed to building The Libertarian Party, not to destroying it.
Regardless of how issues like the challenge made by the NH losers, it has become clear that the Cockus ( they don’t deserve the name they stole) is composed of a bunch of juvenile Rothbard wannabes who lack any understanding of how to build a movement for freedom. If they don’t vote Libertarian this year, well we did not have their votes in the past. The big question is: Why do they think they are so important?
These Trumptards that are currently infesting the LP need their dues refunded and their cards torn up. They are doing more damage to this party than anyone.
Resorting to lawsuits and threats of lawsuits just because things didn’t go your way is a loser tactic and deserving of great ridicule.
The remedy as outlined in this letter & also the one from the LPF is exactly what the LNC & esp the Chair should do – reaffirm the choices of the delegates & their unwavering support of the Chase ticket. Neither this Chair or her LNC has tempted to put out the flames of opposition to the ticket. By having vote they can put all of this to rest immediately. They can start an e-mail vote today & make sure everyone votes ASAP & lay this to rest today. Furthermore – they can state unequivocally that any state that does not support the ticket or attempts to place someone other than Chase on their ticket will be disaffiliated immediately.
“The LNC can resolve the controversy by appointing the same presidential and vice-presidential candidates by a three-fourths vote of the entire membership of the National Committee. The LNC can also vote to fill the vacancy created for LNC Vice Chair by a majority vote of the National Committee.”
My takeaway on the reading was that there were several delegates from New Jersey and Minnesota seated improperly in Missouri and Ohio. How could the chairs of these states not know they were acting improperly? Isn’t it surprising how easy it was for them to get away with violating the rules?
Look who was involved. Dustin Nanna has been chair of Ohio and on the national committee for years. He should know better.
Makes me wonder how else were rules broken and how nonexistent the protections on the LNC elections were. How can anyone ever trust this process again?
Irregularities and violations certainly occurred. For example, non-delegates participating in uncounted standing votes and in voice votes, maybe-delegates themselves participating in the vote on whether or not they had been validly seated, and Mike ter Maat abusing a faux point of personal privilege (if my memory serves me correctly) or of parliamentary procedure (according to Rectenwald) during balloting in order to manipulate the ongoing round of voting. All good reasons to question the integrity of the convention results, yet none of them appear to be getting addressed here.
This creates a catch-22 for the national committee. If they decertify the ticket, they will get accused of cheating to change results they don’t like after the fact; but if they don’t, the they will get sued and sabotaged without receiving any support or gratitude from the Oliver-ter Maat LINOs for standing by their ticket. No matter what, it will be bad optics for the current national committee in particular, but also for the national and all affiliated state parties in general. On the other hand, this might be the best time for it, since the LP is already falling apart in the wake of the national convention and can hardly look any worse that it does currently.