The Libertarian Party of New York issued a formal resolution over the weekend condemning several fellow Libertarian state affiliates for refusing to support the party’s 2024 presidential ticket of Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat. The resolution called for further corrective action against these affiliates.
The resolution, approved by the Libertarian Party of New York’s State Committee on Sunday, reaffirmed Oliver and ter Maat as the party’s official nominees for President and Vice President in the 2024 election. It then criticized those affiliates that failed to place the ticket on their state ballots, specifically naming the Libertarian Party of Colorado. The Colorado party was further accused of violating Libertarian Party Bylaw 5-4 by announcing its intention to instead list Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on its state ballot.
The resolution also directly criticized the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire for its decision to publicly endorse Republican Donald Trump. On the day of the election, the New Hampshire party came out in support of Trump in a formal statement, citing his alignment on certain policy issues with the Libertarian Party, despite acknowledging that Trump was “not a libertarian.” The endorsement was later shared by the Trump campaign as part of a last-minute text campaign targeting New Hampshire voters, according to screenshots shared by the party.
The Libertarian Party of New York is now demanding accountability from the state affiliates that chose not to support the ticket, citing violations of party bylaws and an obstruction of ballot access as a result. It also specifically condemned the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire for both its endorsement of Trump and inflammatory social media behavior, which, the New York party stated, has severely damaged the reputation and credibility of the Libertarian Party.
However, the resolution did not specify what actions the Libertarian Party of New York considers “accountability and corrective action.”
“He opposed government bans as he is a * Libertarian* […] He supports parents’ rights […] Chase was the best and most libertarian candidate the LP has put up since at least Badnarik.”
Since when is either December 18th Gregorian or December 5th Julian opposite day?
Oh wait, you’re serious? Let me laugh even harder! U+1F923
This coming from something which feels certain that fornication isn’t libertine, without knowing what either word means…
—
“the L.P. turned in their worst performance in decades, New York ranked at the bottom of even the several writein states […] and their response to this is calling out other states.”
Amazing, isn’t it. One has to give them credit for pure, unmitigated gall.
So, in a year when the L.P. turned in their worst performance in decades, New York ranked at the bottom of even the several writein states and turned in one ninth the writein votes of Jill Stein and a thousand fewer than De la Cruz, uniquely underperforming the explicit Marxist among state parties and years of the party’s presidential offerings…and their response to this is calling out other states.
“He was afraid of tough questions such as supporting sex changes and puberty blockers for eight year olds. Obviously most people object to that.”
A flat-out lie. Shame on you.
He was not afraid of “tough questions” and dealt with that tired old straw man over and over and over. He opposed government bans as he is a * Libertarian*. All Libertarians should be against government edicts on ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. He supports parents’ rights – the rights of parents to make decisions for and along with their children, in cohort with all the medical professionals dealing with any particular case.
Chase was the best and most libertarian candidate the LP has put up since at least Badnarik. It’s just a terrible shame he was put up at exactly the time that National and its Trumpista sheeple have taken over the party.
Illinois was also a writein, but at least they came in ahead of DeLaCruz there. DC has refused to break down their writeins. I don’t recall seeing Tennessee reported yet, but I may have missed it or forgot.
“Sadly the Libertarian Party is in disarray.” – George Whitfield
THAT is masterful understatement!
Were there any other states where the libertarian campaign scored fewer votes than the openly Marxist PSL or did as poorly in percentage of the vote or placement among candidates as they did in New York?
Fewer votes than an openly Marxist party, and they have the nerve to point fingers at other states? Sounds like a clear case of projection and blame shifting to me.
The proper response is to disaffiliate the rogue parties. Toss them out and start over with Libertarians in charge.
Not only did the New York Libertarians fail to get on the ballot, but they also got a small fraction of the writein votes that the Greens got, who also failed to get on the ballot.
https://ballot-access.org/2024/12/10/jilll-stein-received-46698-write-ins-in-new-york/
They even got fewer writein votes than the Marxist PSL.
I don’t think they have much room to criticise the other state libertarian franchises.
Chase Oliver had multiple requests to be on podcasts. He declined them. That’s his fault. He would have reached a much larger audience than campaigning at gay pride parades.
He was afraid of tough questions such as supporting sex changes and puberty blockers for eight year olds. Obviously most people object to that.
LPNY backed a terrible candidate but refuse to accept responsibility.
I can’t truthfully say that I’m sad about it.
Sadly the Libertarian Party is in disarray.
Shouldn’t they be more concerned with getting on their own state ballot than what other state parties are doing?
“As pointed out in the section of bylaw that was quoted, it referenced another party. There was no reference to membership in the libertarian party.”
This is an implicit interpretation.
“No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in any partisan election” can just as easily be interpreted as meaning they must be a member of the LP regardless of what other party memberships they may hold.
Without clarifying note, the intended meaning of this phrase remains ambiguous; and in light of the second half of bylaw 5-4, presumably it was deliberately kept vague and open for multiple interpretations.
While former interpretation is no doubt more straightforward and satisfying with regard to the letter of the (by)law, it is hard to reconcile with the fact that many – perhaps even most? – candidates vying for the LP’s nomination throughout the party’s history, have held other party memberships in one form or another (e.g. being registered with a duopoly party in order to vote in their closed primary). Again, the bylaw provides no elucidation as to what exactly is meant by being a “member of another party”. I would thus conclude that the latter interpretation makes more sense, and is more in keeping with the intent of the (by)law.
“This is a national election, so it is easily arguable that being on the ballot in another party in any state meets the intent and the letter of ‘the law’ regarding the bylaw mentioned.”
This, however, I do not find a straightforward argument.
State affiliates retain a great degree of autonomy – it would be pretty hypocritical of a party calling itself “Libertarian”, if they didn’t. And state party’s are well within their rights to not nominate whoever was nominally nominated at the national convention – and I would assume to nominate a different ticket instead, if their governing body can agree on one as in the case of the LPCO.
And if anything, that holds even more true in the case where the national convention was riddled with irregularities and a ticket was fraudulently chosen whose platform is “inconsistent with the Statement of Principles or these [party] bylaws”.
Furthermore, state affiliates operate independently, in parallel to one another – they are peers with no authority over each other – thus whether or not one affiliate’s nominee is running under a different party label on some other affiliate’s turf, would logically be irrelevant to the former’s nomination.
“other states, all of whom’s reputations were damaged by these actions, will make similar resolutions. The damage to their party goes straight to the foundation, which has cracked considerably since they were bombed by their own national chair.”
The Colorado, Tennessee, New Hampshire, Idaho and Montana Libertarian Parties, all of which denounced the Oliver-ter Maat ticket, had their reputations severely tarnished by the national convention and the actions of the spineless and statist affiliates which championed that anti-libertarian ticket, not to mention such defamation and lawfare as the LPCO and Hannah Goodman are facing from totalitarian cheerleaders like Harlos and the LPNY.
At the end of the day, no state affiliate has any say over any other state affiliate. So it is then up to the national committee, and ultimately to the chair, to interpret ambiguous bylaws, perhaps guided NON-BINDINGLY by advice from the bylaws and rules committee and by opinions from the judicial committee.
If affiliates are not happy with those interpretations, they can try to replace the national committee members and the chair at the next biennial national convention – perhaps they can even organize a vote of no confidence before then – or they can disaffiliate – which, let’s be honest, is in the best interest of all affiliates with strong opinions in either direction.
“My guess is that this is only the beginning. […] I believe there will be a significant number of people who either drop out of politics or switch to another party.”
I concur. I think that will also be the case if the Mises Caucus does not manage a more extensive victory. So far they – McArdle in particular – have served as a sticking plaster to keep the different tatters of the LP together in an uneasy and uncomfortable sort of alliance. But with the judicial committee attempting to challenge the national committee and initiate a stand-off, the Mises Caucus will be forced to either accept the challenge or stand down.
If they stand their ground, I expect the strain to tear the LP apart: mass desertion of members and disaffiliation of state parties on both sides, and likely bankruptcy. If they back down, there will also be massive loss of members and affiliates, though less symmetrically; all that will remain of the LP will be the minority of LINOs that are vocally anti-Mises, i.e. the last shred of quasi-libertarianism will be stripped from the “Libertarian” Party, dooming it to inevitably fade from existence as it becomes ever more indistinguishable from all the other anti-libertarian parties.
Once again, people use twisted and incorrect logic.
As pointed out in the section of bylaw that was quoted, it referenced another party. There was no reference to membership in the libertarian party. Based on this logic, South Carolina was challenged a number of times in the past for supporting fusion candidates, which was at the time legal in South Carolina. I remember a number of conversations with the national chair when I was chair of the South Carolina party. No formal action was ever taken, but it was threatened several times. It was pointed out that New York had similar laws.
But fusion candidates are different from what took place.
At the time RFK attended the libertarian convention, he was already on the ballot in several states as the nominee of other parties. That is a documented fact. It is easily proven if they need to. The response will probably be well that was in another state. But that’s the whole point. This is a national election, so it is easily arguable that being on the ballot in another party in any state meets the intent and the letter of “the law“ regarding the bylaw mentioned.
My guess is that this is only the beginning. That other states, all of whom’s reputations were damaged by these actions, will make similar resolutions. The damage to their party goes straight to the foundation, which has cracked considerably since they were bombed by their own national chair.
I would further suggest carefully following the results of the next round of conventions around the country in the ibertarian party. If the non-mises factions are not able to retake their state parties, I believe there will be a significant number of people who either drop out of politics or switch to another party. I’m not necessarily saying they are going to join Liberal party USA. They could become democrats, constitution, Green, etc, or just stay home.
I would say it has at least as much to do with New York’s increasingly restricting ballot access in order to protect the uniparty. But either way, it indeed has nothing to do with other state parties.
And even if it did, it is not up to the LPNY to discipline other affiliates. They can condemn all they like. They can file a complaint with the national party. And if they don’t like the way the LNC handles their complaint, then they are free to disaffiliate themselves.
—
Bylaw 5-4 states: “No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in any partisan election. No affiliate party shall take any action inconsistent with the Statement of
Principles or these bylaws”.
Unless the LPNY can prove that RFK was not a member of the Libertarian Party at the time – the burden of proof for which is fully on them – they would seem to be falsely accusing the LPCO of violating that bylaw, possibly even to the extend of defamation – they are certainly intending to cause harm with their unproven and dubious accusations.
(And if they are trying to hinge their argument on the deliberately vague second part, then they can get a very interesting legal battle about how nominating Oliver-ter Maat is inconsistent with the statement of principles and party bylaws.)
Unlike the LPCO, the LPNH does in fact appear to have violated bylaw 5-4. (Good for them! Wish they’d nominated Randall Terry – or RFK or Shiva Ayyadurai – instead.) Presumably they did so intentionally in order to disaffiliate from a national circus made that included clowns like the LPNY. So go ahead and kick those “evil rabble-rousers” out by all means – it will do considerably more damage to the LP than to the LPNH.
—
In what way, did the LPCO or LPNH obstruct the LPNY’s ballot access? Again, the burden of proof for this everything but straightforward claim, is entirely on the latter.
The LPNY’s entitled Karen behavior is what’s severely damaging to the LP’s reputation and credibility. As are engineering the fraudulent nomination of a “Libertarian” ticket consisting of a proponent of child mutilation and medical fascism and a disgraced crooked cop. And engaging in lawfare and defamation against Hannah Goodman and the LPCO.
—
There’s nothing that exudes liberty quite like demanding “corrective action” be taken against peers whom you have no authority over, for no better reason than that you find their “social media behavior” to be “inflammatory”…
Chase Oliver was a terrible candidate, plain and simple. He was so bad he couldn’t even get on the NY ballot due to lack of support. It has nothing to do with other state parties.