Libertarian Al Ozonoff says his campaign has successfully completed its petition drive for Massachusetts state auditor, reporting that state officials accepted his nomination papers containing more than the 5,000 certified signatures necessary for ballot access.
Ozonoff announced in an August 25 campaign update that the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth accepted his nomination papers after his campaign submitted more than 5,500 certified signatures to qualify. The effort reached communities across Massachusetts, with Ozonoff saying his signatures were certified by local election officials in more than 100 cities and towns.
“This was an extraordinary grassroots effort,” Ozonoff said in his announcement. “I am deeply grateful to everyone who collected signatures, delivered papers, volunteered their time, or simply signed a nomination paper and gave Massachusetts voters another choice this November.”
Massachusetts requires candidates for state auditor running outside the state’s recognized political parties to submit at least 5,000 valid signatures. August 25 also serves as the final deadline this cycle for non-party statewide candidates to file their papers with the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Registered voters will now have until August 28 to challenge any submitted petitions.
Securing ballot access in Massachusetts for a state auditor candidate has been a major priority for both state and national Libertarians this cycle. The Libertarian National Committee’s Ballot Access Committee initially requested $45,000 to fund a ballot petition drive in Massachusetts for Charlie Larkin, a Libertarian who initially sought the state auditor position. However, the Unified Libertarians of Massachusetts, the LNC’s recognized state affiliate, later voted in May to formally provide support to Ozonoff, the group’s membership director.
Following that vote, ULMA asked the LNC to redirect its originally planned ballot access efforts toward Ozonoff’s campaign. In a document submitted to the national organization at the time, the state affiliate argued that the candidate receiving support from the LNC should be the one determined through its own process rather than one effectively chosen through national ballot access planning before the state organization had the opportunity to act.
The Ballot Access Committee in its original report and the Unified Libertarians of Massachusetts in its later document further presented the auditor race to the LNC as strategically important this cycle, with both pointing to the lack of a Republican candidate seeking the position and arguing that a strong enough showing by a Libertarian candidate could lead to Libertarian once again qualifying for political party status under state law. Such a result would also serve as a boon for the party’s 2028 presidential efforts in the state.
The Libertarian label is currently listed by the state as a political designation, meaning voters may enroll under it and non-party candidates may choose to run under it, while Democratic and Republican are the only recognized political parties. If Ozonoff receives at least 3 percent of the statewide vote later this year, that result would satisfy one of Massachusetts’ two pathways for political party recognition.
While having that recognition would narrow the pool of voters from whom Libertarian candidates seeking the party’s nomination could collect signatures, shrinking it from all registered voters to only Libertarians and unenrolled voters, it would also establish a statutory Libertarian committee under Massachusetts law. For the purpose of the presidential race, that committee could then nominate the Libertarian Party’s presidential electors rather than requiring the Libertarian presidential ticket to undertake the 10,000-signature petition drive otherwise required of it.
Now finished with petitioning, Ozonoff said his campaign will immediately shift toward the general election. Over the coming weeks, he plans to discuss why he is seeking the auditor role, what he believes an “independent Libertarian Auditor” can bring to state government, and how Massachusetts can strengthen “accountability, transparency, and individual liberty.”
Walter and Jordan, the LP in MA is not caucus driven in any way. We have and will continue to do what’s right for Massachusetts Libertarians, part of that responsibility is not to get caught up in the factions of LP national. In fact directly contrary to your presumption, Charlie Larkin was one of the 47 purged by LAMA for allegedly being part of the Mises takeover, Dr Ozonoff wasn’t even a member then.
Dr Ozonoff gives libertarians the best opportunity to regain ballot access in Massachusetts, one only has to look at the evidence of his ability to gain a significant portion of the signatures separate from the generous funding by the LNC. He has built a strong team to continue to move this forward to ensure our presidential nominee will be on the ballot as well as strengthen the perception in MA of libertarian philosophy. 2 years from now,I expect to attempt to have a full slate and would be welcome to a discussion if you would like to run.
As far as sliding someone into an alternative slot to get another libertarian on the ballot, I would agree we probably missed that opportunity. However, Mr Larkin did not express any interest or interaction with ULMA and I don’t believe he did to the Ozonoff campaign either.
Walter, from what I gather, the LP in mass chose to nominate Oznoff, a Mises chud, specifically to oppose Charlie running. They believe that if they control the candidate, they’ll control the appointed state committee, which will control the presidential ballot access, and they were afraid to leave that with Charlie, a principled libertarian, and instead nominated a Caucus man, who does what McArdle tells him to do.
Walter: True, but that may yet change depending on what happens next month. Anne Brensley pivoted to mounting a primary write-in bid for the seat after the debacle with Joe Bronske and the signatures for her original lieutenant governor bid. It’s a monumental task, for sure, but Massachusetts Republicans have pulled it off before.
Congratulations to them. However, they missed an opportunity here. It appears that the Republicans have failed to qualify a candidate for Secretary, as well. They could have switched Charlie Larkin to the Secretary slot, and used the same petition to get him on the ballot, as well, at no extra cost.