Wes Wagner has reported the results of the mail-in ballots from the Libertarian Party of Oregon. This is the first time the LPO has tried voting by mail. 13,084 ballots were sent out and 770 were returned (along with some 30 to 40 which weren’t signed, and were therefore not counted), which is a return of about 6 %.
The bylaws passed 96.5% to 3.5% and they nominated 43 libertarian candidates to run for partisan elections.
You can view the results here . The raw results can be viewed here .
There has been some controversy regarding who the legitimate officers of the Oregon Libertarian Party are. It is currently in litigation. At this time, the Secretary of State of Oregon recognizes the Wagner faction. They are being challenged by Tim Reeves and some of his supporters.
Sounds heinous.
How can you get to a point of thinking giving up ballot access could end up being a good thing?
Must be quite a twisted path to reach that conclusion.
Here is what makes it appear that this email letter was meant to be kept private and was sent to a private account:
“On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Scott L. wrote:
“Help!
“Starchild is posting most of our lnc-discuss e-mails on the Internet, so I don’t feel bad about sending this to you.”
Lieberman talks about Starchild posting LNC discuss email on the Internet – meaning they would be public – so he is writing to Burke in a private way to keep his letter secret, but he is revealing some information to Burke that maybe should be private but would be exposed by Starchild anyway. However, Lieberman is using a private channel for his message which implies that he expected this whole letter would remain private.
I have had a long telephone conversation with Dr. Lieberman. He will work up an explanation for his email to Richard Burke, and I’ll post it here later tonight.
I don’t think he wanted the letter out. I got a short email back from him about the “one sentence out of an entire letter” type thing. I’m working on an article.
Lieberman forwarded it himself, consciously stating that it would become public. He wants this controversy. To distract from…what? Lack of action on party building by the LNC while the LSLA/LNCC strategize behind the scenes so Root-Starr-Rutherford allies can win a decisive victory for LNC positions, bylaws and platform in 2014? What’s the real motive to stir this up? He mentions Starchild’s list in his message…so clearly he was aware that his message would go public and end up in places like this when he posted, and he used loaded terms for maximum impact to stir the controversy as much as possible.
HF @36
Double facepalm is more appropriate… first facepalm for Dr Lieberman actually believing that crap.
Second for Burke being so stupid as to forward it without editing.
Where’s Brian Holtz’s “double facepalm” picture?
Or that video someone posted of someone scoring against his own team?
Jill – Scott did say that.
Since then:
p] Amen Lee! Sacrificing ballot access is not in our interest. I do believe Scott was thinking of what he believes to be the party’s best interest but to me it seems ballot access should not be expendable. Anyone who thinks it is should spend some time petitioning in triple digit temperatures as I was doing today in Maryland, or below zero temperatures as I did at times this past winter in North Dakota.
paulie 415-690-6352
I just wrote to Scott to ask if he really said that and, if he did, could he please explain himself. I don’t know if he’ll respond.
JP@31
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LNCDiscussPublic/message/1143
It was “accidentally” carried forward through a couple email replies.
I agree-if Scott said the above, he should resign. Of course he won’t, though.
If I can verify this, Dr. Lieberman will have a really tough time getting re-elected. I won’t shut up until everyone in my state of California knows what kind of a scoundrel they’ve elected.
Shame. Shame on Scott Lieberman.
What low, dirty, foul tactics in pursuit of what – power and prestige inside the LP? Are your life, your soul and your mind really so vacuous.
Is Lieberman part of the Burke/Reeves cabal?
Members of the LNC and other Non-members of the OR LP have been interfering for too long.
Is this Burke/Reeves/Lieberan et al cabal so set on obtaining personal power that they will waste an important political campaign, waste an opportunity for party membership growth and progress, waste a chance to reach more people than ever before, waste vast amounts of money and volunteer time?
By their actions and continued lawsuit we can see that they are.
The Burke/Reeves lawsuit should be dropped – if they are real Libertarians they will realize this and they will drop the suit.
Any outside Lp and LNC members who have been on the inside supporting this cabal should urge that they now drop the suit, discontinue their attacks, and help the real Oregon LP with their candidates and with the Johnson campaign.
Lieberman should resign from the LNC or be removed for attempting to harm the 2012 campaign. Shame alone should be enough to cause him to resign.
MHW @28
And note that membership numbers for California and the national party are still on the decline.
Perhaps it is because both organizations abide people like Lieberman and even worse, give them positions of responsibility.
Doctor Lieberman needs to remember that old saying; “first do no harm”.
It appears his intention here is to deny the voters a choice. Sadly this man is an alternate on the LNC for California.
George Phillies writes
kudos to Starchild
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LNCDiscussPublic/message/1143 for finding this.
This LNC-Discuss message quotes an email identified as being from Scott Lieberman to Richard Burke. An LNC officer has confirmed to me that the Lieberman message is authentic. The message as supplied to me reads:
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Scott L. wrote:
“Help!
“Starchild is posting most of our lnc-discuss e-mails on the Internet, so I don’t feel bad about sending this to you.
“I think you work for the Johnson campaign. Please make it clear to them that it is in their long-term best interests to sacrifice ballot access in Oregon if that is what it takes to politically neuter Wes Wagner and his group of misfits.
“When will a ruling be issued in your lawsuit against Wagner?
“Scott Lieberman”
I gather that general ballot access cannot be harmed, but the request here is to keep Johnson off the Oregon ballot.
JP @25
Fortunately my friendly credit union does it as a courtesy service. But otherwise you would have a good story to tell your grandchildren if Gary won the presidency 😉
Too bad I’m way down in Southern California, Wes. I’d notarize those for you for free.
@23
All that sounds hopefull.
Thank you for working for Liberty and a strong LP.
I hope the Johnson campaign will work with you to get this paperwork filed and that you can all work to get the signatures, or if time runs short to pay the fee, to get in the voters guide.
z@21
I need the Johnson campaign to fill out the forms for the ballot access and the voter’s guide. I can then sign the SEL110 form which makes it official. Gary has to sign it too though, but only my signature has to be notarized. I send out forms to candidates to fill out and then take them in batches to my credit union to notarize them. I have another 30-40 coming in soon for our state candidates.
The campaign also needs to make a choice if they are going to pay $7000 for Johnson and Gray’s statements in the voters guide, or trust us to gather 500 signatures each for them. I have advocated the latter… as it takes fewer person-hours to gather 500 signatures than the $7000 is worth.
Mr. Burke,
You are a serial thief and liar and legitimacy is not your area of expertise. Why do you believe that we will ever forget who you are and what you’ve done? You have no credibility. Go back to the RP.
@20 As the officially recognized Libertarian Party in OR, aren’t you able to place Johnson/Gray directly on the ballot?
Yes, there is the potential of a challenge, but that would most likely be alleviated if the Reeves faction drops its suit – correct?
If so, then shouldn’t you just file the papers? A ballot drive is unlikely to happen in any case. So, if you don’t file they won’t appear on the ballot.
File the papers, put LP ticket on the ballot and let the Reeves faction either do the right thing and drop their suit or let them be the bad guys that cause the LP ticket to fail to appear if there is a challenge.
This thing has gone on for too long.
You can file the papers for the Johnson/Gray ticket and end it.
You should do so immediately.
BR @19
I have sent links to the proper forms to the Johnson campaign and explained the two different methods of getting into the voter’s guide — as well as volunteered to head up the petitioning route provided that the timing allows it.
It is also time for the Wagner group to make the appropriate filing of Gary Johnson and Jim Gray as candidates along with all the other nominated candidates.
Just do it. It’s the right course of action and needs to be done.
Then, we’ll have to wait and see if Reeves/Burke have the wit and wisdom to join in a forward looking Libertarian party effort to work for Liberty or if they will continue their personal quest for destruction.
One iinteresting thing the Johnson campaign got wrong this year: The Ds and Rs are fighting each other and forgetting about America as they take all of us over the cliff … That’s not what happened in Thelma and Louise. Those two were in a stongly bonded friendship.
No. Reeves and Burke are Thelma and Louise.
We can try to stop them. We will all feel the loss as they drive over the cliff. But, they are alone in the car, and after they crash we will still be here.
It’s time for the Burke/Reeves faction to give up their personal vendetta and their quest for personal power and glory and rejoin the rest of the OR LP.
Their lawsuit will only serve to damage the LP in Oregon, damage the Johnson campaign and damage the LP nationwide. There are no significant principles at stake in the lawsuit beyond hurt feelings.
Of course, the Burke/Reeves principals have put part of their personal reputations on the line, and so now to do the right thing and drop their suit could result in a loss of face. They need a face saving way out. There are many respected national party leaders who could help in this regard if they choose to do so. Any public suggestions I might make here as to the steps that could bring this about, however, would obviate the potential effectiveness of the suggested course of action.
I think this election is an important step towards ending the factional rancor plaguing Oregon. The increased engagement and excitement in the party is wonderful to observe.
@14, Considering that they all had the chance to vote on it, and those that did voted 96.5% in favor of the Wagner faction and against yours, I believe that fits the bill of “confidence that their rights as members will not be unilaterally changed without notice”…
The SoS recognizes the Wagner group as legitimate. So does the LNC. So apparently does the membership.
Apparently now the only ones that aren’t getting the message is YOU. That leaves you in the unenviable position of continued bloviation about your own legitimacy after being repeatedly rejected in that claim at every turn.
But go ahead and continue to flog the dead horse. It ain’t risin’ and it won’t be ridin’ either.
We’ll just wait to see how things play out,
Richard.
BTW, did you see the percent of the people who voted for the by-law? It seems to me the most important thing at this time for both sides to consider is what the Libertarians in the state of Oregon desire.
From Der Sidelines,
No, the principle here is that members need some confidence that their rights as members will not be unilaterally changed without notice in the night by people who cannot enact change legitimately.
That is what Mr. Wagner did and, if what he did is allowed to stand, nothing can stop someone else from doing the same thing in the future for the same reasons.
You also forget that neither Reeves or I were “in charge” before this all began. Mr. Wagner and his friends held all the officer positions. If anyone is trying to maintain power, it’s them. Had they shown up for the May 21st convention session that Mr. Wagner himself fought for, they might well have maintained their positions legitimately.
Richard P. Burke
It’s also ironic that the Burke/Reeves faction is attempting to claim nominations for LPOR spots on the fall ballot are illegitimate while out of the other side of their mouths claiming to want to do what’s best for the LPOR. Obviously “what’s best for the LPOR” has zero to do with the actual organization and everything to do with establishing “their guys” come Hell or high water.
@11: better get odds from Root on that one, and take the under, because you’re not likely to make the over or cover the spread.
All,
Again, this balloting process is not legitimate and will amount to a big waste of paper if the Reeves group wins in court. The legitimate LPO as organized by bylaws approved by members in convention will be holding another nominating convention before the filing deadline. Purported “winners” of Mr. Wagner’s vote by primary may seek open seats at that event if they wish to get on the ballot legitimately.
Richard P. Burke
Yep, that’s been posted here too.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/06/south-carolina-legislative-race-will-probably-list-only-two-candidates-a-libertarian-and-an-independent/
If you have news tips please post them on the open thread, not on unrelated articles.
Ballot access news just did an editorial on SC state house race 26, because no matter what it seems that a third party is going to take the seat! A libertarian or an Independent! Only these two parties are on the ballot line!
Wes @ 7
Looking forward to receiving endorsement requests from all of those candidates, plus those from the Reeves group and working with allyoualls (the plural of allyouall, which is the plural of youalls, which is the plural form of youall — all of which seems appropriate for Oregon right now), to get each of those candidates our endorsement, and linked to the website at:
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/endorsements
Thanks for the head’s up on the Voter’s Guide. This was discussed in a conference call with Ron and our Region Directors as recently as last Friday and over this weekend.
Feel free though to get in touch with me directly if you don’t see the ball fully picked up on that by this time next week.
Same goes for anyone who has any concerns you feel should be brought to the campaign’s attention — first go to your State Director for Gary Johnson 2012 (or to your State’s LP leadership if it is not a campaign issue).
Our State and Regional (and Campus) Director’s contact information is available at:
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/state-contacts
If that doesn’t work, use the contact form at:
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/contact
or call
(801) 303-7922
or write (or drop by)
731 E South Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
or for Media Inquiries: Joe Hunter
[email protected]
or for Scheduling: Grant Huihui
801-303-7903
[email protected]
or for endorsement requests:
[email protected]
or feel free to contact me directly at:
[email protected]
Joe
RW@1 We use ranked choice balloting so vote totals are a bit more complex. Hence the link to a file that shows the multiple rounds of balloting and totals.
Losty@3 We should see some movement on getting Johnson and Gray’s papers filed after the LNC meeting.
One very important note though, beyond getting Johnson and Gray on the ballot, it is very important in Oregon, which is a vote by mail only state, to have your statement in the voters’ guide.
This requires either 800 signatures or $3500 … I recommend the signature route, but they are due by the end of August.
It would be wonderful if the LNC drags their feet time-wise if someone would be willing to pledge the $3500 for the alternative method of placing Johnson’s statement by fee. Not having a voters’ statement in the pamphlet is basically a statement that you are not a credible candidate.
Last time around Barr almost missed the deadline due to not understanding the dynamics here in this state and realizing it at the last minute.
@3 Can that be determined by a primary like this?
43 candidates is pretty impressive. How many states have more for the LP? Any of comparable population?
How many candidates is the Reeves team running?
Richard, I’ve amended the above article to include the raw results. Thanks for the comment.
I told Wes to be prepared to answer the question @ # 3. I hope he will comment when he sees this article.
One office is conspicuously absent.
Who is the LP of Oregon’s candidate for President of the United tates?
Richard, there’s a link on the page for raw results.
It’s not really posting “the results” when what is posted doesn’t give a vote total for various candidates.