Libertarian Party of California delegates began their convention in Sacramento this morning with a keynote speech by Steven Greenhut, a Libertarian journalist well-known for exposing abuses of government power in California. Greenhut described the rent-seeking practiced by the two incumbent parties, and said that the LPCA “can be one important vehicle for saving the state” if it unites around libertarian common ground. He cited the 19th-century Free Soil Party as an example of an alternative party that influenced public policy without winning the highest elective offices. (The Free Soil Platform had significant overlap with geolibertarian ideas.)
56 delegates were credentialed as Kevin Takenaga began his Chair’s report. He celebrated Gary Johnson’s impressive results in California, and two Libertarian wins in city council races: John Inks in Mountain View (pop. 74K), and SusanMarie Weber in Palm Desert (pop. 48K). He credited some of the 15% pre-election spike in LPCA voter registration to the introduction of online registration, and noted that due to campaign finance laws the LPCA “didn’t really have an active voter registration campaign”. Takenaga also cited press coverage of the recent move of the LPCA office: Libertarians move in as CA GOP scales back in Sacramento.
C. Michael Pickens gave the Northern Vice Chair report, and noted that he recently became the executive director of the LPWA. He cited cloud-based call centers as an example of an LPWA innovation that he hopes to set up for the LPCA. He hopes that the LPWA bylaws will be changed to allow Libertarian endorsement of candidates from other parties.
The Southern Vice Chair is empty. Treasurer Brian Darby was questioned closely on dues revenue and how dues are split between the LPCA and its county affiliates. Darby asked the delegates to approve a Bylaws Committee recommendation to simplify the state/county dues split formula.
Inks and Weber joined two Libertarian water district directors (Jim Hoerricks and Brian Holtz) in a panel about Libertarians’ service in government office.
Delegates approved all five of the Bylaws Committee recommendations:
- Make the LPCA membership pledge against force initiation match that of the LPUS, by changing “I do not believe in or advocate” to “I oppose”.
- Require the Secretary to maintain a manual that compiles all procedures created by the Executive or Operations Committees.
- Remove the route to LPCA membership via government-hosted elections to the State Central Committee. Because of the new Top Two law, the government no longer hosts such elections anyway.
- Change the state/county dues split to 50/50, in place of a 60/40 split in favor of whichever side processed the dues.
- Limit nomination of NatCon delegates to those who have confirmed to the Secretary their acceptance of their nomination.
Tomorrow will be all officer elections, and consideration of the Platform Committee’s sole recommendation (about increasing the size of the state legislature).
@35 Thought provoking, although I would hope for a non-statist means to the salmon and yoga goals. The waste treatment plant, assuming it can’t be privatized, can certainly be renamed after Bush.
Salmon Yoga party.
http://www.sanjuanjournal.com/news/26859404.html
Andy @28–
I believe eight states currently allow fusion.
Of course, some states like CA are going in exactly the opposite direction with Top Two.
Stewart @30–
Exactly right.
SF @32
That is why the LP litigated about the Washington law … (this was a good thing for the national party to use collective resources in common defense, the potential for contagion to other states is/was/will be very high)
That is a really messed up law.
One of the problems we have is with the Top Two primary were people can pick their own party description. At our convention in say the month of May someone could come to us and ask for the LPWA’s endorsement and we then give them that endorsement. Then that person files for the August primary and states on their filing paperwork that they prefer Salmon Yoga party.
And as Mr Axinn pointed out, fusion can be an effective way for a Libertarian (or other non-D/R candidate) to increase their exposure.
I don’t know for sure who we’re talking about. There was a comment about endorsing other party’s candidates @20, then Wagner made a comment in @21 about someone not bothering with ByLaws. I tried to explain the difference to him. My guess is that he was talking about Mr Pickens.
“Mark Axinn // Apr 7, 2013 at 6:34 pm
New York permits fusion, and of course it’s how we cross-endorse candidates who may be running on other party lines as well.”
New Hampshire also permits fusion. I’m not sure if any other states allow it or not off hand.
New York permits fusion, and of course it’s how we cross-endorse candidates who may be running on other party lines as well.
Maybe with Glynda in there will be some communication from the Ex Com. There has been virtually none the past few years.
Can someone clue me in? I actually don’t know who/ what you’re talking about.
@21,
There is a subtle, but distinct difference between endorsing the candidate of another party and nominating him or her. The concept is called a “fusion candidate” and it is permitted in a number of states.
Endorsing another party’s candidate is clearly a violation of the ByLaws, but if that person is also your candidate then you are endorsing your own candidate. LP affiliates have done this on numerous occasions in past elections.
Congrats to Glynda. It’s a challenging job, that’s for sure.
@20,
That is the generally accepted interpretation.
mhw @20
hmmm an e.d. who is friendly with California and doesn’t bother with things like bylaws and wants to cross nominate (republicans?)
brings back old memories ?
Under the national bylaws article 6 section 4 we cannot endorse people from other parties in a partisan election if I am reading the bylaws correctly.
Hearty congratulations to Kevin on his re-election as LPCA Chair.
Heard good things about her from Gary Bryant.
Janine Kloss, secretary. Apparently she ran against Kevin for chair. I don’t happen to know her.
Yay, Glynda!!! She’s so passionate and dedicated!
She’s been an At-Large rep, so she knows what/who she’s dealing with, also.
Just in: Chair: Kevin Takenaga
Northern Vice-Chair: Gale Morgan
Souther Vice-Chair: Glynda Perrotte (yay! My good buddy!!!)
Treasurer: Brian Darby
I’m sorry to see him leave California. I agree Michael Pickens isn’t a statist. He’s a young man with great ideas.
Michael Pickens is many things – a former resident of California that moved to Washington last year, a former California resident whose reputation preceded him before he moved to Washington, which facilitated his appointment as ED for the LPWA, a new member of the LPWA who is using his perspective as an active member of both the LPCA and the LPWA to improve both organizations – but he’s not a statist.
Shoot, I bombed the italics there, should have been instead of []… 🙁
Commentary on the Bylaws proposals:
[i]1. Make the LPCA membership pledge against force initiation match that of the LPUS, by changing “I do not believe in or advocate” to “I oppose”.[/i]
No big deal. If anything the consistency is a good thing.
[i]2. Require the Secretary to maintain a manual that compiles all procedures created by the Executive or Operations Committees.[/i]
Mixed. On one hand it makes sense, but on the other hand it can get out of hand like it does at the LNC, and one size doesn’t fit all, either.
[i]3. Remove the route to LPCA membership via government-hosted elections to the State Central Committee. Because of the new Top Two law, the government no longer hosts such elections anyway.[/i]
I’d like to see the legal rationale that Top Two doesn’t have government host such elections since Top Two applies to elected government offices and not central committees AFAIK. In the past the choice to tell the SoS to tell the counties to not have CC elections was made by the Chair per the state Elections Code, and that caused a lot of consternation, because it eliminated a basic way for potential candidates to get their feet wet.
[i]4. Change the state/county dues split to 50/50, in place of a 60/40 split in favor of whichever side processed the dues.[/i]
It does simplify it but also disincentivizes the counties to build memberships. But then again, counties can have their own memberships and dues as well.
[i]5. Limit nomination of NatCon delegates to those who have confirmed to the Secretary their acceptance of their nomination.[/i]
Non-issue since the NatCon delegation is rarely filled anyway.
How is day two going?
@3 it was LPWA.
The agenda said SusanMarie.
And I really need to stop typing on my phone :p
Reed e
You are correct that not everyone has the history and context to understand what I am talking about… don’t remember the Portland national convention… don’t understand what really happened in OR NV PA and will happen in WA and GA.
I am not hear to make friends … I am warning you.
Choose to save yourselves or not.
@4 Mr. Wagner, I have read many, many comments from you over the past few months and you tend to make yourself look like an idiot. Perhaps you would be better off speaking only when Oregon matters present themselves, and only when you have something constructive to say. Otherwise, you tend to cast a bad shadow on yourself, and your state affiliate. This is not me being an ass, so to speak, rather, I am trying to give you some friendly advice.
“The Southern Vice Chair is empty. ”
Miss me yet? 😛
#snarkasm
P@3
Because the California lp is run be people who want vassal states.
We had to fight a war of independence against them and the national lap despite guarantees of sovereignty.
Expect a future collapse of LPWA …. everything the statist in ca touch eventually has to revolt when morality and principles resurface.
Hi Brian, thanks for the report!
Two probable typos: ” He hopes that the LPWA bylaws will be changed to allow Libertarian endorsement of candidates from other parties.” ….I am guessing you meant LPCA? Otherwise, why would he be commenting on WA bylaws at a CA convention?
SusanMarie…I’m pretty sure it’s a separate first and middle name.
Sorry for the nitpicking.
-p
Thanks for these updates, Brian. Looking forward to tomorrow’s report.
Thanks for checking in, Brian. I was hoping for some information. Any info on who is running for offrice tomorrow?