Submission from Kyle Markley:
I sent the following message to the Libertarian National Committee in my personal capacity as a life member of the national party, and not as a statement from the Libertarian Party of Oregon Board and without review by any other person on that Board. You may publish it.
Libertarian National Committee:
Greetings from Oregon, the state mentioned four times in the Chair’s August 9 message to the Libertarian Party of New Mexico. The Libertarian Party of Oregon went through a bylaws crisis in 2011 and then a nearly decade-long court battle costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I have been warily watching the actions of the National LP regarding New Mexico and Idaho, and I greatly regret that I need to contact you about what you are doing.
It appears that many people in National have an incorrect understanding of the relationship between the national party and the state parties. You must keep it firmly in mind that state parties are independent entities from the national party. State parties are entities created under and governed by state law, and their affiliation with the national party is by mutual consent and does not in any way subordinate the state party to the national. The national party has absolutely no authority to make binding pronouncements about state conventions, bylaws, or officers. National’s opinions on those subjects are unenforceable.
During the Oregon dispute, the Secretary of State continuously recognized a single faction here as the state party. My faction maintained ballot access throughout the dispute, and the other faction never had it. Even when the national party temporarily recognized the other faction as its affiliate, the Secretary of State did not waver. The lesson you should learn from Oregon is that the opinions of the LNC and of the national Judicial Committee held no sway. State law mattered. Case law mattered. National’s opinion did not.
When there is a dispute regarding a state affiliate among the membership of a state affiliate, you are not a party to that dispute. Yes, national needs to be able to identify who its state affiliates are, but that does not grant it jurisdiction to hold court over what the state party bylaws are or who the state party leadership are. It receives that information from the state affiliate as an administrative matter, and if the national party is dissatisfied with what it receives or with the conduct of the state affiliate, it may choose to continue the affiliation, or to disaffiliate and possibility affiliate with some other group. Your authority is to affiliate, or not, and that’s all. Bear in mind that ballot access will not automatically flow to whomever you recognize as your affiliate.
I take no position on the merits of the disputes in New Mexico and in Idaho. I have not studied them and do not intend to. My opinion would have as much weight as yours, which is to say, none. You should tell the aggrieved members of those affiliates that the national party does not have the authority to settle these disputes. You should not try to bluff state parties.
-- Kyle Markley
Hi Gene Berkman,
Regarding your statement: “Not single State that joined the Conferate States held a popular vote.” According to the article in Wikipedia about the Confederate States of America, referendums to ratify state convention declarations of secession were held in Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee and Virginia.
Thank you George for that clarification.
The Libertarian Party qualified for the California ballot in 1980 by registering more than 61,000 voters as Libertarians – they actually registered
89,000. California Libertarians wanted to qualify the party, so it would have ongoing ballot access, but faced the question of the regulation that the State of California imposed on political parties. The answer was to create a separate group – called a volunteer organization according to the custom in California.
California Libertarians filed in the primary for Central Committee to maintain control of the Libertarian Party of California. At the same time, Libertarian activists formed the California Libertarian Council, modeled after the California Democratic Council, or the California Republican Assembly. At the time, before a court case changed the law, parties in California were prohibited from endorsing candidates in the primary, but volunteer organizations could endorse. Volunteer organizations could also promote ideological tendencies in order to influence the party they were supporting.
After the Kochs withdrew funding from The Libertarian Party, and people saw that 1980 was not a breakthrough election for The Libertarian Party, there were not enough activists to maintain two organizations. Also, it was believed that having two organizations would confuse people we were trying to recruit. So the California Libertarian Council was mothballed, with the LPC as the only activist organization promoting Libertarian candidates in California. Since there were few primary contests, and since the State of California regulators did not see the LPC as significant enough to pay attention to, the LPC was able function as the CLC had functioned, and also qualify candidates.
In some states, the state Libertarian organization is a voluntary association. In other states, in is a creation of state law whose organization is fixed by the state. Therefore, so Gene and Eli are both right, in some states.
Massachusetts has both. The Libertarian Party of Massachusetts, when it exists because Libertarian is a major party, has an 80 potential member state committee elected at the Presidential Primary, one man and one woman from each State Senate district. The Libertarian Association of Massachusetts (we actually have two of them at the moment, though they deny it) is a private organization that operates a State PAC and a Federal PAC.
Eli S.
Nobody is denying a role to the Libertarian National Committee. The role it has taken historically is to support – financially and logistically – the petition drives for ballot access. There is no evidence that the current LNC has any plans in this regard, or even cares about ballot access.
The major parties take a more active role in providing financial and logistical support to campaigns in the various states. The LNC has not had
resources to match this effort by the bipartisans. Again, there is no evidence that the current LNC has any plans in this regard. So the interference by the LNC in the Libertarian Parties of the various states is pure bullying with no reward for accepting the discipine of the National Party.
When the Koch brothers were putting money into the Libertarian Party, it went to ballot access drives and campaign expenses, but this was done outside the Libertarian National Committee. Koch funded the Ed Clark campaign for Governor of California in 1978, the Clark for President Campaign in 1980, and the Dick Randolph campaign for Governor of Alaska in 1982. At the same time the Koch operation filled many of the seats on the LNC with people who were paid by other Koch operations. But the LNC was neither a conduit for campaign money, nor a means of disicplining the Parties in the various states.
The position adopted by McArdle and this LNC amounts to total, unlimited power to appoint and dismiss state party leadership whenever they want, and to impose whatever state party bylaws they want, and any time, by simple majority, for whatever reason they and they alone think is good enough.
Political parties are not creatures of state law. They are voluntary associations and, absent state monopolization of the ballot, it is likely that libertarians would affiliate primarily in a single national party that would at least have some formal relationship to local affiliates. I know that just because most people tend to identify with and gravitate toward the national sphere, which, as a local activist, is in my opinion unfortunate. But I don’t deny the reality of the market. People can justifiably be concerned with infighting and not want us Libertarians to go the way of socialist parties in the early 70s and fragment into decades-long irrelevance. I’m not a big fan of the recent leadership, but denying any role for the national party is just unrealistic and, I think, valorizes the State.
What the LNC is doing is a dangerous game. For them. They have embarked on a train of self destruction as affiliation & dis-affiliation is a two way street. Once their little game is uncovered, and now it surely is, what is to keep all states from dis-affiliation from their “brand” and leaving them with nothing to “govern”? Their actions will likely backfire and they will no longer hold power or influence of any kind.
As true Libertarians in the USA, we can stand together and over come any tyranny that tries to tare us apart. Thanks for printing the truth, George Phillies, it will keep us free.
Markley covers the matter accurately and succinctly.
But the only likely way to get the LNC to stop trying to exercise authority it doesn’t have is for the state parties it attacks to make those attacks costly, up to and including disaffiliation and departure with their ballot lines.
Bullies normally don’t stop beating up their victims in response to pleas to abide by the rules. They usually need a good punch in the nose to get their attention.
The same basic issue is generally true of Rethuglicans and Democraps as well: State parties are independent. OTOH, and again, speaking from the Green world in the past, national has to certify state parties.
This is an excellent commentary.
“You must keep it firmly in mind that state parties are independent entities from the national party. State parties are entities created under and governed by state law, and their affiliation with the national party is by mutual consent and does not in any way subordinate the state party to the national. ”
That is Federalism as properly understood. The so-called “Mises” Caucus claims to believe that the relationship between the States and the Federal Government should be based on seeing States as Independent entities from the Federal Government and affiliation with The United States should be by mutual consent.
The difference appears to be a contempt for popular sovereignty on the part of the “Mises” Caucus. The one example of states asserting sovereignty that several “Mises” Caucus leaders and advisors point to is the Slaveholder’s Rebellion initiatated by South Carolina in 1861.
This is not self determination as defined on pages 108-110 of “Liberalism” by Mises (HC edition). Mises calls for popular sovereignty – the relation of the state to the federal government should be decided by a vote of the people. Not single State that joined the Conferate States held a popular vote. It was decided by small groups of White male politicians put in office by a small percentage of the White male population; Women and African peopled were denied the vote.
Mises supported popular sovereignty. He would support the Libertarian Parties of the various states being able to choose what the membership wants – affiliation or disaffiliation, and of course the internal structure of the Libertarian Party in each state should be under the control of the members in each state.
There is no room in the Party of Libertarian for pseudo Leninist neo-Confederates who smear Ludwig von Mises by claiming to be influenced by him.
I think that Kyle has a clear perspective of this matter based on his experience.
There will be an LNC Executive Committee meeting to consider NY and PA ballot access issues and the LP New Mexico Constitution and Bylaws.
Register to attend electronically here: https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/g/lnc-business/c/wjT0rj4IsvM