Libertarian National Committee Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos said on Monday that she signed and notarized the certificate of nomination for Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat, which was later delivered to the Colorado Secretary of State’s office. The Libertarian Party of Colorado previously announced that it planned to place independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the state ballot under the Libertarian line.
In a post on the LNC business list made that night, Harlos informed the Libertarian National Committee that she had signed and notarized the certificate, noting that the Secretary of State’s office only requires the signature of either the Committee Chair or the Secretary to be valid. She further noted that the certificate was then delivered in-person to the Colorado Secretary of State’s office, although she did not state she was responsible for delivery.
“Just to let the LNC know, the signed Certificate of Nomination of Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat, signed and notarized by me (the Colorado SoS does not require the signatures of both the Secretary and the Chair, just one of those two) has been delivered to and accepted by the Colorado Secretary of State,” Harlos initially wrote.
Harlos also informed the Committee that she had spoken with the Secretary of State’s office about the situation, which is aware that the Libertarian Party nominates its presidential ticket by national convention and that the national convention did not authorize the state committee of the Libertarian Party of Colorado to make its own presidential nomination.
Earlier this month, the Libertarian Party of Colorado announced that it had partnered with the campaign of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and would place him and running mate Nicole Shanahan on the state ballot. Kennedy also recently acknowledged the support of the Colorado affiliate in a press release. However, Kennedy likely did not need the support of the Libertarian Party of Colorado, as information publicly shared by volunteers indicate his campaign collected enough signatures to meet state requirements shortly after the Colorado party initially announced their support. The campaign has until Thursday to file the collected signatures.
Meanwhile, the Kennedy campaign has reportedly filed everything as independent, with no mention of libertarians.
https://ballot-access.org/2024/07/10/colorado-public-radio-story-on-libertarian-party-presidential-controversy/#comment-1235146
According to Colorado election officials it’s ambiguous as to which level of party files the paperwork.
https://www.denverpost.com/2024/07/10/colorado-libertarians-robert-f-kennedy-chase-oliver-presidential-ballot/
No. They can be named by the presidential candidate.
Don’t the elector candidate slate have to be named at some point in this process by the state party? Is Caryn Ann purporting to just pick them herself?
Is the normal process in Colorado simply a national certification of nomination and that’s sufficient, nothing needed from the state party, or is that national certificate plus some second form from the state party?
@Seebeck
Please explain to me about the teller count:
1) How blank ballots are protected from being used by someone who’d already voted?
2) Are ballots reviewable now post-convention?
3) Was an audit of the ballots made post-convention by tellers?
@Michael Seebeck:
Yes, complicit!
It is you who seems not to have much of a clue, though I’m certain you know perfectly well and are putting on this faux cluelessness. It won’t help you, you know. So thanks for going on record doubling down in writing. That could become very useful.
The convention was rife with irregularities, transgressions and violations. Non-delegates participated in uncounted standing votes and in voice votes. People of whom it was unclear whether or not they had been validly participating in voting on whether or not they had been validly seated. Mike ter Maat abused a faux point of personal privilege (if my memory serves me correctly) or of parliamentary procedure (according to Rectenwald) during balloting in order to manipulate the ongoing round of voting. Et cetera.
As a Colorado convention parliamentarian and teller, a member of both the National Party Judicial Committee and the Bylaws and Rules Committee, and the Chair of the Platform Committee, you are certainly complicit, messenger boy. And your response shows that you are more than aware of the fact, and are soiling your trousers at the mere thought that you might be held accountable.
To pretend that you are not complicit in fraud is simply absurd, insulting, and completely wrong. I suggest that if you want to distance yourself from the crime you are complicit in, you apologize instead of doubling down. But you can’t even bring yourself to concede that CAH is blaspheming in support of satanic child abuse, medical fascism and fraudulent convention results, after you yourself shared the evidence of her doing so… Which reminds me: you wanted me to “show up and tell her myself” – very well: her address, please. I will let her know that you sent me.
@Kraus:
It’s “due” respect, and it’s plenty.
I call it the Chair calling an Executive Committee meeting. I have no insight into her thinking. Not my department, either.
BTW, that meeting was called *after* I made the comment below. Check your timing.
And then check your attitude. Rather than throwing out wild accusations and asking questions of me or anyone else that we can’t answer, maybe you ought to remember that you don’t work there anymore, have no insight into party operations after you left, and instead have jumped ship to another party, so it’s none of your concern anymore.
@Nuna: Complicit?
You clearly don’t have much of a clue.
The balloting process was completely clean, with multiple layers of checks and balances built into the system to guarantee accuracy. That’s been the case for the past three conventions. If there were problems with the voting, then that’s an issue with the delegations. It’s not the tellers’ job to verify who is voting and who isn’t. The tellers’ job is to make sure that everything is tallied correctly.
To accuse me and the tellers of fraud is simply absurd, insulting, and completely wrong. I suggest that you apologize and revisit your faulty premises.
Seebeck – with all do respect WTF do you call this shit:
Subject: Re: NOTICE OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING 7/11/24 AT 9PM EASTER
We will not be closing public comment but we will shorten it.
For Thursday: Motion to authorize joint fundraising effort with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Angela McArdle
LNC Chair
By this time with all the other campaigns in the last 20 years there’s been an agreement in place. Where’s the agreement with Chase? Where the Jiont Fundraising. Message Coordination, Data Sharing, etc?
Less funds for ballot access have been approved this year vs every presidential year in the past.
The Chair is personally sabotaging the campaign & the LNC is compliant – but the recent motion is a start. The Chair should resign. I’m curious (of course) if perhaps she or baby daddy is being paid by the Kennedy Campaign directly or indirectly?
@Richard Winger
Though I think it made my point come across well, I’m not entirely satisfied with my previous reply, because you are one of the few people sufficiently serious and industrious to warrant a more thorough and comprehensive response. So let me try to give you one.
“I have never seen any party consensus from the beginning that decentralization is somehow equivalent to libertarianism.”
I hope you will agree with me that libertarianism is largely about individualism: the liberty of the individual. Which in turn is the decentralization taken to its furthest extent: the smallest unit of sovereignty is the sovereign individual, beholden to nobody but God via his or her own conscience and moral compass. As a general rule then, barring exceptions, it is in my opinion justified to say that libertarianism favors decentralization at every level: local government SHOULD be closer to the people and therefore more representative of them (whether it is in practice is a different matter, of course).
“Sometimes local governments are the most authoritarian of any government. And sometimes the national government is a source of freedom and liberty, forcing states to become more free.”
Yes, unfortunately this is true. Though these are exceptions to the rule.
For example, in Russia during the covid nonsense, president Putin promised there would not be any form of coercion or pressure towards untested and unsafe gene-therapy masquerading as “vaccination”. Yet oblast governors threatened to not repair roads and infrastructure in regions where too few people subjected themselves to untested and unsafe gene-therapy masquerading as “vaccination”. And in what is probably the greatest mistake of his entire presidency, Putin failed to hold these governors accountable.
But in most countries, especially less civilized ones than Russia, it was the federal/national governments forcing such evil nonsense on the regional and local governments, and not vice versa.
Let us consider the examples you provided. The second and fourth ones are indeed rare examples of the federal government (a centralized authority) protecting the rights of individuals (the most decentralized authority) from encroachment by draconian state governments (an intermediately [de]centralized authority).
But, as I previously pointed out, your first, third and fifth examples are the exact opposite. They are instances where the totalitarian federal government intercedes in order to force state governments to allow abuse of individuals’ liberty, each of which involve violations of the Non-Aggression Principle: the first a violation against God, against nature, against each other and against self; the third a violation against God, against unborn children and against the sanctity of life; and the fifth a violation against God, against nature, against the founding principles of the country and against the electorate.
Finally you speak of federal courts striking down and enjoining restriction to ballot access. Some of these are surely good and protect the rights of the individual. But many of them are also bad, and violate the rights of the individual. Therefore, you cannot say sweepingly that these actions of federal government against state government have promoted liberty rather than restricted it.
I don’t believe that the Libertarian Party has ever taken an explicit stand on the centralist-decentralist issue. The consensus seems to be that less government at all levels is to be preferred.
I tend toward the Madisonian outlook, as expressed in Federalist 10: divided sovereignty, checks and balances, and the division of powers are to be preferred because they make it hard for any one person or party to get full control.
Altho, I am becoming increasing concerned that the power of the Presidency has consistently been increased by both major parties in order to “break gridlock” (i.e overcome checks and balances). Trump’s threat to become “dictator for a day” (or so) gives me great pause. Altho he couches it in terms of reducing regulation and overcoming “deep state” obstructionism, the precedents set could be used by successors for more expansive purposes.
More and more, I think that the Swiss have the best system. They don’t elect a sole President, the way most countries do. They elect a seven member federal executive council, who rotate the largely ceremonial Presidency among themselves once each year. All significant parties are represented on the council , so it’s hard for them to keep secrets from each other. IMO, the Swiss have maintained a true federal system better than anyone else, including the US.
@Michael Seebeck
To be clear, as a Colorado convention parliamentarian and teller, a member of both the National Party Judicial Committee and the Bylaws and Rules Committee, and the Chair of the Platform Committee, you absolutely very much are a messenger boy.
Though as you say, not just a mere messenger boy either, because in those capacities you are also yourself complicit in the fraudulent final two rounds of voting at a national convention fraught with irregularities and transgressions, which illegally resulted in Oliver and ter Maat’s nominations…
@Richard Winger
“In 2003 the national government struck down state laws forbidding oral and anal sex, even between married couples in private. […] In 1965 the national government struck down a Connecticut law that banned birth control […] In 1920 the national government forced states to let women vote.”
Yes, I agree, centralized national government is far more totalitarian than decentralized local government. Why are you giving arguments against your erroneous conclusion. Or rather, why are you drawing an erroneous conclusion from the ample evidence to the opposite you yourself provide?
Thanks, Seebeck, I know how to do research. If I ask questions it’s because I have some passing curiosity into a subject, but not enough to dig into it. I’m asking someone who already knows an answer to spoon feed it to me, if anyone who knows cares to do that, not for someone to tell me that I can look it up, which I already know.
I have now spent more time on this than my actual curiosity level, so I no longer care. I will not follow your links. My morbid curiosity level, rubbernecking at your dumpster fire highway pile up party, has to be balanced against many other claims on my time.
So, whatever the answer is; good luck with that. I no longer care to know it. In fact, I would rather not know it.
I am a long-time member of the Libertarian Party and I have never seen any party consensus from the beginning that decentralization is somehow equivalent to libertarianism. Sometimes local governments are the most authoritarian of any government. And sometimes the national government is a source of freedom and liberty, forcing states to become more free.
In 2003 the national government struck down state laws forbidding oral and anal sex, even between married couples in private. In 1965 the national government made it possible for black citizens to register to vote in the deep south. In 1965 the national government struck down a Connecticut law that banned birth control. In 1865 the national government outlawed slavery. In 1920 the national government forced states to let women vote. As to ballot access and the freedom to vote for the candidate of one’s choice, federal courts have struck down or enjoined at least one ballot access restriction in every state during the period 1968 thru the present.
@Nuña, yes, we are, but frankly, she is doing nothing what you allege and has not done so. If you want to tell her that, show up and tell her yourself. I’m no messenger.
@Kraus, there has been no attempt by the LNC to sabotage the Chase campaign; in fact, they have allocated funds to several states, including my own AL, to get him on the ballot. As for a delay in the Certificate of Nomination, well, guess what, the duties of the Secretary are plenty and take up a lot of time, coupled with health and personal stuff., and other committees. And BTW, the CO deadline is in 2 months. It might help you to cut the sour grapes for once. You used to be far better than that.
@Curious: rather than spoonfeed you and have it questioned, I gave you the sources to see for yourself.
RE: https://x.com/carynannharlos/status/1810130491921612845
“LOLOLOL dumbasses. […] My fucking god both the Kennedy team and @lpco were amatuers here […] If Chase is not on the ballot, I did everything I could, but it sure as fuck won’t be Kennedy. Whored yourselves out for nothing!”
My, my, my. A real charmer, isn’t she?
And she claims to be not only libertarian – or rather Libertarian – but also some kind of Christian – or rather some strange kind of preterist schismatic “theologian”? With that mouth and with such loyalties? Hah!
She can gloat all she wants, but regardless of whether the LPCO is also doing so, she certainly is clearly whoring herself out to an anti-liberterian and anti-Christian candidate.
@Seebeck: Are you still co-hosting that YouTube series on Roberts’ Rules with her? If so, please be so kind as to give her my recommendation that she stops blaspheming in support of satanic child abuse, medical fascism and fraudulent convention results. Thanks!
Curiosity has its limits. Should I be sorry I asked instead? If anyone who doesn’t vastly overestimate the importance of the answer to me wants to answer, how about a one word answer such as state, national, or either?
Again I say: Catfight between Colorado Mises Caucus’ Caryn Ann Harlos and Colorado Mises Caucus’ Hannah Goodman to settle this, when? And will there be popcorn or should I bring my own?
The LP just keeps stacking embarrassment on embarrassment. If the Colorado SoS accepts this bizarre argument attempting to seize power away from state affiliates and give it to the national party, then the LPCO should disaffiliate immediately to retain its own ballot access line and make its own nominations. And so should all other state affiliates. Nothing says libertarian quite like nationalization and centralization, huh.
See page 4 at https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Candidates/packets/PresidentAndVicePresident.pdf. Ms. Harlos has posted the Oliver form on her X for all to see (https://x.com/carynannharlos/status/1810130491921612845), and it specifically says “Name of Party Chair or Secretary” in the “National Convention Information” section.
The certificates of nomination used to be done prior to the end of the convention & delivered the SOS’s within a couple days after.
I was contacted by some of the powers that be about 6 weeks prior to the convention to go over the process since no one on the COC or LNC had any knowledge of how this worked & all the past staff with knowledge had been fired or let go. I also provided Bob Johnson’s contact info since he was always the person to directly lead these efforts. After the convention I confirmed that no one bothered to follow up with Bob & he was later hired to take care of this process by the Chase Campaign.
So my question is – why wasn’t the CO Certificate of Nomination taken care of 6+ weeks ago? How many other states has this not yet been done for? How stupid it would be to not get Chase on the ballot because a very simple step was dropped.
If you are sick of these deliberate attempts by the LNC to sabotage the Chase campaign by the LNC – please join me here: http://www.liberalpartyusa.org
Does the Colorado law specify state or national party chair/secretary?