Thursday, February 20, 2014

Proposal #25: Require Affiliates to Respect Presidential Ticket

DRAFT This is a draft proposal which has not yet been voted on by the committee.

Proposed by Alicia Mattson.

  • Problem: The relationship between the Party and its affiliates should be one of mutual cooperation. But the legal reality is that the Party cannot place our Presidential ticket on any ballots, and we depend on cooperative affiliates to do that faithfully. But if a rogue affiliate decides to place candidates on the ballot other than the ones chosen by the Party, the only recourse currently available from the Party is for the LNC to disaffiliate them. That action may result in serious legal difficulties. The Party might lose ballot status in that state and have no time to qualify the nominated ticket for the current election cycle. The Party (rather than a new affiliate or the rogue affiliate that caused the situation) would likely be the one to pay for an expensive ballot access drive to re-gain that status for future elections. Thus the Party has to either do nothing in response to such rogue action, or it must shoot itself in the foot. Also, due to legal realities of varying state laws, the affiliate's Secretary of State might even continue to let the disaffiliated affiliate continue to operate and use the Party name, leaving the Party with a need to file legal action to defend its trademarked name.
  • Solution: Create an option for a less-serious consequence than disaffiliation for a rogue affiliate that does not respect our Party's choice of Presidential nominees. If it were disputed about whether an affiliate had "exhausted reasonable efforts" as described in this proposal, the question could be settled by a vote of the Convention at the time the Credentials Committee report is adopted.
  • Benefits:

Bylaws of the Libertarian Party


  1. No affiliate shall place on their state ballot for the general election any Presidential/Vice-Presidential ticket except the one chosen in accordance with these bylaws unless the affiliate is legally prevented from placing the Party-authorized nominees on the ballot and the affiliate has exhausted reasonable efforts to overcome such legal prohibition. Any affiliate who does not so respect the Party's ticket shall not be eligible to send any delegates to the Party's Conventions until convention delegates adopt a resolution with a two-thirds vote reinstating that affiliate's delegate seating privileges. This section shall not be construed so as to penalize an affiliate for using ballot access drive stand-in candidates, provided that the affiliate subsequently replaces the stand-in candidates with the Party-authorized nominees.
[re-number subsequent clauses]

  1. The subject matter jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee is limited to consideration of only those matters expressly identified as follows:
    1. suspension of affiliate parties (Article 6, Section 67),


  • removed - red, strikethrough
  • added - blue, underline, italic

1 comment:

  1. I oppose this amendment.. and I can give you a perfect example of why, and why its author has a guilty mind about the matter.

    In 2012 the actual delegation of the Libertarian Party of Oregon was not seated at the National Convention. This was a breach of contract by the LNC Inc. When someone violates an agreement you, as a counterparty, are not morally obliged to uphold your end of the agreement.

    There was a great amount of consideration given to not listing Gary Johnson on the ballot in Oregon as a result. We ultimately decided to do so, because it was of more benefit to the members of the LPO than not, not out of any deference to the LNC Inc.

    Had we not listed the presidential ticket on the ballot, it would have certainly been moral for us to have made that decision. Whether or not the LNC Inc and its next leadership cared to be punitive regarding that matter should be a matter of discretion and discernment - the traits we expect in states-people... not rigidly codified into law and doled out automatically. (We have a process for disaffiliating affiliates who do not meet the standards the party desires and it has high hurdles for a reason)

    It is precisely this type of tyranny that we typically oppose as an organization.

    Needless to say, should this pass it will be weighed in due consideration when we decide whether to maintain our relationship with the LNC Inc at our 2015 convention.

    The Libertarian Party of Oregon has an unresolved legal dispute with the LNC Inc resulting from their hiring of the Oregon Republican Party’s Lawyer, then sponsoring his litigation against us to through signing a conflict of interest release in pursuing an agenda of replacing our state party leadership through a sponsored coup, initiated by officers of the LNC at the time and composed of current members of the bylaws committee. Further our delegation was not seated in 2012 due to a poisoned credentials committee which included several of the plaintiffs in the dispute and the Chairperson of the LNC at the time was willing to allow that committee to violate the bylaws and their authority under RROR at the Las Vegas Convention.

    You may consider my statements on this matter bias or experience depending on your disposition.