Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
There Can Be Only One! Sort Of.
Over Memorial Day weekend, Bob Barr defeated George Phillies for
the Libertarian Part
y's
presidential nomination. But before the convention—indeed, before
Barr had even entered the race—Libertarians in New Hampshire and
Massachusetts circulated petitions to place Phillies on the ballot.
The goal was to make sure the LP could get ballot access, but the
result was that Phillies will be on the ballot in one or both
states.
Last night, Phillies fired off this message about New Hampshire:
Libertarian Party of New Hampshire Presidential candidate George Phillies has filed his candidacy papers with New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner. "Being nominated for President is the highest honor a political party can bestow on one of its members," Phillies said, "and I will do my utmost to show that New Hampshire's trust is not misplaced."
Speaking of the National Libertarian Party, which separately nominated a different Presidential candidate, Phillies said: "The New Hampshire Party has been collecting signatures for me since Spring 2007. Unfortunately, the people of New Hampshire in their wisdom do not permit political parties to replace their Presidential candidate. I was chosen as the candidate, and so I must remain."
The Libertarian Party is now collecting signatures to put Bob Barr on the ballot; according to most readings of the law, Barr and Phillies could both appear on the ballot as Libertarian presidential candidates. "The acceptance papers had to be filed in a ten day window in early June," Phillies told me over e-mail. "Waiting to see if Barr could get on the ballot before filing was not an option."
However, Phillies is actively trying to take his name off the ballot in Massachusetts, his home state; the ACLU is representing the LP in its effort to do just that. "I am the in-state champion of that effort," he told me. "I was the one who contacted the Secretary of the Commonwealth in the first place, the one who advised the ACLU and National that substitution was not being allowed, and the one who asked the ACLU if they would litigate. I also raised the in-state money that is supporting part of the petitioning for any Presidential candidate."
I've called the Barr campaign and state LP to see what they're doing. This whole affair isn't too strange in the thirdpartyverse. In 2000 the Arizona LP placed L. Neil Smith on the ballot instead of Harry Browne. This year the American Independent Party of California might put Alan Keyes on the ballot instead of Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin. (The AIP is part of the CP and always affirms its national candidate.)
Guy Montag|6.20.08 @ 3:22PM|#
So, this is turning out quite similar to the Democrat party, but
with fewer participants?
Is Phillies the Mrs. Clinton of the L party or something?
robc|6.20.08 @ 3:22PM|#
Considering the presidential election elects electors not
candidates, from a technical standpoint does it matter what name is
on the ballot? If the LP wins New Hampshire, as long as the
electors vote Barr/Root, it doesnt matter what name is on the
ballot.
In reality, this is just stupid. The GOP and Dems havent even had
their conventions to choose their candidates yet, so what names
will NH have on the ballot for them?
Taktix®|6.20.08 @ 3:23PM|#
No offense to Phillies, but what an asshole.
Sorry pal, you lost. There's lots of other whackjob parties to
join, but no, you have to get your share of the 2% the LP is
drawing this year.
This is why I am a small "l" libertarian...
|6.20.08 @ 3:27PM|#
So in other words, Ron Paul should have been gathering signatures to get on the ballot ahead of McCain? [smacks forehead] What a waste of time trying to get delegates instead!
Nigel Watt|6.20.08 @ 3:38PM|#
No offense to Phillies, but what an asshole.
Sorry pal, you lost. There's lots of other whackjob parties to join, but no, you have to get your share of the 2% the LP is drawing this year.
This is why I am a small "l" libertarian...
Um, I don't see what he's doing wrong here. Doesn't look as if he's
doing this out of megalomania, it looks like they had to use
somebody's name for the petitions and used his. Maybe I'm being to
generous.
|6.20.08 @ 3:42PM|#
You guys commenting are idiots and/or didn't RTFA. You don't
understand Libertarian/independent/minor party petition
requirements in these states.
There are insanely small petition windows to get on the ballot. In
MANY states the state LP will circulate petitions with placeholder
candidates. This is necessary to get the required number of
signatures in before the deadline. Otherwise you are waiting until
after someone is nominated which is often too late.
Some states don't have a problem with it. I remember circulating
petitions for my state in 2002 with a Lt. Governor candidate that
was later replaced. the sigs counted.
Apparently Mass and NH don't allow the placeholder. Phillies was
the placeholder and did not act as some LP dictator. People chose
to circulate petitions with his name in order to secure ballot
access for THE PARTY, not him personally.
He also have spend a lot of his time and money on ballot access and
in trying get his name taken off and replaced with Barr.
At this point, Phillies is on the ballot so that the libertarian
PARTY ca be on the ballot AT ALL.
If Bob Barr wants to be on the ballot, he can do what he needs to.
It's not the fault of Phillies.
Episiarch|6.20.08 @ 3:43PM|#
So is Barr going to chop his head off with a sword? And where is the Spaniard with a Scottish accent?
|6.20.08 @ 3:45PM|#
In other words it is state ballot access laws that make these situations happen. But some would rather blame actual libertarians who are dedicating their time and money for these efforts.
jtuf|6.20.08 @ 3:57PM|#
Um, maybe the Libertarian Party should hold it's convention early enough to have the actual candidate on the ballet access petitions. It seems odd to ask the court to make an aception because we couldn't pick a candidate in a more timely manner. We're also getting big enough to hold caucuses. How about having each state hold a caucuse in August the year before the election to pick one pledged delegate and several unpledged delegates. The number of unpledged delegates would depend on the state's population or on the number of members in that state. The unpledged delegates could hold their convention in December, 11 months before the general election. That would give more time for ballot access petitions and let regular members have more of a say.
|6.20.08 @ 4:00PM|#
The GOP and Dems havent even had their conventions to choose
their candidates yet, so what names will NH have on the ballot for
them?
In NH, the rules are different for recognized parties (not
particularly unusual). Recognized parties (those with at least 4%
of the vote in the last election) get a free pass for whoever they
nominate.
See RSA
652:11.
Apparently Mass and NH don't allow the placeholder.
AFAICT, that's not true (at least in NH). The requirements are
different though. For the party to be on the ballot, they need to
collect petitions = 3% of total votes cast in the last election.
For an individual, you need a fixed 3,000 votes. I believe that the
3% total in NH translates to about 12,000 petitions, so it is
clearly easier to get on as an individual.
For reference, see RSA
655:42.
|6.20.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Being a libertarian is similar to being a Chicago Cubs fan. We may be losers, but we're not dull.
|6.20.08 @ 4:30PM|#
jtuf | June 20, 2008, 3:57pm | #
Um, maybe the Libertarian Party should hold it's convention early enough to have the actual candidate on the ballet access petitions. It seems odd to ask the court to make an aception because we couldn't pick a candidate in a more timely manner.
Umm, you do realize that the two big parties have not yet "picked"
their candidate, correct? That doesn't happen until the national
conventions. The difference is that many states place extra burdens
to getting a spot on the ballot on any party that doesn't have
either a donkey or an elephant as a mascot.
EDIT: I see that MP beat me to the punch but I will still post this
to reinforce the idea that the "recognized" parties have it
easier.
|6.20.08 @ 4:53PM|#
One strategy is that -- in all states that make it easier to put
a name than a party on the ballot -- the state chapters can get
"George Washington" on the ballot. Then after the convention the
nominee can legally change his or her name to George Washington and
that name can be placed on the other forty-odd state ballots.
Voila.
Of course, choosing which name to prenominate might get a little
edgy, causing factions, splintering, and purity arguments. Other
possibilities: "Thomas Jefferson", "Oprah Winfrey", and "Neither
Republican Nor Democrat".
|6.20.08 @ 4:53PM|#
The Arizona story is a bit different.
There were two Arizona Libertarian Parties at that time.
The National LP disaffiliated the existing Arizona LP. Then, it
held an election amoung people who were members of the National LP
in Arizona, and then affiliated one of the competing Arizona LP's.
That Arizona LP sent a delegation to the National convention that
nominated Browne.
The Arizona Courts finally recognized that other Arizona LP as
being "official" in Arizona. That is, having control of the ballot
line.
That faction holding the ballot line nominated L. Neil Smith. The
Arizona LP recognized by the National LP didn't have ballot
status.
Robert|6.20.08 @ 5:02PM|#
maybe the Libertarian Party should hold it's convention early enough to have the actual candidate on the ballet access petitions.
For many years they did just that, nominating for prez & veep
at a convention the year before, that being one of the reasons.
|6.20.08 @ 5:57PM|#
I could not imagine a party becoming more marginalized than the Libertarian Party. Way to exceed expectations!
|6.20.08 @ 6:50PM|#
So Phillies on the ballot means congressional LP candidates can run, but there's still no way Barr can run? New England politics is so terribly confusing.
|6.21.08 @ 11:49AM|#
California is a different situation. The AIP-CA may decide to
change affiliation from the CP to America's Independent Party
National Committee (AIPNC). The AIPNC is a new political party that
will endorse candidates based upon principle, rather than party
affiliation. So AIPNC will endorse good candidates running as
Independents or within any other party. AIPNC is creating a new
party AND a new political party paradigm.
www.SelfGovernment.US or www.aipnc.com
www.alankeyes.com
|6.22.08 @ 2:53PM|#
The AIP-CA is a racist party. The reason I distrust the CP is
that they run as AIP in California. Oh, and I distrust the JBS
because they're always endorsing the AIP candidate.
If the CP wants to gain any credence and ever get more than a tenth
of the 0.5% vote that the LP gets, then they need to repudiate the
party that ran George Wallace.
George Phillies|6.23.08 @ 9:36AM|#
In Massachusetts, the nominating papers were legally required to
have on them the names of a candidate for President and Vice
President. LPMASS, the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts, had the
written commitment from the MA Secretary of State that we could do
a replacement when we knew who was nominated in Denver. We
therefore started petitioning, using a pair of names, namely George
Phillies and Chris Bennett. After the convention, I contacted the
Secretary of the Commonwealth's office asking for the form they had
promised. They answered 'no form--no substitution allowed'.
I contacted my attorney. I then contacted the ACLU. I advised
National that there were three sane choices, namely (i) continue
petitioning for Chris Bennett and I, (ii) continue petitioning for
Chris Bennett and I and litigate for substitution, or (iii) Start
over, and toss about 5000 raw signatures of the approximately
18,000 needed. The National Committee and its staff, not I, chose
option (ii). It would have been practicable but expensive to follow
option (iii) and repetition for Barr/Root.
My other major task in Massachusetts has been to persuade my
electors to agree to substitution, should it be legally possible.
Several of them, along with a voting majority of my state
committee, are Neopagan or members of the GLBTQ community, are
entirely aware that in 1999 Barr tried to organize an Army pogrom
against Wiccans at Fort Hood, in the same period wrote DOMA, was an
ardent drug warrior, in 2007 campaigned against opposition to
prayer in the public schools, in 2007 funded via his PAC many
Republican Congressmen including Senator John Sununu of New
Hampshire, etc etc etc, and do not find his flip flops on issues to
be credible. I had a bit of a challenge here, but have so far been
successful.
Whether litigation will be successful in Massachusetts, let alone
on the needed time scale, is not something I can predict.
In New Hampshire, the LPNH made its candidate decision well over a
year ago, so they would have enough time to petition. It was known
in advance that New Hampshire does not have candidate substitution,
so whoever they chose would be on the ballot. However, New
Hampshire for minor parties does not have exclusion, so any other
Libertarian candidate who wanted to collect signatures could do so.
The LPNH invited all the real candidates--everyone who had
declared--to appear at their state convention. I had already
promised to be elsewhere, and sent surrogates. I won their
nomination.
As most readers understand, ballot access rules differ from state
to state, and differ for major and minor parties (In Massachusetts,
"political parties" and "political designations".)
Barr/Root will join me on the New Hampshire ballot if they can
collect the needed signatures in the available time. The LPNH,
based on 2004 experience, concluded that this was not likely to be
successful; that's why they did what they did.
My presence on the New Hampshire ballot has very nearly no effect
on their presence on the ballot; we will both appear as
"Libertarian". My filing the 'Declaration of Intent' has absolutely
no effect on whether or not Barr/Root can collect the needed
signatures.
George Phillies
http://www.LibertyForAmerica.com
Eric Dondero|6.23.08 @ 9:37AM|#
Do you all honestly believe Phillies is doing this
"accidentally"? If that were the case he'd be screaming bloody
murder about this. Instead, he's making statements like "I'd be
honored to serve as the LP NH's Presidential candidate..."
This is a deliberate move on his part. He's causing the LP to
expend hugely more resources on yet another ballot drive.
Justin Grover|6.23.08 @ 12:20PM|#
I believe that Mr. Phillies will do the honorable thing and,
once Barr is on the ballot in NH, drop from the running.
I cannot imagine a better way to marginalize our party than by
splitting up into little petty factions, withholding ballot access
from our nationally chosen candidates.
|6.24.08 @ 10:58PM|#
Eric,
Wether Dr Phillies drops out or not Bob Barr will have to get the
3000 signatures to be on the NH ballot. He has 43 more days to do
that.
What New Hampshire needs is for a Liberterian Candidate to get 4%
of the vote. If there is no presidential candidate on the ballot
the odds become zero.
If Barr fails to get on the ballot, then the smart play is to leave
Phillies on and have Barr get up to NH and tell his constuents that
a vote for Phillies is a vote for Barr and more importantly a vote
to include the Libertarian Party as a major party.
I realize that some north eastern Libertarians will find Bob's
endorsement of george distastfull. But welcome to politics.
If I was Congressman Barr I would be on the phone right now asking
george how the two of them can play nice for the benefit of the
party. Time to unify the party, take a good look at the cards you
are holding, keep in mind that we only get a couple of cards to the
other parties quarter deck smile and bluff our way as far as we
can.
I wish the best of luck to Dr Phillies, Congressman Barr and the
rest of the NH and MA party candidates.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245