A message to our fellow Libertarians, from your newly elected Judicial Committee
We’d like to again thank the delegates at the 2026 Libertarian National Convention for their trust and votes electing us to the Judicial Committee this year.
We had quite a decision to make for filling the other five positions, and we received a lot of solicited and unsolicited advice. Thank you all sincerely for your input.
The last time something like this happened was in 2016. Three members of the Judicial Committee were elected at the 2016 Convention and had to appoint the other four members. They chose from people who did not run that year, considering the pool of those who failed to receive over 50% of votes to be insufficiently qualified by the bylaws. In support of maintaining this standard is the fact that the assembled delegates in 2026 voted down motions to approve the next 5 highest vote recipients in the list.
First off, thank you to the other 15 people who stepped up to run this year. We would have been pleased to serve with a great many of you.
The primary qualifications/criteria for determining our pool of candidates was as such:
A Party member for at least 4 years (per Bylaws Article 8, Section 1)
Does not currently serve on the LNC (per Bylaws Article 8, Section 1)
Not in the JC nomination list for this year (per 2016 precedent & failed motions from the floor)
Has been elected with >50% of the delegate votes at any national convention in the past, for any position (LNC, JC, POTUS/VPOTUS)
In attempting to determine the will of the delegates, we noted that something we had in common is our long-term activism within the party, and used that as a criteria as well.
We then tried to choose from people who have not been notable lightning rods of controversy over the past decade or so.
Our list of victims appointees is as follows:
Mr. Patrick Dixon
Former LPTexas Chair, Served on the LNC for 2 terms, recipient of the 2014 Thomas Jefferson Leadership Award, Served on Investigatory Committee re: 2021 LPNH matter
Ms. Mary Gingell
Former LNC Chair 1991-1993, Former LNC Vice Chair 1983-1985, 1989-1991), Former LP California Chair 1981-1983
Mr. Sam Goldstein
Former LNC At-Large, former Chair LPIN, Former Convention Oversight Committee
Dr. Chuck Moulton
Former LNC Vice Chair, Former LPPA Chair, Former LPVA Chair, Former Judicial Committee Chair (2016-2018), Creator of the Moulton Maneuver
Mr. Geoffrey Neale
Former LNC Chair 2002-2004 & 2012-2014, Former LPTexas Chair, Recipient of the 2022 Hall of Liberty Award
Each of these individuals have multiple decades of experience in Libertarian activism just like we do, have shown solid understanding of our Party, its Operations and our Bylaws, are rules oriented and fair, and have come to different but reasonable conclusions on a number of issues over their many years in our party.
We’d just like to personally & publicly thank them and also apologize to them for subjecting them to this.
It’s our honor to serve with them, and serve the Party.
Thank you,
Avens O’Brien & Ken Moellman
I’m disappointed that certain candidates weren’t elected, especially but not only Jake Porter and Mike Seebeck.
On the other hand, in filling the vacancies, it does make sense to choose people other than those who ran and were rejected by a majority of delegates, even though I think some of those people SHOULDN’T have been rejected by a majority of the delegates.
I have always wondered why the JC election is at the end of the convention. Granted, in years long past, they rarely did more than sit in the background and wait.
In those days, the JC seemed to be the place to go if you lost every other election you stood for at the convention.
The JC should be populated by people who have decided they do not want to try to be involved in other areas of the national party, and therefore it should actually be one of the first actions after the convention is called to order. Since it is a written ballot that takes time to be counted, collect that ballot first, then continue with the normal order of business while the votes are being tabulated.
If you have to go to a second round, you can easily insert it back into the business when the counting concludes.
If you did this, the people who do not get elected to the JC are then free to run for other office as they wish. You would get the best crop of candidates, since they would arrive at the convention knowing that they want to seek a seat on the JC.
And the candidates would obviously not include anyone who had already announced they were seeking another office. This could reduce the chance if the JC being used as a shadow LNC to try to control the real one. It would hopefully return the JC to the “non-political“ status it is supposed to have.
The Cambridge ballot arrangement Guarantees a single ballot, a complete committee assuming that there were enough candidates, and almost all voters able to think there was someone they prefered to the alternatives on the committee.
It was the first election. That order changed.
I certainly agree that Mr. Seebeck, who — in my opinion based on what public information is known of proceedings — served honorably on the JC in the past, was likely mistreated in the handling of the appointments.
The Judicial Committee is certainly not the easiest place to serve these days. We all know that the national committee can frequently be much like the Marx Brothers’ movie Duck Soup, so I can only guess what goes on internally in the JC. They certainly aren’t Maytag repair men anymore!
Anger and frustration over the process are certainly understandable. Unfortunately, there is probably nothing to do about. Sometimes “innocent bystanders” are caught up in a purge along with the people that need to be taken down.
I think that posting their reasoning is the only way for the JC to avoid endless questions throughout the term. Right or wrong, it is what it is.
<>
I disagree with this. I understand Mr. Seebeck’s frustration. What we need at the national and state level (here I am talking about California) is discipline. We have to start our conventions on time so we have a chance of getting everything done that needs to get done. A few years ago in California the Party Secretary and I were having lunch when she told me we could have started the day’s meeting (at a state Party convention) on time. We had a quorum and the secretary told the Party chair we have a quorum let’s start the meeting. The chair would not do it because she was waiting for stragglers to come in, so we started the meeting 30 to 45 minutes late. This must not happen.
As many know when Chase Oliver was nominated to be our presidential candidate this occurred in the middle of the night and his acceptance speech was given in the middle of the night when most who would be watching C-Span (80%, 90%, 95%, . . .) were probably asleep. For the first time in history we were so rushed we did not do a roll call of the states when doing the first round of balloting. This is unacceptable. We were so late because we started the meetings late every day the convention was being held.
The convention held in Columbus also started late on Sunday so as happened this year the delegates did not elect the judicial committee. If there is a quorum we must start the meetings on time. There is no excuse for not starting on time. To those that arrive late that is on you and those who arrive on time should not be penalized because some (many?) are late.
Also, at another social media post in another social media site some are claiming the makeup of the judicial committee is invalid because the members were selected in violation of the Party bylaws. If this is true we have problems.
Yes, conventions should start on time. Breaks should be taken as scheduled, and only last the amount of time scheduled. And of course, elections should be conducted fairly and honestly.
Delegates should appear on time, come to order quickly when requested, and not be disruptive or kidnap the microphone to bring up issues not on the agenda.
I attended seven consecutive national conventions (2006-2018), as well as the online convention for the nomination of the presidential ticket in 2020. I left your party on July 4, 2020, and I’ve never looked back.
There were a couple of conventions where there was order. There were very few that started on time, and a few that ended on time — with unfinished business. I don’t recall a single one without disruption from unruly delegates, demanding their issues be addressed, regardless of what the approved agenda was.
At my first convention, I remember seeing a delegate spit on another delegate after the close of the convention. I should probably have realized then that this was a party filled with unruly and disruptive people who really didn’t care about conducting business. They just want their day in the sun — their perceived 15 minutes of fame.
If you want order then fix the problem. Don’t allow disruptive people. Don’t allow people to get up on stage and try to start a strip routine. Don’t allow groups of delegates to parade around the floor waving dildos, while the party is conducting business.
If you want to fix it, fix it. I don’t even pretend to anymore, which is why I left.
As I said, he appears to have been treated unfairly. But that is normal in the party with no principles.
Well don’t just stand there José; strike them down with lightning!
Well taken. See you in two years, I will do what I can.
>They chose from people who did not run that year, considering the pool of those who failed to receive over 50% of votes to be insufficiently qualified by the bylaws. In support of maintaining this standard is the fact that the assembled delegates in 2026 voted down motions to approve the next 5 highest vote recipients in the list.
Bullfeathers. Everyone who ran was qualified per the Bylaws, else they couldn’t run.
There was no such standard. Ten years ago was an outlier. It happened ONCE, and that is no “standard.” By that idea, Jimmy Weeks was every Chair candidate over the past decade, too.
If you want a standard, then it was last term, where 6 where elected and one was vacant until the 7th became eligible and was then appointed.
The reality was that there were certain candidates that should not be on there (Roots, Krawchuk, Tarnoff, Chadderon, and a passel of others), and rather than pass over them in favor of others who were actually qualified (Porter, Harlos, me, Schmidt), to avoid controversy and appear “unbiased” they decided to pass over everyone who put forth the time and effort to run and instead put in 5 people who not only did not run, but between them had a total of 1 write-in vote (Moulton from OH). One of them was from 30+ years ago? Really?
That’s not respecting the will of the delegates. That’s a cop-out, pure and simple.
As for the motions:
The motions voted down were done so in the interests of time only because the convention schedule was so messed up that everything on Sunday and Monday was rushed.
I voted against them (and my own interests!) for that reason. I put my trust in those two. It appears that I was mistaken. I was told directly I was in consideration and that I was wanted on the committee. Apparently I was lied to. So much for the NAP, eh?
And while I am very upset about my own situation on this, it’s also about integrity of the process and its people. That was very much compromised. All of the other 15 candidates got screwed, whether they should have been elected or not. The one round of election was fair and accurate, undoubtedly, because the Tellers did their jobs and did it excellently as I trained them to do. After the fact, not so much.
That shadow will be over this JC the entire term.
I agree with you about what they should have done and that not doing so lacked courage, which honestly could be a bit troubling for a judicial committee. We also had countless people approach us saying “surely, Jake will be chosen. He only missed the 50% by a couple of votes. Don’t worry.” I’m not aware if he had private conversations with either of the winners.
However, the winners were given full reign to do as they pleased with this and that they did. I honestly wish they hadn’t bothered trying to explain themselves with it. The bottom line, they had the power and they used it. I only wish that had been the explanation for chosing the correct people out of those running and wanted by the delegates.
I don’t think the will of the delegates was done on several votes. Across factions and throughout the room, several had no clue what was being voted on due to lack of explanation, lack of re-stating of motions (especially after several amendments), and things misspoken by the Chair only to be clarified after a vote was completed. Many times loud and legitimate calls for division were ignored. The organization of the meeting was weak at best. I’m annoyed at my own time at the mic being slashed for a pretend catch up of the schedule.
I do think, despite all of this, the party is healing and will come out the other side overall in a better place than before this convention. It’s not how we wanted it to go or think it should have gone. But I do really think we’ll be ok. The appointed JC are not at all terrible choices and hopefully there will be few instances of need of the judicial committee at all.