The National Committee also appears to have assumed that the State Party was legally required to run the Presidential candidate chosen at the National Committee’s national convention. Apparently a telephone call was made to an official in the Arizona State government, asking whether such an obligation existed. The answer was in the affirmative. It was clearly not recognized that this is a highly esoteric legal question, referring to an issue that may well not have arisen before in the history of Arizona, and that a credible answer required a written inquiry and extensive research by the Arizona state government. The minor detail that, while the Tucson group was willing to put Browne on the ballot, it did not have ballot access, was ignored. Also, once the Phoenix Group had been disaffiliated, it is not clear why it was being assumed by the National Committee that the Phoenix group would honor the nominating convention of the Libertarian Party of the United States and not, say, the Revolutionary Socialist Party, since the Phoenix group, by the choice of the LNC, had no further affiliation with Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
Based on my conversations with its members, the Phoenix group did not view itself as being bound by decisions of political parties with which it was not affiliated, including the Revolutionary Socialists, the Democrats,…or the Libertarian Party of the United States. They emphasized to me that the LNC disaffiliated them, not the other way around, so National Party members had no legitimate complaint when the Phoenix Group accepted the validity of the National Committee’s action. The National Committee had the idea that it could simply send the Phoenix group on its way, and had done so. Seemingly, the National Committee had assumed that without National Party affiliation the Phoenix group would roll over and die. This assumption proved to be invalid.
The Incoming Train Wreck
In 1999 it was already obvious that to a fair number of people that the split between the two Arizona Libertarian Parties might well cause problems with ballot access in Arizona. Phoenix group members attending the Summer 1999 LNC meeting specifically raised the issue. LNC member and Arizona resident John Buttrick raised it again at the November LNC meeting. In December 1999, Libertarian Bob Hunt raised the issue to a wider Libertarian audience via email lists. In Spring 2000, ballot access expert Richard Winger yet again raised this issue with the Libertarian body politic. No action was taken by any group, during the statutory petitioning period, to put a national candidate on the ballot in Arizona as an independent.
Prior to the National Convention I sent a memo to a variety of Libertarian lists, pointing out the issues and the alternatives—none of which looked very promising at the time. That memo, which had nothing to do with my campaign for National Chair, came after a bit of discussion on the Presidential nomination issue. Here’s what I reported in early Summer 2000:
“In Arizona, there appear to be only two points at which being the state- recognized party actually has material consequences:
1) The major party is given the list of registered voters.
(2) The major party appoints Presidential Electors and determines whose name will appear on the election Ballot. There are also points where being the state-recognized Party has political significance but does not inhibit freedom of action.
The first point affects how people run for office in Arizona. The second point matters for the rest of us. The core issue is that the Phoenix group agrees that the LNC has chosen the Tucson group as its affiliate. This means, in the Phoenix group’s opinion, that the Tucson group has the privilege and duty of getting the LNC’s Presidential candidate on the ballot.
I will again avoid names, but it’s even money that the candidate we choose in Anaheim will not be the Arizona Party’s choice. If the choices differ, the LPUS Presidential candidate will not be on the ballot in a simple way in all 50 states.
How can Libertarians outside of Arizona get around this? I now list alternatives. I’m not saying which one I support. I’m not saying each one is a good idea.
Alternatives
We have several choices of action here as ways of dealing with the issue. I first note several solutions which would work if they succeeded, but which are not obviously likely to succeed.
- Nominate a mutually acceptable candidate. This requires that there is a mutually acceptable candidate.
- Put our candidate on the Arizona ballot by petition. This requires nine and a half thousand signatures (reports Richard Winger) due by June 14. [June 29 was the date under the pre-1999 law.] Winger noted this option on the lpus lists several weeks ago. Almost no one bought into it. Given available time, the logistics approach the impossible. Also, the petition must name the candidate. We can’t, e.g., petition for Hess and then try to substitute Gorman or Browne after the convention.
I am reasonably certain that no current Presidential candidate has the resources to do his own petitioning. If the LNC runs a drive for one of our candidates, that drive must be done in advance of the convention, and must specify the candidate by name. A candidate with ballot access in Arizona would have a real leg up on getting the nomination, a leg up courtesy of the LNC. I report with absolute certainty that such an action by the LNC would have very severe internal repercussions within the Libertarian Party. (I have no evidence that anyone is trying to do this, and it is probably too late now.)
- Sue the Arizona group. Make them run our candidate. My good legal sources say this approach will fail badly, either in the State Courts or the Federal Courts. Also, this approach will permanently poison relations between LPUS and the Phoenix group.
- Post convention, the Libertarian National Committee could announce that it had reconsidered. For example, it could decide that the Bylaws require removals to be for cause, and it did not have adequate cause to strip the Phoenix group of affiliation. If the Phoenix group accepted re-affiliation, our candidate would go on the ballot. However, my sources on the National Committee say that current LNC members will not vote for this approach. If you want to try this, at Anaheim you need to replace a majority of the National Committee.
There are also paths that do not solve the problem in 2000, but could solve the problem by 2004.
- Ignore it. Hope the issue goes away. It’s worked for other parties. Richard Winger has listed major-party examples in the 20th century where this approach was followed. A State Party did not run the national candidate in one election. They did in the next. If enough personalities turn over on both sides, many things become possible.
- Get ballot access for the group the LNC recognizes. This approach requires a modest change of name for the Tucson group—not a problem; Al Gore’s party is not the “Democratic” in one state—and registering a large number of people into that party.
- Start from the beginning. Get state recognition under some name for a third Libertarian group, one that does not presently exist, does not have a long list of feuds, does not allow for some period the principals of the first two groups to serve as its statewide officers, and which has as a membership condition for those principals that they may not resort to litigation against any of the (now three) Libertarian groups in Arizona.
Finally, there’s a chance to beat up on a government agency through the court system:
8) Sue Arizona. Insist we are Constitutionally entitled to be able to petition for ballot status for our candidate after our National Convention, which is not unreasonably late in the year. This approach, says my good legal sources, is reasonably promising. [[GP: Indeed, this is what we did, and it eventually worked.]]
I’m not sure that’s all the choices that exist, but it’s all the ones I’ve heard.
Listening to Arizona
