Wayne Allyn Root on Libertarian Ballot Access

36 Responses to “Wayne Allyn Root on Libertarian Ballot Access”

  1. Greg Says:

    Well I don’t think anyone can disagree with this. Then again…

  2. Bill Wood Says:

    What, nothing so far from Steve LaBianca trashing Wayne Allen Root on this thread? This has to be a record. LOL

  3. Jerry S. Says:

    Bravo ! This is for the TEAM. Everyone can agree on this one ! 48 in ‘08…

  4. George Phillies Says:

    Wayne is right. That’s why I promised to spend 20% of all donations I received, up to $300,000 is need be, for ballot access. My campaign has so far more than kept that promise with thousands of dollar sent or committed to states across America.

    To contribute to the Massachusetts ballot access drive, go directly to

    https://secure.donortownsquare.com/SSL/donate.aspx?sgst=-1&amt=0&ai=631&qs=87NWV

    and give to LPMass, the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts.

  5. Andy Says:

    The LP had 50 state plus Washington DC ballot access in ‘92, ‘96, and 2000. It is a pretty sad commentary that we slipped to 48 states plus DC in 2004 and that for 2008 they are only aiming at 48 state MINUS DC.

  6. Denver Delegate Says:

    Kudos, Wayne.

    If you repudiate your campaign’s smear on Mary Ruwart I will consider voting for you at the convention and financially supporting your candidacy if you get the nomination.

  7. Robert Milnes Says:

    Denver Delegate, oh, is that what’s been happening to me? No support until I win the nomination? That’s called “Catch-22” isn’t it?

  8. NewFederalist Says:

    I didn’t know DC was off the table as well. I didn’t get that from LP News or BAN.

  9. Robert Milnes Says:

    Andy, if the GP endorses the LP ticket that gets D.C. & maybe a couple more.

  10. Committee for Clarity Says:

    to be clear

    This guy Root is the real deal folks. Great to see a positive party building video from a candidate isn’t it.

    The Fox Business debate this morning was more proof that Root is the measure of any of our candiates. Root was libertarian all the way on every answer. Gravel did well too. The two of them are a media event. Gravel just seemed to big government in a lot of his positions so he lost ground there. But the show was electric. The Fox moderator said they could get 20% of the vote in Novmember. Amazing to hear that.

    The Fox people also let it be known they were annoyed with Barr’s no show. Seems Bobarr doesn’t need to participate in a historic party building event. Having Lib’s debate eachother on a significant network is a first and Bobarr wasn’t interested? What gives with this guy?

    Say what you will about the size of Fox Business you can bet the other media people were watching and they’ll see the value in having these two guys on their shows.

    Root/Gravel is looking plauseable.

    the committee is pleased.

    ...if it clucks like a chicken…it must be a bobarr…yep. sigh

  11. Committee for Clarity Says:

    to be clear

    Gordon, you should leave this video at the top of the site for the good of the party. That would go a long way to repair your rep.

    the committee.

  12. Susan Hogarth Says:

    The LP had 50 state plus Washington DC ballot access in ‘92, ‘96, and 2000. It is a pretty sad commentary that we slipped to 48 states plus DC in 2004 and that for 2008 they are only aiming at 48 state MINUS DC.

    I suspect even that last figure is way too ambitious :-(

  13. NewFederalist Says:

    I still don’t see why DC is no possible. It takes less than 4,000 signatures. I can understand OK and even WV. And, oh yes, Robert Milnes the GP does already have ballot status in DC and WV (Statehood Party and Mountain Party I believe).

  14. Andy Says:

    Susan said: “I suspect even that last figure is way too ambitious.”

    Given the sad state of affiars that the LP is in you may be right about the LP not even achieving 48 state access this year, Susan.

  15. Andy Says:

    “NewFederalist Says:

    May 16th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
    I didn’t know DC was off the table as well. I didn’t get that from LP News or BAN.”

    I spoke to LP Chair Bill Redpath and he said that they are not planning to go for ballot access in Washington DC this year. Of course plans could change if a lot of money comes in to the party after the National Convention.

  16. Andy Says:

    “Robert Milnes Says:

    May 16th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
    Andy, if the GP endorses the LP ticket that gets D.C. & maybe a couple more.”

    Why would the Green Party endorse the LP ticket when they are planning to have their own candidate, who is likely to be Cynthia McKinney?

  17. NewFederalist Says:

    Andy- Thanks for the update. I am disappointed the LP isn’t even going to try in DC and WV. OK is a different story and needs either a lawsuit or a couple of legislators to carry a bill in the next session. I guess the CP will really gain big time on the LP this year in terms of ballot access and perhaps even votes depending on who the LP finally decides upon.

  18. Andy Says:

    “NewFederalist Says:

    May 16th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
    I still don’t see why DC is no possible. It takes less than 4,000 signatures. I can understand OK and even WV. And, oh yes, Robert Milnes the GP does already have ballot status in DC and WV (Statehood Party and Mountain Party I believe).”

    Washington DC is a difficult place to gather petition signatures. It isn’t that bad for getting locations to gather petition signatures, but a lot of the people who are in DC do not live in DC, and therefore are not DC registered voters, and therefore are not elidgable to sign the petition. Many of the people you run into in DC live in Maryland or Virginia or are visiting from another state or country.

    Another thing to factor into the equation is that a lot of people in DC work for the government and these are people who are less likely to sign petitions (unless they are “establishment” approved petitions).

    DC requires 3,900 valid petition signatures to get on the ballot and the circulation period goes from around late June or early July until August 19th. This is a rather short window for petition signature gathering compared to most places.

    The population of DC is around 560,000 and something. I’m not sure what percentage of the population is registered to vote.

    It is a common practice on ballot access petition drives to gather more signatures than necessary in order to survive a validity check/challenge. So to get on the ballot in DC we are talking a good 7,000-7,800 raw signatures.

    In my opinion, if the LP is going to run Presidential campaigns (and I think that there is value in this even though the candidates stand little to no chance of winning, the LP Presidential campaign serves as an advertising campaign for the Libertarian Party and Movement) they should strive for 50 state plus DC ballot access. Less than that makes the campaign look half ass.

    However, given the difficulty of DC ballot access, and given the sorry state that the LP is in, I can see why DC could end up getting skipped.

  19. NewFederalist Says:

    If the LP is really in such bad shape why was the ballot drive undertaken in NC? Even though it appears it was successful it must have taken a load of cash to complete. And according to BAN the CP is making good progress in WV. I guess things are worse than most outsiders (like me) know.

  20. Steve LaBianca Says:

    For your info Mr. Wood, the computer I’m on has no sound, so sigh . . . I can’t hear the lies spewing from his mouth.

    There, you feel better now?

  21. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Besides, I don’t trash . . . I call it like I see it. There, maybe you can dispute that! See, I give you purpose! LOL!

  22. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Andy, from what I’ve heard, the 48 states in 2004 was caused by 1-the LP of NH screwed up. They didn’t turn in the required # of valid signatures. Plus Oklahoma . . . well that is a clusterf**k all its own.

    It isn’t since 1988 when Ron Paul was our candidate did we not get on in WV. If my memory serves me correctly we had 46 states plus D.C. in ‘88. I believe that we missed in Indiana, Missouri, West Virginia, and North Carolina.

  23. Andy Says:

    “NewFederalist Says:

    May 16th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
    If the LP is really in such bad shape why was the ballot drive undertaken in NC? Even though it appears it was successful it must have taken a load of cash to complete. And according to BAN the CP is making good progress in WV. I guess things are worse than most outsiders (like me) know.”

    It took the LP of NC over 3 1/2 years to complete the NC petition drive. The drive started on election day in November of 2004. They had until sometime in the summer of 2005 (June 12th I believe) to finish the drive without losing party status, however, they failed to get enough signatures during that time period and lost party status which means they lost all of their registered voters (in other words, everyone in NC who was registered to vote as a Libertarian was converted to being Decline To State A Political Party).

    Fortunately - in spite of the higher than average percentage of signatures needed as compared to most states - in NC the state gives a party a long time period to get on the ballot and the signatures do not “expire” if you miss the first deadline (this would disqualify all of the signatures in most states and you’d have to start over again from zero).

    Now contrast this with past election cycles where ballot status was regained in NC BEFORE the state decertified the party (as in regaining ballot status between November of 2000-June of 2001).

    Another good thing about North Carolina is that once the petition drive is completed it is good for 4 years of ballot access. Since the LP of NC failed to requalify for the ballot by June of 2005 they lost all of their voter registrations, and since they failed to qualify for the ballot by June of 2006 they were not able to run any LP candidates in the November 2006 election.

    The most onerous aspect of North Carolina is that the number of signatures required (69,000 and something valid) is higher than what it is in most states (I think that only California is higher in raw numbers), although there are some states that are worse on a ratio scale when you compare the number of signatures needed to the population of the state. However, this is offset by the fact that the state gives you a long time to gather the signatures and they don’t have as many screwy rules as some states have.

    For instance, Texas requires around 44,000 valid signatures to make it on the ballot as a political party (and 74,000 and something valid signatures to make it on the ballot as a statewide independent candidate), however, they only give you like 70 days to collect the signatures, there is a primary screen out whereas people who voted in the primaries can’t sign the petition (and the primaries are held before the petition comes out), and a registered voter may only sign to put one party and one independent (as in a person without a political party) on the ballot (as in if the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party happened to be doing a petition drive in Texas during the same election cycle, a person could only sign to put one of them on the ballot).

    North Carolina is one of the more difficult states for ballot access, but if I were running ballot access and had to skip a few states I’d try to not skip North Carolina. Why? Because, North Carolina is the 11th most populated state and is therefore worth a lot of potential votes, the state gives a long time period for petition circulation, and once the drive is successful it is good for 4 years of ballot status.

  24. Mike Theodore Says:

    Is it just me, or is he acting like he’s the nominee already?

  25. NAMBLA FOR MARY '08 Says:

    WE WANT MARY! WE WANT MARY! WE WANT MARY! WE WANT MARY! WE WANT MARY! WE WANT MARY!

  26. Kenny Says:

    More shit from Root supporters!

  27. Michael Seebeck Says:

    andy, great explanation on the NC issue.

    Richard Winger, if you’re lurking, do you have any info on the other states?

  28. Bill Wood Says:

    Steve, I’m glad you are still there. I was worried about you. ;-)

  29. Peter Orvetti Says:

    No ballot access in D.C.? That’s a shame. I’m pretty sure D.C. does not actually tabulate write-in votes unless they could conceivably alter the outcome, so writing in the LP ticket might be fruitless in terms of national vote total.

  30. Andy Says:

    “I guess the CP will really gain big time on the LP this year in terms of ballot access and perhaps even votes depending on who the LP finally decides upon.”

    I doubt that the Constitution Party will catch up with the Libertarian Party this year in ballot access.

  31. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Mr. Wood, I am happy to put your anxiety at ease!

  32. Eric Dondero Says:

    Being on in 48, does not preclude the LP from running an official write-in campaign in those two other states - W Va. and OK.

    Not nearly as good, but at least it’s something.

    And the LP needs to get on in Guam too, and I believe Puerto Rico has a non-binded referendum for Pres. Scott Kohlhaas is always talking about this. All it would take, is a couple Pro Petitioners to go down to PR to gather the required signatures. The LP has never been on in PR for that non-binding Prez referendum. It would be a first for the Party, and something to brag about.

  33. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    May 16th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
    Being on in 48, does not preclude the LP from running an official write-in campaign in those two other states - W Va. and OK.”

    Oklahoma does not permit write in votes.

  34. Peter Orvetti Says:

    What’s the deal with Oklahoma? Are the major parties still smarting over that faithless elector from 1960?

  35. Stefan Says:

    Is there not another party in WV and OK that could provide ballot access for the LP, e.g. have the LP nominee on its list? Do they not allow third parties to be listed?

    For the ballot access process, one wonders whether the Ron Paul meetup groups, or Libertarians within these groups, could help with the signatures, as they must have a lot of names? It could be that some of them wait to see who is the LP nominee, as they may have some preferences, e.g. candidates that are the closest to Ron Paul and positively supported him. They would include Barr, Ruwart and Smith IMHO.

  36. Andy Says:

    “Stefan Says:

    May 17th, 2008 at 6:44 am
    Is there not another party in WV and OK that could provide ballot access for the LP, e.g. have the LP nominee on its list? Do they not allow third parties to be listed?”

    The only other party in West Virginia besides Democrats and Republicans that has ballot status is the Mountain Party, which is the West Virginia affiliate of the Green Party. I doubt that the Mountain Party would be willing to put the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate on the ballot since they will have their own candidate.

    The Constitution Party has been working on getting enough valid signatures to obtain ballot status in West Virginia but they are having a difficult time there and may not make it.

Leave a Reply