From Oliver Hall re: PA ballot access.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: William Redpath <wredpath@biakelsey.com> Date: Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:00 AM Subject: Fw: CPPA v. Aichele: WE WIN! To: "wredpath2@gmail.com" ------------------------------ *From:* oliverhall@competitivedemocracy.org < oliverhall@competitivedemocracy.org> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:10 AM *To:* oliverhall@competitivedemocracy.org *Subject:* Re: CPPA v. Aichele: WE WIN! Folks: A couple of updates and comments to follow up on Friday’s big win. First, I’m going to be on WESA 90.5’s Essential Pittsburgh today at noon: http://wesa.fm/programs/905-wesas-essential-pittsburgh; and on WHYY Philadelphia’s Radio Times Thursday at 10 AM: http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/. I’m going to press for Sen. Folmer’s Voter Choice Act, as well as another easy legislative fix that would completely eliminate the system of private parties challenging nomination papers under Section 2937. In brief, the Secretary of State should be required to validate nomination papers, instead of private parties. This could be accomplished by changing only one word of existing law. I’m also going to call for the law firms holding the judgments against Carl Romanelli and Ralph Nader to relinquish any claim they have against these candidates. Second, did everyone see all the good press we already got on this? - Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/318520501.html - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2015/07/24/Federal-judge-rul... - AP (this ran nationally): http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Minor-parties-get-court-win-in-ballot-acc... - WHYY (Philly) (this includes a radio spot featuring GPPA’s Carl Romanelli): http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/off-mic/84577-court-pa-unfair-to-3r... Finally, regarding Judge Stengel’s decision itself, several questions have been raised about what it means and what happens next. Here is my reading. Section 2911(b) (imposing the 2% signature requirement) and Section 2937 (authorizing private party nomination paper challenges and the imposition of costs against defending candidates) are unconstitutional as applied to minor party and independent candidates (or at least those who are plaintiffs or in privity with the plaintiffs in this case). That means these provisions cannot be enforced against CPPA, GPPA and LPPA, or any of their candidates. Judge Stengel did note that he was not declaring the 2% signature requirement, by itself, unconstitutional. Presumably, therefore, Pennsylvania could enact a new 2% signature requirement, and that probably would be upheld, as it was before in *Rogers v. Corbett*, 468 F. 3d 188 (3rd Cir. 2006). Unless and until that happens, however, the Pennsylvania Election Code is silent about what minor parties and independent candidates must do to gain ballot access. What that should mean is that the Secretary of State should place on the ballot any minor party candidate who demonstrates a “modicum” of support. That standard comes from Supreme Court decisions recognizing that states are permitted to require such a showing. But “modicum” means a small amount. So under current law, CPPA, GPPA and LPPA should be able to place their candidates on the ballot in 2016, provided they each demonstrate some modicum or small amount of support among the electorate. I will follow up with opposing counsel and/or the Secretary of State’s office to ensure that we are in agreement about the effect of Judge Stengel’s decision and procedures for 2016. But I think we can be confident that the system of private party challenges is over – at least insofar as it requires defending candidates to provide their own workers and potentially pay their challengers’ costs. I hope that’s clear. And once again, congratulations to all! Oliver *From:* oliverhall@competitivedemocracy.org *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 9:45 AM *To:* oliverhall@competitivedemocracy.org *Subject:* CPPA v. Aichele: WE WIN! Good Morning: Judge Stengel entered the attached opinion this morning. I have not read it except for the part that says, “For the reasons that follow, I find that the statutes are unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs but they are facially valid.” What this means is: WE WIN!!! Judgment entered in our favor on Counts I and II of the complaint. The judge held the challenged statutes unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs, but denied our Count III claim that Section 2937 is unconstitutional on its face. (We don’t need to win Count III to get the relief we seek.) Congratulations everyone – this is huge. More later. Regards, Oliver Hall Legal Counsel Center for Competitive Democracy 1835 16th Street NW, Suite 5 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 248-9294 ph. (202) 248-9345 fx. oliverhall@competitivedemocracy.org *From:* oliverhall@competitivedemocracy.org *Sent:* Wednesday, November 26, 2014 11:20 AM *To:* oliverhall@competitivedemocracy.org *Subject:* Re: CPPA v. Aichele: MTD and Opposition Folks: A bit of good news for Thanksgiving: Pennsylvania withdrew its motion to dismiss today. As opposing counsel admitted yesterday on the phone, there was “no way” Judge Stengel could grant it anyway. We have the excellent Third Circuit opinion to thank for that. No we will proceed to summary judgment motions in early 2015, after Pennsylvania files an answer to our Amended Complaint. Happy Thanksgiving! Oliver Hall Legal Counsel Center for Competitive Democracy 1835 16th Street NW, Suite 5 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 248-9294 ph. (202) 248-9345 fx. oliverhall@competitivedemocracy.org *From:* oliverhall@competitivedemocracy.org *Sent:* Tuesday, November 04, 2014 7:55 PM *To:* oliverhall@competitivedemocracy.org *Subject:* CPPA v. Aichele: MTD and Opposition Greetings, Please see attached the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in *Constitution Party of Pennsylvnia v. Aichele*, and our Opposition to the motion, which was filed on Friday. Now we wait to see how Judge Stengel responds. The Third Circuit provided him with all kinds of helpful guidance, if he will only follow it. Thanks, Oliver Hall Legal Counsel Center for Competitive Democracy 1835 16th Street NW, Suite 5 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 248-9294 ph. (202) 248-9345 fx. oliverhall@competitivedemocracy.org
Bill, I have been checking with Charles Tuttle the Petitioner, and they (3) are interested in doing the SD petition drive. Checked on requirements, and it is 6,936 signatures. My understanding, unlike ND, is they have to be registered voters, but the petitioners can register them as well as get their signatures. Deadline is 5 March 2016, but naturally they do not want to collect in the dead of winter, so our realistic deadline should be by the end of November to avoid cold weather as well as give the SD party time to get candidates on line. Charles likes 10% over, so I think a realistic goal would be 7,500 signatures. They are willing to do it for $15,000 and they would pay their own expenses such as hotels, etc.and they would be very happy with that. To make this effort worthwhile, I would suggest we also offer a $5 bounty if they give out membership applications and they later enroll in the party. I would be willing to sponsor $2 of that $5. I think anyone who enrolls in the party during the time of petitioning, and up to one month afterwards, should be credited to the efforts of the petitioners. Actually, if Wes was willing to go along with it, I think it would benefit the party if we even gave a $10 per new member bounty, because the party would still come out way ahead. We would need to get them a good supply of membership applications to hand out. It is my understanding that there currently are some other petition drives going on in SD, so the sooner we get going on this the better and everyone will be happy. Of course the question still remains is can SD put some actual candidates on the ballot if we put the party on the ballot? Roland Riemers From: William Redpath <wredpath2@gmail.com> To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:29 AM Subject: [Lnc-business] Fwd: Fw: CPPA v. Aichele: WE WIN!
I would love to see the Libertarian Party of South Dakota increase its own membership count, and increase the number of National LP members in SD. However, every minute that a petitioner spends trying to get that "$5 bounty" for new LP members is a minute that the petitioner is not getting petition signatures. Even with the "flat rate" arrangement below, that still ties up that petitioner in SD for an extra minute or 2 minutes or 10 minutes, as opposed to him or her finishing in SD a day or two earlier so that they can move on to another state. Please don't give petitioners an incentive to NOT spend 100% of their time collecting ballot-access signatures during their tour of duty in a given state. Scott Lieberman _____ From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Roland Riemers Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 7:11 PM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Cc: Roland Riemers Subject: [Lnc-business] Re. SD petition drive Bill, I have been checking with Charles Tuttle the Petitioner, and they (3) are interested in doing the SD petition drive. Checked on requirements, and it is 6,936 signatures. My understanding, unlike ND, is they have to be registered voters, but the petitioners can register them as well as get their signatures. Deadline is 5 March 2016, but naturally they do not want to collect in the dead of winter, so our realistic deadline should be by the end of November to avoid cold weather as well as give the SD party time to get candidates on line. Charles likes 10% over, so I think a realistic goal would be 7,500 signatures. They are willing to do it for $15,000 and they would pay their own expenses such as hotels, etc.and they would be very happy with that. To make this effort worthwhile, I would suggest we also offer a $5 bounty if they give out membership applications and they later enroll in the party. I would be willing to sponsor $2 of that $5. I think anyone who enrolls in the party during the time of petitioning, and up to one month afterwards, should be credited to the efforts of the petitioners. Actually, if Wes was willing to go along with it, I think it would benefit the party if we even gave a $10 per new member bounty, because the party would still come out way ahead. We would need to get them a good supply of membership applications to hand out. It is my understanding that there currently are some other petition drives going on in SD, so the sooner we get going on this the better and everyone will be happy. Of course the question still remains is can SD put some actual candidates on the ballot if we put the party on the ballot? Roland Riemers
While I appreciate the idea, it would not be proper for the National Party to pay petitioners bounties for people signing up as National Party dues paying members. To do so would not be fair to every other state in the country, especially those that don’t have to do ballot access petition drives. I donate money to the National party..and I raise money for the National party. For Louisiana residents dues payments to go to fund and promote National Party membership in another state when we get little to nothing in this state would be the ultimate slap in our face. Its important to keep the National Party functioning as that is what binds all the affiliates together and for that reason we in the states that don’t need to do ballot access drives contribute our money. Also, National Membership from a state helps to determine its apportionment at the National Convention. Any such drive like that would have to be run by solely by LPSD. Additionally, if the petitioners became focused on this membership drive it might and probably would slow down the attempts to get signatures to get the Presidential candidate on the ballot. Daniel Hayes LNC Region 7 Alternate Representative
On Aug 1, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Roland Riemers <riemers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill,
I have been checking with Charles Tuttle the Petitioner, and they (3) are interested in doing the SD petition drive. Checked on requirements, and it is 6,936 signatures. My understanding, unlike ND, is they have to be registered voters, but the petitioners can register them as well as get their signatures. Deadline is 5 March 2016, but naturally they do not want to collect in the dead of winter, so our realistic deadline should be by the end of November to avoid cold weather as well as give the SD party time to get candidates on line.
Charles likes 10% over, so I think a realistic goal would be 7,500 signatures.
They are willing to do it for $15,000 and they would pay their own expenses such as hotels, etc.and they would be very happy with that.
To make this effort worthwhile, I would suggest we also offer a $5 bounty if they give out membership applications and they later enroll in the party. I would be willing to sponsor $2 of that $5. I think anyone who enrolls in the party during the time of petitioning, and up to one month afterwards, should be credited to the efforts of the petitioners. Actually, if Wes was willing to go along with it, I think it would benefit the party if we even gave a $10 per new member bounty, because the party would still come out way ahead. We would need to get them a good supply of membership applications to hand out.
It is my understanding that there currently are some other petition drives going on in SD, so the sooner we get going on this the better and everyone will be happy.
Of course the question still remains is can SD put some actual candidates on the ballot if we put the party on the ballot?
Roland Riemers
From: William Redpath <wredpath2@gmail.com> To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:29 AM Subject: [Lnc-business] Fwd: Fw: CPPA v. Aichele: WE WIN!
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Roland and others, We have a problem in South Dakota. Our main petitioner, Charles Tuttle, for various reasons, has been unable to collect the necessary signatures. The petition drive was supposed to be completed before the end of 2015. We're close to half way done. While this had been set up to be more like a sole-source contract where Mr. Tuttle was going to do the organizing of subcontractors, because of the slow progress, I'm changing that and recruiting more petitioners to help. Because of the way the original contract was set up, the Libertarian Party has not lost money on the original arrangement. In fact, the signatures we've collected have come in at less than $2/signature on average. We have lost valuable time, however. Going forward, instead of turning the signatures in to Ken Santema, the chair in South Dakota, all signatures will need to be mailed to me at the LP headquarters in Alexandria, and I'll be issuing payment from here. Of course I'm continuing to coordinate very closely with Ken. If you know of any petitioners that would be interested, please have them call me at 202-333-0008x232. We'll be paying $2.00 per signature, and no other expenses will be covered. For example, we will not be paying travel, lodging, or meals. What I'm hoping to find is just 2 or 3 good people. That's all it would take to finish the drive. I'll give preference to people who are able to call me on the phone at 202-333-0008x232, that are able to give me a cell phone number that I can call back and verify, and that also able to send me an email to me with their phone number to wes.benedict@lp.org. That way I can email Form W-9s and contracts and things. However, the email use option is not mandatory. Petitioners will have to sign contracts with me in advance to get paid. Roland, if you have any recommendations for petitioners to hire for this, please let me know. The final deadline for this petition drive is March 29 (not the March 5 mentioned in Roland's email below), but South Dakota allows multiple turn-ins, and we'd like to turn in the first batch of signatures at the beginning of March. We need just over 7,000 valid signatures, so this drive is just over a quarter of the size of the recent Oklahoma drive--much easier. Thanks, Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict@lp.org facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership On 8/1/2015 10:10 PM, Roland Riemers wrote:
Bill,
I have been checking with Charles Tuttle the Petitioner, and they (3) are interested in doing the SD petition drive. Checked on requirements, and it is 6,936 signatures. My understanding, unlike ND, is they have to be registered voters, but the petitioners can register them as well as get their signatures. Deadline is 5 March 2016, but naturally they do not want to collect in the dead of winter, so our realistic deadline should be by the end of November to avoid cold weather as well as give the SD party time to get candidates on line.
Charles likes 10% over, so I think a realistic goal would be 7,500 signatures.
They are willing to do it for $15,000 and they would pay their own expenses such as hotels, etc.and they would be very happy with that.
To make this effort worthwhile, I would suggest we also offer a $5 bounty if they give out membership applications and they later enroll in the party. I would be willing to sponsor $2 of that $5. I think anyone who enrolls in the party during the time of petitioning, and up to one month afterwards, should be credited to the efforts of the petitioners. Actually, if Wes was willing to go along with it, I think it would benefit the party if we even gave a $10 per new member bounty, because the party would still come out way ahead. We would need to get them a good supply of membership applications to hand out.
It is my understanding that there currently are some other petition drives going on in SD, so the sooner we get going on this the better and everyone will be happy.
Of course the question still remains is can SD put some actual candidates on the ballot if we put the party on the ballot?
Roland Riemers
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* William Redpath <wredpath2@gmail.com> *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:29 AM *Subject:* [Lnc-business] Fwd: Fw: CPPA v. Aichele: WE WIN!
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I should note that the Libertarian Party of South Dakota has reported collecting over 500 volunteer signatures so far. Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict@lp.org facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership On 2/3/2016 10:36 AM, Wes Benedict wrote:
Roland and others,
We have a problem in South Dakota. Our main petitioner, Charles Tuttle, for various reasons, has been unable to collect the necessary signatures. The petition drive was supposed to be completed before the end of 2015. We're close to half way done. While this had been set up to be more like a sole-source contract where Mr. Tuttle was going to do the organizing of subcontractors, because of the slow progress, I'm changing that and recruiting more petitioners to help. Because of the way the original contract was set up, the Libertarian Party has not lost money on the original arrangement. In fact, the signatures we've collected have come in at less than $2/signature on average. We have lost valuable time, however.
Going forward, instead of turning the signatures in to Ken Santema, the chair in South Dakota, all signatures will need to be mailed to me at the LP headquarters in Alexandria, and I'll be issuing payment from here. Of course I'm continuing to coordinate very closely with Ken.
If you know of any petitioners that would be interested, please have them call me at 202-333-0008x232. We'll be paying $2.00 per signature, and no other expenses will be covered. For example, we will not be paying travel, lodging, or meals. What I'm hoping to find is just 2 or 3 good people. That's all it would take to finish the drive. I'll give preference to people who are able to call me on the phone at 202-333-0008x232, that are able to give me a cell phone number that I can call back and verify, and that also able to send me an email to me with their phone number to wes.benedict@lp.org. That way I can email Form W-9s and contracts and things. However, the email use option is not mandatory.
Petitioners will have to sign contracts with me in advance to get paid.
Roland, if you have any recommendations for petitioners to hire for this, please let me know.
The final deadline for this petition drive is March 29 (not the March 5 mentioned in Roland's email below), but South Dakota allows multiple turn-ins, and we'd like to turn in the first batch of signatures at the beginning of March. We need just over 7,000 valid signatures, so this drive is just over a quarter of the size of the recent Oklahoma drive--much easier.
Thanks,
Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 333-0008 ext. 232,wes.benedict@lp.org facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at:http://lp.org/membership On 8/1/2015 10:10 PM, Roland Riemers wrote:
Bill,
I have been checking with Charles Tuttle the Petitioner, and they (3) are interested in doing the SD petition drive. Checked on requirements, and it is 6,936 signatures. My understanding, unlike ND, is they have to be registered voters, but the petitioners can register them as well as get their signatures. Deadline is 5 March 2016, but naturally they do not want to collect in the dead of winter, so our realistic deadline should be by the end of November to avoid cold weather as well as give the SD party time to get candidates on line.
Charles likes 10% over, so I think a realistic goal would be 7,500 signatures.
They are willing to do it for $15,000 and they would pay their own expenses such as hotels, etc.and they would be very happy with that.
To make this effort worthwhile, I would suggest we also offer a $5 bounty if they give out membership applications and they later enroll in the party. I would be willing to sponsor $2 of that $5. I think anyone who enrolls in the party during the time of petitioning, and up to one month afterwards, should be credited to the efforts of the petitioners. Actually, if Wes was willing to go along with it, I think it would benefit the party if we even gave a $10 per new member bounty, because the party would still come out way ahead. We would need to get them a good supply of membership applications to hand out.
It is my understanding that there currently are some other petition drives going on in SD, so the sooner we get going on this the better and everyone will be happy.
Of course the question still remains is can SD put some actual candidates on the ballot if we put the party on the ballot?
Roland Riemers
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* William Redpath <wredpath2@gmail.com> *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:29 AM *Subject:* [Lnc-business] Fwd: Fw: CPPA v. Aichele: WE WIN!
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Correction. I forgot S.D. is one of those states where you can't pay per signature, so different arrangements will be made. Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict@lp.org facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership On 2/3/2016 10:41 AM, Wes Benedict wrote:
I should note that the Libertarian Party of South Dakota has reported collecting over 500 volunteer signatures so far. Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 333-0008 ext. 232,wes.benedict@lp.org facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at:http://lp.org/membership On 2/3/2016 10:36 AM, Wes Benedict wrote:
Roland and others,
We have a problem in South Dakota. Our main petitioner, Charles Tuttle, for various reasons, has been unable to collect the necessary signatures. The petition drive was supposed to be completed before the end of 2015. We're close to half way done. While this had been set up to be more like a sole-source contract where Mr. Tuttle was going to do the organizing of subcontractors, because of the slow progress, I'm changing that and recruiting more petitioners to help. Because of the way the original contract was set up, the Libertarian Party has not lost money on the original arrangement. In fact, the signatures we've collected have come in at less than $2/signature on average. We have lost valuable time, however.
Going forward, instead of turning the signatures in to Ken Santema, the chair in South Dakota, all signatures will need to be mailed to me at the LP headquarters in Alexandria, and I'll be issuing payment from here. Of course I'm continuing to coordinate very closely with Ken.
If you know of any petitioners that would be interested, please have them call me at 202-333-0008x232. We'll be paying $2.00 per signature, and no other expenses will be covered. For example, we will not be paying travel, lodging, or meals. What I'm hoping to find is just 2 or 3 good people. That's all it would take to finish the drive. I'll give preference to people who are able to call me on the phone at 202-333-0008x232, that are able to give me a cell phone number that I can call back and verify, and that also able to send me an email to me with their phone number to wes.benedict@lp.org. That way I can email Form W-9s and contracts and things. However, the email use option is not mandatory.
Petitioners will have to sign contracts with me in advance to get paid.
Roland, if you have any recommendations for petitioners to hire for this, please let me know.
The final deadline for this petition drive is March 29 (not the March 5 mentioned in Roland's email below), but South Dakota allows multiple turn-ins, and we'd like to turn in the first batch of signatures at the beginning of March. We need just over 7,000 valid signatures, so this drive is just over a quarter of the size of the recent Oklahoma drive--much easier.
Thanks,
Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 333-0008 ext. 232,wes.benedict@lp.org facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at:http://lp.org/membership On 8/1/2015 10:10 PM, Roland Riemers wrote:
Bill,
I have been checking with Charles Tuttle the Petitioner, and they (3) are interested in doing the SD petition drive. Checked on requirements, and it is 6,936 signatures. My understanding, unlike ND, is they have to be registered voters, but the petitioners can register them as well as get their signatures. Deadline is 5 March 2016, but naturally they do not want to collect in the dead of winter, so our realistic deadline should be by the end of November to avoid cold weather as well as give the SD party time to get candidates on line.
Charles likes 10% over, so I think a realistic goal would be 7,500 signatures.
They are willing to do it for $15,000 and they would pay their own expenses such as hotels, etc.and they would be very happy with that.
To make this effort worthwhile, I would suggest we also offer a $5 bounty if they give out membership applications and they later enroll in the party. I would be willing to sponsor $2 of that $5. I think anyone who enrolls in the party during the time of petitioning, and up to one month afterwards, should be credited to the efforts of the petitioners. Actually, if Wes was willing to go along with it, I think it would benefit the party if we even gave a $10 per new member bounty, because the party would still come out way ahead. We would need to get them a good supply of membership applications to hand out.
It is my understanding that there currently are some other petition drives going on in SD, so the sooner we get going on this the better and everyone will be happy.
Of course the question still remains is can SD put some actual candidates on the ballot if we put the party on the ballot?
Roland Riemers
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* William Redpath <wredpath2@gmail.com> *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:29 AM *Subject:* [Lnc-business] Fwd: Fw: CPPA v. Aichele: WE WIN!
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Wes, My understanding on SD is that Tuttle received a $5,000 advance last year for SD, but is behind schedule, but needs the next installment so he can finish the drive, and he is willing to finish off the drive if he gets the second installment now, and he feels there would be no problem in doing so. Tuttle is a bit pissed at the SD state chair, Ken, because when he arranged to meet Ken to turn over 500 signatures, Ken got busy and blew him off. Ken's excuse is he is very busy at this time of year, and thus can not be involved in the petition process, and apparently there are some people handling this for him. So, exactly what is the count now and who has the petitions? Do we now have other paid petitioners in SD? Will we be paying Tuttle the second installment? We are also able to make multiple turn-ins with the SOS, so will we be doing that so we can get a validity count and know how much more we need? Anything I can do to help, let me know. Roland Riemers
I will get back to you all later this afternoon with all of the details and facts. Thanks, Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict@lp.org facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership On 2/8/2016 12:51 PM, Roland Riemers wrote:
Wes, My understanding on SD is that Tuttle received a $5,000 advance last year for SD, but is behind schedule, but needs the next installment so he can finish the drive, and he is willing to finish off the drive if he gets the second installment now, and he feels there would be no problem in doing so.
Tuttle is a bit pissed at the SD state chair, Ken, because when he arranged to meet Ken to turn over 500 signatures, Ken got busy and blew him off. Ken's excuse is he is very busy at this time of year, and thus can not be involved in the petition process, and apparently there are some people handling this for him.
So, exactly what is the count now and who has the petitions? Do we now have other paid petitioners in SD? Will we be paying Tuttle the second installment? We are also able to make multiple turn-ins with the SOS, so will we be doing that so we can get a validity count and know how much more we need?
Anything I can do to help, let me know.
Roland Riemers
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
If the chair of a state party is too busy to be involved in the petition process, then why are earth are we spending our member's money? Live Free, Sam Goldstein On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict@lp.org> wrote:
I will get back to you all later this afternoon with all of the details and facts. Thanks,
Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314(202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict@lp.orgfacebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
On 2/8/2016 12:51 PM, Roland Riemers wrote:
Wes, My understanding on SD is that Tuttle received a $5,000 advance last year for SD, but is behind schedule, but needs the next installment so he can finish the drive, and he is willing to finish off the drive if he gets the second installment now, and he feels there would be no problem in doing so.
Tuttle is a bit pissed at the SD state chair, Ken, because when he arranged to meet Ken to turn over 500 signatures, Ken got busy and blew him off. Ken's excuse is he is very busy at this time of year, and thus can not be involved in the petition process, and apparently there are some people handling this for him.
So, exactly what is the count now and who has the petitions? Do we now have other paid petitioners in SD? Will we be paying Tuttle the second installment? We are also able to make multiple turn-ins with the SOS, so will we be doing that so we can get a validity count and know how much more we need?
Anything I can do to help, let me know.
Roland Riemers
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing listLnc-business@hq.lp.orghttp://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
If the chair of a state party is too busy to be involved in the petition process, then why are earth are we spending our member's money?
I agree 100% with the sentiment of Mr. Goldstein. On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com> wrote:
If the chair of a state party is too busy to be involved in the petition process, then why are earth are we spending our member's money?
Live Free,
Sam Goldstein
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict@lp.org> wrote:
I will get back to you all later this afternoon with all of the details and facts. Thanks,
Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314(202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict@lp.orgfacebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
On 2/8/2016 12:51 PM, Roland Riemers wrote:
Wes, My understanding on SD is that Tuttle received a $5,000 advance last year for SD, but is behind schedule, but needs the next installment so he can finish the drive, and he is willing to finish off the drive if he gets the second installment now, and he feels there would be no problem in doing so.
Tuttle is a bit pissed at the SD state chair, Ken, because when he arranged to meet Ken to turn over 500 signatures, Ken got busy and blew him off. Ken's excuse is he is very busy at this time of year, and thus can not be involved in the petition process, and apparently there are some people handling this for him.
So, exactly what is the count now and who has the petitions? Do we now have other paid petitioners in SD? Will we be paying Tuttle the second installment? We are also able to make multiple turn-ins with the SOS, so will we be doing that so we can get a validity count and know how much more we need?
Anything I can do to help, let me know.
Roland Riemers
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing listLnc-business@hq.lp.orghttp://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- ======================================================== Kevin Ludlow 512-773-3968 http://www.kevinludlow.com
Roland, First of all, I'd like to report that although things haven't gone as well as hoped, they're not going too badly. Mr. Tuttle was not able to collect as many signatures as we had hoped, but he has collected enough so that we have gotten an okay deal for the money we have spent, and we probably have sufficient time to get the thing finished. What we need to finish the drive is about as many signatures as we collected in 2 weeks in Oklahoma. Similarly, Ken Santema has done a pretty good job of keeping up with things given the circumstances, but, as happens often, managing a petition drive has taken more effort than hoped, particularly given that the drive was hoped to be finished months ago, yet it's February and still not completed. Mr. Tuttle received a $5,000 payment at the beginning of his contract. He did not collect enough signatures to qualify for a second payment of $5,000. His contract expired 12/31/2015. I have started the process of hiring other petitioners to help with this petition drive. The LNC took on some risk in signing a contract with an upfront payment of $5,000. For example, the possibility existed that Mr. Tuttle could have accepted the $5,000 and collected no signatures at all. But that is not what happened. Mr. Tuttle collected a bunch of signatures, just as not as many as we had hoped. It appears that the number of signatures he collected will result in an average cost per signature that is quite reasonable. The basics of the deal for the contract was $5,000 up front, $5,000 when half done, and $5,000 when completed. My preliminary counts show that Mr. Tuttle made it around 1/3 of the way. I'll be reviewing the numbers in detail. I need to collect a little bit more information before knowing exactly where we stand. If I find that Mr. Tuttle collected significantly more than 1/3, then perhaps, although not obligated by contract, we may decide additional payment is warranted. Last week Mr. Tuttle told me he was not going to be collecting more signatures. Below, you implied that he still wanted to. If he wants to collect more signatures, he needs to send me an email requesting a new contract with the newly applicable terms. I have the signatures in my possession. I'm holding them all now. Future signatures are being mailed to me. I'm involved because the LNC Ballot Access Committee and the LPSD seemed to need my help. I like it when petition drives go as planned and do not require my personal assistance. That how things have gone in recent years in Arkansas, Illinois, and New York: the LNC approves the money--I send the money per the contracts--that's the way I like it. Sometimes well-meaning volunteers, activists, and contractors get in a little bit over their heads thinking they can get a certain amount of signatures collected in a certain amount of time or for a certain price, or thinking they can raise a certain amount of money or win a certain election. We might be able to finish this drive for $15,000, but it may take $20,000. From the minutes where South Dakota ballot access expenditures were approved: https://www.lp.org/files/20150903_ECTC.pdf
SOUTHDAKOTA BALLOT ACCESS Discussion yielded the following background details: Mr. Redpath has long projected that the LNC would likely need to spend $20,000 to achieve ballot access in South Dakota for our 2016 presidential ticket. A petitioner that the South Dakota affiliate has successfully used in the past (Charles Tuttle) has offered to complete the drive for $15,000. A successful drive would result in party status for both the 2016 and 2018 election cycles, with a chance to retain for another 4 years if a 2018 gubernatorial candidate receives 2.5% of the vote. The South Dakota affiliate has collected 600 signatures so far towards the goal of 10,000 raw signatures to achieve 6,936 valid signatures. Mr. Santema believes the affiliate can collect an additional 1,000 volunteer signatures. Mr. Redpath moved that the Libertarian National Committee encumber $15,000 for a petition drive to acquire party status in South Dakota. Following discussion, the vote on the main motion was as follows: Voting “aye”: Goldstein, Hagan, Lark, Mattson, Redpath, Sarwark, Vohra Voting “no”: (none)
Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict@lp.org facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership On 2/8/2016 1:02 PM, Wes Benedict wrote:
I will get back to you all later this afternoon with all of the > details and facts. Thanks, > > Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, > Inc. 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, > wes.benedict@lp.org facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the > Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership On 2/8/2016 12:51 PM, > Roland Riemers wrote:
Wes, My understanding on SD is that Tuttle received a $5,000 >> advance last year for SD, but is behind schedule, but needs the >> next installment so he can finish the drive, and he is willing to >> finish off the drive if he gets the second installment now, and he >> feels there would be no problem in doing so. >> >> Tuttle is a bit pissed at the SD state chair, Ken, because when he >> arranged to meet Ken to turn over 500 signatures, Ken got busy and >> blew him off. Ken's excuse is he is very busy at this time of >> year, and thus can not be involved in the petition process, and >> apparently there are some people handling this for him. >> >> So, exactly what is the count now and who has the petitions? Do >> we now have other paid petitioners in SD? Will we be paying >> Tuttle the second installment? We are also able to make multiple >> turn-ins with the SOS, so will we be doing that so we can get a >> validity count and know how much more we need?
Anything I can do to help, let me know. >> >> Roland Riemers >> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business >> mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > > > > _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing > list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
participants (7)
-
Daniel Hayes -
Kevin Ludlow -
Roland Riemers -
Sam Goldstein -
Scott L. -
Wes Benedict -
William Redpath