Just when you thought the Libertarian brand could suffer no greater damage, police arrest Emmett Reistroffer for raising hell at Eastgate Towing:
When officers arrived they found Emmett Reistroffer, a Libertarian candidate for Secretary of State.
His car was towed to the lot because of unpaid parking tickets; police say Reistroffer insisted the company had no right to tow it.
He's charged with a misdemeanor charge of unlawful occupancy ["Candidate Charged with Misdemeanor," KELOLand.com, 2014.09.10].
Don't worry, Emmett. I'm sure your fellow "Libertarian" Chad Haber will be happy to lend you a car. Maybe he can use his awesome political fundraising skills to guilt some gullible Christians to buy you a campaign car.
But maybe Reistroffer has done us all a favor. His arrest puts the lie to the candidate immunity theory that arose last May when Attorney General Marty Jackley said would not arrest or prosecute anyone who is on the ballot, for fear of interfering in an election. Reistroffer is on the ballot. Are Sioux Falls police interfering with an election by arresting him and subjecting him to bad press? If it's o.k. for Sioux Falls police to arrest a Secretary of State candidate for getting hot when his car gets towed, is it o.k. for the U.S. Attorney or the state Attorney General to perp walk a Senatorial candidate for aiding and abetting fraud and violations of state law?
Or maybe Reistroffer has shown us that the "standard practice though not an ironclad rule" of prosecutorial non-interference in elections only applies to the rich, big-name candidates and the candidates whom the powers that be think serve their agenda.
He was just spouting the Libertarian line. The city had no right to ticket him. Eastgate had no right to tow him. It's a free country, damn it!
Beth won't put up with hell raising in her office. I can pretty much picture how this one went down.
What little I have read about Emmett Reistroffer I expected better from him. Wasn't he one of the more respected and original members of the Libertarian Party?
Lynn, that was my thought... he seemed to be one of the few who seemed to have it together. However, if your car gets towed for unpaid parking tickets, it means you have a LOT of unpaid parking tickets. This suggests Reistroffer doesn't feel the law applies to him as he can park whereever he wishes and ignore the tickets. Then to make matters worse he becomes beligerant when his car is lawfully towed.
Not only did this little stunt harm his image, but I dare say it will prevent him from ever holding any significant office in the state of South Dakota. It simpy shows a lack of character and respect for the law.
All of that said, I think this arrest is a bit different than Jackley's situation, because Jackley is an elected official who doesn't want to be seen as interfering with the electoral process. Local SFPD aren't elected and their one and only job is to enforce laws. They don't handle prosecutions and they don't deal with elections. Their images aren't hurt when they arrest someone of power (in fact often their images are helped), thus I believe this to be very different.
Craig, that's a reasonable distinction between the SFPD and the AG. Maybe we should send the Aberdeen PD to arrest Bollen for stealing documents from NSU?
Or just wait until there is a pile of charges including several types of fraud, conflicts of interest, tax evasion etc. etc.
The only question at this point is how far up the trail will this go? How much teflon did Rounds use to prevent this from sticking to him and will anyone higher than Bollen ever be held accountable? Our legislature doesn't seem to be interested, so our standings on the list of most corrupt states isn't likely to be slipping anytime soon.
Lynn, I don't think Reistroffer has done anything to establish a good reputation for himself. If I recall, he screwed up petition signature gathering for Republicans that hired him. Didn't he hire ineligible people to circulate and then claimed he wasn't aware of the law? And he was associated with the Bosworth campaign debacle. And now this. Dude needs to pay his fines and accept responsibility for his actions.
Lynn asks:
>"Wasn't [Emmett Reistroffer] one of the more respected and original members of the Libertarian Party?"
Not original, but Emmett was and is one of the state party's more respected members.
Craig wrote:
"However, if your car gets towed for unpaid parking tickets, it means you have a LOT of unpaid parking tickets."
Can you fill in the details on this law, Craig? Because I'll admit my first reaction is mild shock.
"Rorschach" wrote:
>"... I don't think Reistroffer has done anything to establish a good reputation for himself."
I don't think "Rorschach" knows what he's talking about here.
I think anymore people think of the Libertarians as the party of nut jobs and those that live in their parents basement.
What is this I hear about the Libertarian Party bouncing a $400 check to the federal district court?
Lee Stranahan is a member of the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party that represents Attorney General candidate Haber.
Which of those 3 things I mentioned bolsters young Mr. Reistroffer's reputation, Mr. Evans? Please elaborate. All I see from him is incompetence and poor choices.
Kurt, I simply meant if you have one or two parking tickets they city isn't going to send a tow truck over to take your vehicle. Per the city codified laws:
§ 77.089 OUTSTANDING PARKING VIOLATIONS
Any vehicle which has accumulated five or more outstanding parking violations may be removed by the city from any public property and placed in storage, and the owner thereof, in addition to the outstanding fines and penalties, shall pay the charges for towing and storage of the vehicle.
(1992 Code, § 40-286) (Ord. 12-04, passed 2-2-2004)
This means Reistroffer had - at a minimum - five unpaid parking tickets in the system when his vehicle was towed. However, chances are this also means he was parked illegally at the time of the tow, because it is doubtful anyone from the police department or parking enforcement has plate number memorized.
So if he has a habit of parking illegally what defense does he have? The city has an appeals process in place which would allow him to appeal the tickets if he felt they were unjust, however he must do so within 15 days I believe.
Now I have no idea how many tickets he actually had, but if he hasn't paid five or more it suggests he doesn't respect the law or the appeals process enough to bother with it. Is this really someone I want representing me in Pierre? Nope.
It isn't as if Reistroffer had a legitmate chance this time, so this really has no impact upon this election, but he had potential in the future... and this little stunt has probably ruined any chance he did have.
Roger Cornelius asks:
>>>>"What is this I hear about the Libertarian Party bouncing a $400 check to the federal district court?"
From Emmett's comment at SDWC on Friday:
>"It was an honest mistake because I used a check blank from an inactive account. I’m not sure if it was my fault or the bank teller who issued me the check, but I would not have intentionally bounced a check if I had known. The party has the funds and I’m taking care of it today."
Craig asks:
>>>"So if [Emmett] has a habit of parking illegally what defense does he have?"
It's more explanation than defense, but from the same comment:
>"... I paid my parking tickets and got my car back too. So, for the record, I’m not 'above the law' ... Yes, I had several unpaid parking tickets because I live downtown and often can’t plug the meters every 2 hours and sometimes the parking ramp behind my building is full. Many people who live and work downtown are getting tickets regularly and complaining about it."
"Rorschach" asks:
>>"Which of those 3 things I mentioned bolsters young Mr. Reistroffer's reputation, Mr. Evans?"
I'd say he handled all three situations well.
And now he's writing checks on closed accounts. Incompetence personified.
No offense Mr. Evans, but failing to pay multiple parking tickets before getting a car towed, AND then climbing a fence and refusing to leave private property AND then getting arrested don't exactly suggest to me he was handling the situation well.
I also don't call what he stated an explanation, but rather an excuse. He seems to be blaming the inconvenience of having to plug a meter every two hours or a "full" meter. He also tries to explain that others are complaining about the parking downtown, but I missed the part where he takes full responsibility for his actions.
I don't suppose it really matters, but I had higher hopes for Emmett. I think he had the potential to make the Libertarian Party relevant again but as Scott said earlier, the party seems to consist of nut jobs and those that live in their parent's basement. That is said (somewhat) sarcastically of course, but one has to admit the only news linked in any shape to the Libertarian Party at this point is either harmful or downright embarrassing.
Craig wrote:
>"No offense Mr. Evans, but failing to pay multiple parking tickets before getting a car towed, AND then climbing a fence ..."
Emmett didn't climb a fence. That's a lie from South Dakota Smear College.
>"... one has to admit the only news linked in any shape to the Libertarian Party at this point is either harmful or downright embarrassing."
No offense, Craig, but that isn't true unless the "only news" you're getting is from the blogs of Democrats and Republicans.
>>"Emmett didn't climb a fence. That's a lie from South Dakota Smear College."
Well I can assure you I didn't read it there (since I don't visit their blog), and I don't recall where I read it. However, he did enter a fenced in area, ignored trepassing signs, and ultimately was arressted for his behavior. Again - not exactly evidence he handled the situation well, or that he has the maturity required to fulfill the obligations of political office.
>>"No offense, Craig, but that isn't true unless the "only news" you're getting is from the blogs of Democrats and Republicans."
Or the Argus Leader, KELO, KSFY, KDLT, the Aberdeen American News, the Rapid City Journal, Yankton P&D... heck I wouldn't be surprised to see South Dakota Libertarians look bad in the USD Volante at this point.
You have candidates who make a mockery of your entire platform by showing up with friends to get themselves nominated while only registering the day of and the day before the 'convention'. You have a convention which doesn't even take the time to discuss your party platform after people get bored and decide to leave. You have a party which didn't bother to run anyone for Governor (even though you have shown out easy it is to get nominated even if you have zero chance to become elected) and thus the party will no longer be a recognized party in South Dakota after the November elections. I beleive several of your canidates have arrest records, several have claimed to be Republicans and are only using the Libertarian Party to massage their egos, one was tossed off the ballot for not even being a Libertarian... and all of this seems to be normal behavior.
Yes Mr. Evans... I just cannot possibly see why I would say the only news linked to your party is an embarrassment. I'm sure I'm the one who is way off base here as there is probably some vast conspiracy to make Libertarians look bad.
Occams razor comes to mind here.
I find the whole story so interesting only because it makes Democrats and Republicans look so polished and professional. Who woulda' thought that was even possible?
Craig had written:
>>>"... one has to admit the only news linked in any shape to the Libertarian Party at this point is either harmful or downright embarrassing."
I'd written:
>>"No offense, Craig, but that isn't true unless the 'only news' you're getting is from the blogs of Democrats and Republicans."
Craig replied:
>"Or the Argus Leader, KELO, KSFY, KDLT, the Aberdeen American News ..."
I'm wondering how you'd say this news is "either harmful or downright embarrassing": http://www.aberdeennews.com/news/local/political-blogger-runs-for-state-office/article_b35fbf7b-73f9-527f-b445-3cb19a20adf8.html
>"You have a convention which doesn't even take the time to discuss your party platform after people get bored and decide to leave."
The platform was discussed extensively at the convention, and I'm not aware of a single party member leaving before it was over.
>"You have a party which didn't bother to run anyone for Governor (even though you have shown out easy it is to get nominated even if you have zero chance to become elected) ..."
I'm wondering who you believe has shown how "easy" it is to be nominated as a minor-party candidate for governor.
>"I just cannot possibly see why I would say the only news linked to your party is an embarrassment."
Maybe because you lack integrity.
>"I'm sure I'm the one who is way off base here as there is probably some vast conspiracy to make Libertarians look bad."
If you don't believe anyone conspires to make Libertarians look bad, you are indeed way off base.
>"I find the whole story so interesting only because it makes Democrats and Republicans look so polished and professional. Who woulda' thought that was even possible?"
Who would have thought it was possible for parties with relatively large amounts of money to look polished and professional compared to a party with almost none? Probably just about anyone who pays attention.
>>"I'm wondering how you'd say this news is "either harmful or downright embarrassing": http://www.aberdeennews.com/news/local/political-blogger-runs-for-state-office/article_b35fbf7b-73f9-527f-b445-3cb19a20adf8.html"
Well let's see. For starters, you have a candidate that went to a convention to cover it as a blogger. He had no plan to be added to the ballot, but as the bench of potential candidates is so thin, he was nominated and ended up leaving as a candidate.
Second, look who nominated him.... Annette Bosworth. A woman who was running for Republican office and registred as a Libertarian the day before your convention. Someone more concerned with her own image than the betterment of our state/nation.
No offense to Santema as it isn't his fault, but when a handful of people register as Libertarians and hijack the convention it becomes and embarrassment. When someone shows up to a convention without even bothering to express interest in a position, but ends up on the ballot with no vetting process whatsoever, it is also an embarrassment.
However you may disagree and that is fine - I suppose I could adjust my comment to state PRACTICALLY all of the news linked in any shape to the Libertarian Party at this point is either harmful or downright embarrassing.
>>>"The platform was discussed extensively at the convention, and I'm not aware of a single party member leaving before it was over."
I'll admit I wasn't there, but I read several articles on the convention from those who were and that isn't what was reported. I recall something about not enough voting members remained to vote on the platform, but the details escape me.
>>>"Maybe because you lack integrity."
Yes maybe, but unlike many Libertarian candidates for office I don't have an arrest record and I don't make excuses for others when they screw up... so I have that going for me.
>>"If you don't believe anyone conspires to make Libertarians look bad, you are indeed way off base."
Did it ever occur to you that people aren't focused upon the party, but the individuals who seem to speak for it? I know nobody who has any issues with Libertarians or the Libertarian Party, and in principle many people wish we had a viable third party in South Dakota - but when a party seems to be home to (as Scott so eloquently put it previously) "nut jobs and people who live in their parent's basements" it becomes difficult to take them/you seriously.
Is it a conspiracy? Doubtful.
>>>"Who would have thought it was possible for parties with relatively large amounts of money to look polished and professional compared to a party with almost none? Probably just about anyone who pays attention."
So you're blaming your reputation upon a lack of money? Nice try, but no sale. It doesn't take money to fully vet candidates. It doesn't take money to develop a consistent platform and list of issues to focus on that doesn't happen to surround the legalization of pot. It doesn't take money to hold your candidates accountable for their actions and/or distance the party from them when they step out of line. It doesn't take money to develop a cohesive strategy that indicates your delegates are going to support true Libertarians with a vested interest in pushing the party platform instead of adding their name to the ballot for selfish reasons. It doesn't take money to recruit Libertarians to run for political office instead of tossing many of the same "also rans" on the ballot time and time again. It doesn't take money to admit that in some cases it doesn't make sense to run a candidate and the most beneficial option might be to focus your energy and resources on a few select candidates that might actually make a dent instead of a larger disjointed group each of which seems to have their own idea of what it means to be a Libertarian.
I realize you won't ever have the financial advantages of the GOP or the Dems, but that shouldn't stop the party from sending a consistent message or selecting viable, legitimate candidates. If you boil all of your issues down to money it becomes yet another excuse... and excuses won't help your image.
Craig had written:
>>>"You have a convention which doesn't even take the time to discuss your party platform after people get bored and decide to leave."
I'd written:
>>"The platform was discussed extensively at the convention, and I'm not aware of a single party member leaving before it was over."
Craig replied:
>"I'll admit I wasn't there, but I read several articles on the convention from those who were and that isn't what was reported. I recall something about not enough voting members remained to vote on the platform, but the details escape me."
Conveniently.
>"... I don't make excuses for others when they screw up..."
Only for yourself then.
I'd written:
>>"If you don't believe anyone conspires to make Libertarians look bad, you are indeed way off base."
Craig replied:
>"Did it ever occur to you that people aren't focused upon the party, but the individuals who seem to speak for it?"
Yes, it's occurred to me that some people aren't focused on the party. I'm wondering whether it's ever occurred to you that some are.
>"I know nobody who has any issues with Libertarians or the Libertarian Party ..."
Then you were apparently telling the truth when you said you don't visit South Dakota Smear College.
I'd answered Craig's question:
>>"Who would have thought it was possible for parties with relatively large amounts of money to look polished and professional compared to a party with almost none? Probably just about anyone who pays attention."
Craig replied:
>"So you're blaming your reputation upon a lack of money?"
No, I'm blaming a lack of money for the fact that Democrats and Republicans look polished and professional by comparison.
>"It doesn't take money to ... It doesn't take money to ... It doesn't take money to ... It doesn't take money to ... It doesn't take money to ... It doesn't take money to ..."
The six items you listed take large amounts of both time and money.
Money does matter in the Libertarian failure, but I'm going to split the difference between Craig and Kurt. Libertarians have failed to build their reputation in part because they lack money, but they lack money in part because they have failed to build a reputation. This year's hijacking, convention, and candidate shenanigans (including the critical, party-decertifying failure to field a candidate for governor) have decimated any previous reputation the SDLP may have built and raised an even higher barrier to convincing anyone to hand any money to the SDLP.
On the party-building tasks Craig lists: to fully vet candidates, develop a consistent platform and list of issues to focus on, hold your candidates accountable, develop a cohesive strategy, and recruit Libertarians to run for political office can be done entirely by volunteers. But those tasks can also be coordinated and expedited by a paid party executive and staff. I don't like big money in politics, but I also recognize that money can focus one's attention on doing quality work. "Holy cow, someone's paying me good money to make sure we recruit serious candidates and run a tight convention," says the professional party exec. "I'd better make sure this gets done right!"
Whether or not they are backed with money, and whether money and reputation are horse and cart or cart and horse, the SDLP's biggest problems seems to be that none of their members take the party seriously and treat it as something more than an occasional diverting hobby. The SDLP needs organizers who eat, sleep, breathe, and poop Libertarian Party objectives. I'd suggest that even Emmett isn't there—if he were, then when his car got towed and he felt that first impulse to go down to the impound yard and read folks the riot act (or the Ron Paul Act), he'd have thought, "Wait a minute: I'm SDLP chair and SOS candidate. If I go blow my stack, it will reflect poorly on the party. Time to throttle back."
That constant attention to the cause by multiple conscientious leaders will build reputation and bank account. Anything less gives us what we've got: a shell party that bubbles into faint existence every now and then, gets a news story or two, but leaves a mostly empty shell available for bad actors like Chad Haber to steal and use for selfish purposes, to the detriment of the party and the electoral process.
Well said Cory - I cannot disagree with you. I'm not a political strategist, but the reality is exactly what you said - Libertarians can blame their lack of money for their problems, but that lack of money is directly tied to their reputations. This year the party has done itself far more damage than if they had just sat the entire year out. Either way they wouldn't be recognized as an official party in 2015 yet they wouldn't have the black eye of being the party which has essentially been taken hostage by individuals like Ryan Gaddy, Chad Haber, or Father-and-son Stranahan.
I've looked at some of the candidates and messaging coming from the Libertarian Party of Iowa and I have to tell you it is lightyears ahead of what SD is producing. Their platform is clear, their message is consistent, they aren't sidetracked by a few individuals focused on one lone issue and it appears they are well organized. Do they have more money? I can't say, but obviously they aren't able to compete directly with the Democrats in Iowa yet they are still delivering a polished end product.
Meanwhile in South Dakota we have a group of Republicans who only become Libertarians in order to hijack the convention and a Libertarian Party who is powerless to manage the situation. We have candidates with arrest records and party members who embrace them and attempt to cover for their gaffes. We have a party which claims to be about liberty and individual responsibility yet doesn't hold it's own candidates responsible for their actions.
As I said previously, it is time for a reboot. Bring in some new leadership and some fresh faces and stop running canidates merely to have a name on a ballot. Focus on key issues and send a consistent message. The problem however is finding anyone who would want to be associated with the mess they have created. Much like the Oakland Raiders, it appears they are in need to several years of rebuilding before they can be considered a viable team. Unfortunately some of the personalities involved at this point suggest they have zero desire to do what is best for the party and are only concerned with themselves and their own image, thus they are setting themselves up for failure. Again.
I'm curious to see how long these hijackers will stay in the party after Nov 4th. Will they stay and try to build the party and spend money on a booth at events and try to be professional, polished and with consistent messaging or do a protest parade, maybe some graffiti or do what Haber and Bosworth did at SDSU?
Well Lynn I don't believe they have ever had any interest in the party or the platform. They care about themselves, how much free press they can collect, how they can massage their own egos a bit, and how they can attempt to spin things to where they appear to be victim. I don't see any loyalty to the Libertarian Party just as they had no loyalty to the Republican Party. I'm sure by November 5th they will have wiped their hands of the situation and will make their next play.... but it won't have anything to do with rebuilding or strenghtening the Libertarian Party.
I agree Craig and that is what I expect. They are definitely birds of a feather. Stranahan Sr. is back in TX. Who knows if that character is returning to SD. Junior had hardly been here and doubt he was even a resident when he was at the convention. Just bizarre!
Craig had asked me:
>>>"So you're blaming your reputation upon a lack of money?"
I'd replied:
>>"No ..."
Cory wrote:
>"Money does matter in the Libertarian failure, but I'm going to split the difference between Craig and Kurt. Libertarians have failed to build their reputation in part because they lack money, but they lack money in part because they have failed to build a reputation."
Repeating: I'm not blaming the party's reputation on a lack of money.
>"This year's hijacking, convention, and candidate shenanigans (including the critical, party-decertifying failure to field a candidate for governor) have decimated any previous reputation the SDLP may have built and raised an even higher barrier to convincing anyone to hand any money to the SDLP."
The party failed to field a single statewide candidate in 2010. I'd say the question of whether this is a step backward from there is open to debate.
>"On the party-building tasks Craig lists: to fully vet candidates, develop a consistent platform and list of issues to focus on, hold your candidates accountable, develop a cohesive strategy, and recruit Libertarians to run for political office can be done entirely by volunteers."
And volunteers are trying to do all of those things, but even volunteers need food and shelter, as well as phone service, internet access and/or transportation. It still takes (someone's) money.
>"... the SDLP's biggest problems seems to be that none of their members take the party seriously and treat it as something more than an occasional diverting hobby."
I'm wondering whether you'd believe I take the party seriously if I used vulgar language here, Cory, because some just went through my head.
>>>"I'm wondering whether you'd believe I take the party seriously if I used vulgar language here, Cory, because some just went through my head."
Maybe that's because you lack integrity.
Craig had written to me:
>>>>"I just cannot possibly see why I would say the only news linked to your party is an embarrassment."
I'd written to Craig:
>>>"Maybe because you lack integrity."
I'd written to Cory:
>>"I'm wondering whether you'd believe I take the party seriously if I used vulgar language here, Cory, because some just went through my head."
Craig wrote:
>"Maybe that's because you lack integrity."
Touché, Craig. Thanks for a mostly civil discussion.
Lynn, Craig, they will use whatever tool is useful to them, and they will discard that tool the moment it no longer is useful.
Kurt raises a good question: is fielding five statewide candidates instead of zero a step forward? I'd say it was at best a futile step sideways, in that the same effort focused in January, February, March and April getting signatures for one gubernatorial candidate would have given the SDLP the chance to win the 2.5% of the gubernatorial vote necessary to maintain official party status. Absent that achievement, any other effort is mostly wasted.
The only circumstance in which fielding non-gub candidates is a plus is when those other statewide candidates mount credible campaigns that do something other than win the standard margin of error and "none of the above" vote and get people to vote for Libertarians because they buy the Libertarian brand. Are any of the SDLP statewide candidates building the SDLP brand? Haber isn't. Reistroffer in the incident reported here isn't. Kurt, you say John English is working hard—will he recruit ongoing support for the SDLP?
Cory wrote:
>"I'd say it was at best a futile step sideways, in that the same effort focused in January, February, March and April ..."
I worked very hard last year to recruit a candidate for governor and might have run myself with a hint of support from the executive committee, but I'm not sure how this is relevant to a comparison to 2010, considering that we didn't field a candidate for governor in that election either.
>"Are any of the SDLP statewide candidates building the SDLP brand?"
It seems obvious to me that four of us are.
>"Reistroffer in the incident reported here isn't."
The suggestion that a civil-disobedience misdemeanor could somehow cancel out everything Emmett has done for the party this year strikes me as false and very unfair.
>"Kurt, you say John English is working hard—will he recruit ongoing support for the SDLP?"
Yes, I believe John is conducting himself in a manner that will attract the kind of people the party needs.
The SDLP's "progress" is practically irrelevant when (1) the party will have to expend the same effort to petition for party status in 2016 and (2) when those five candidates may do little or nothing to make that petition effort easier by building the brand.
It is not so obvious to me that the four legitimate Libertarians on the ballot are building that brand. Even if Evans, Santema, English, and Reistroffer are capable of building the brand, they have to dig the SDLP out of the brand-hole created by Haber's hijacking. It is unfair that one public misstep should undermine all the recruiting and campaigning Reistroffer has done, but welcome to the world of public perception. What does Reistroffer get on the new for? What will people remember? (Actually, I'll remember the fact that he let himself and the SDLP get played by scammers. He failed to play hardball and say, "No, screw you, Haber, I'm not letting you wreck this party and set us back for your latest flash-in-the-pan fundraising scheme.")
English may be conducting himself well, but he has to make up for all the bad press Haber will bring to the party.
I can view Reistroffer's transgression as the same sort of hotheadedness that got me in trouble on occasion. That bad press is a minor setback. But Haber and his team are an anchor around the SDLP's ankles.
Want to end that drag and maybe undo the damage? The four legitimate Libertarian candidates and a quorum of the executive committee should hold a joint press conference (pay Sam, Nate, and Bob their gas costs) to denounce and disavow Haber.Say you've all realized he and his team are frauds. Say you realize he is not upholding the values of the party. Say he's using you and you aren't going to let him do that to your party, to the ballot, or to the people of South Dakota. Say you're leaving that line of the ballot blank and encourage every civic-minded South Dakotan to do so as well.
Such an announcement would be so unusual that it would get serious press. It would give the candidates and committee a chance to show themselves to be men of courage and integrity, able to make a tough decision, and willing to stand up to the thugs holding them hostage.
Haber and his guy on the executive committee are al Qaeda, and the SDLP is Flight 93. Let's roll.
Interesting idea Cory - and I'd agree such a statement would send a strong, strong message. It would signal that the Libertarian Party takes itself seriously and isn't about to sit idly by as a few outsiders attempt to discredit it from the inside.
I have no doubt there are a few members and candidates that are sincerely Libertarian and espouse Libertarian principles... the problem is they are currently being overshadowed by Haber et al.
I'm still back to the premise that sometimes not running a candidate is a better option than adding a name merely to have a full roster. At least we know an unnamed candidate isn't able to hurt the party when they hold a press conference or are walking through a courthouse in handcuffs. Case in point - six months from now if Haber is charged with a crime do you think the Argus Leader is going to merely mention his name or that he is the husband of failed GOP Senate Candidate Annette Bosworth? Nope - they will likely also include that he was the former Liberatarian Candidate for Attorney General.
Who is harmed by that association more - Haber... or the Libertarian Party? Meanwhile those primarily responsible for getting Haber on the ballot seem to have fled the state - so much for supporting their guy.
Interesting! The denouncement of Haber and the rest of the hijackers by the executive committee could actually be a great opportunity for positive press for the SDLP and help add credibility to the party. Otherwise the SDLP is looked upon as weak, desperate and not taken seriously. It's almost like if you can't gain nomination elsewhere the SDLP will always take you in.
Right on, Craig and Lynn. I don't think Libertarians good get better press than by acting like adults and calling Chad out for hijacking their party.
To prevent such hijackings in the future, I propose two changes to election law:
1. Nominations for all statewide office must be obtained through the same petition process. No statewide offices shall be determined by mere convention votes.
2. The number of petition signatures required for nomination to a statewide office shall be 0.5% of the total vote for governor in the last election. That would have meant this this year, every candidate—GOP, Dem, Indy, Lib, Const—would have had to collect 1,586 signatures. Parties that do not have 1,586 members will be highly motivated to recruit 1,586 members.
Cory Heidelberger wrote:
>"To prevent such hijackings in the future, I propose ... every candidate—GOP, Dem, Indy, Lib, Const—would have had to collect 1,586 signatures. Parties that do not have 1,586 members will be highly motivated to recruit 1,586 members."
Maybe you ought to propose a threshold of a million, so we're motivated to recruit a million members. You're effectively insisting that we recruit for a party to which you'd deny any meaningful existence.
Seriously, Cory ... After we recruited those 1,586 members, a Libertarian primary for any office would still be impossible, and every party member in the state would have to sign all nine petitions for statewide candidates. Once Chad Haber had a single signature, the other 1,585 members would theoretically be left to choose between him and no one.
If I'm not mistaken, no party other than the Democrats and Republicans has met the current standard for maintaining official status since 1994. Nor had any such party for several decades before that. And none will again until at least 2018, or perhaps, if your proposal is adopted, ever.
I've criticized some on the political right who don't have the courage to support a ban on abortion but then try to nickel-and-dime it out of existence by other means. You'd get more respect from me pushing for an outright ban on all but the current two major parties than you will with the proposal above.
Kurt, I want third parties to be able to get going. However, this summer's SDLP convention exposed the danger of leaving an empty party lying around unattended, just waiting for some bad actor to pick it up and start shooting. To prevent a hijacking like the one under discussion, a party needs to have a certain critical mass of supporters and activists who can respond to any such casual coup. I suggest, despite my desire for more active third parties, that we have left the price of entry too low.
Serious parties with a serious message could meet the threshold I offer. If you're circulating petitions, you circulate voter registration cards.
And I disagree with your single-signature blocker scenario. Suppose I start a Madville party and quickly register 1,586 members. Peeved at me for successfully changing the law and creating a hurdle that the SDLP can't jump, Kurt registers as a Madvillian, takes out a petition, and gets 100 Madvillians to sign his petition for governor. He stops, turns to me, and chortles triumphantly, "Hoisted on your own petard, eh, Heidelberger? Bow down before my unstoppable nomination!"
I whip out my own petition, get those same 100 people to sign my petition, too, then race to get 1,485 other Madvillians to sign my petition, convince one more voter to register and sign (to make up for Kurt's signature, which I will not get), and (ah ha! Here's the trick!) file my petition before Kurt files his. The signature counts on the first filed petition bearing it, not the petition bearing the earlier signature. So sayeth SDAR 05:02:08:00.04.
Again, Kurt, I intend no subterfuge. Parties have a right to form. But they must have the strength to carry out their responsibilities and help maintain the integrity of the ballot.
Cory wrote:
>"... this summer's SDLP convention exposed the danger of leaving an empty party lying around unattended, just waiting for some bad actor to pick it up and start shooting."
(1) The party was neither empty nor unattended. (2) Bad actors frequently get nominated as Democrats and Republicans too. That doesn't mean ballot-access laws ought to be changed in a way that would drive those parties out of existence.
>"To prevent a hijacking like the one under discussion, a party needs to have a certain critical mass of supporters and activists who can respond to any such casual coup."
There was nothing "casual" about the Haber/Stranahan coup, and I'm convinced very few people—manipulative liars or not—could have pulled it off.
>"Serious parties with a serious message could meet the threshold I offer."
We're a serious party with a serious message, and serious bloggers shouldn't resort to serious cheap shots.
>"Suppose I start a Madville party and quickly register 1,586 members. Peeved at me for successfully changing the law and creating a hurdle that the SDLP can't jump, Kurt registers as a Madvillian, takes out a petition, and gets 100 Madvillians to sign his petition for governor... I whip out my own petition, get those same 100 people to sign my petition, too, then race to get 1,485 other Madvillians to sign my petition, convince one more voter to register and sign (to make up for Kurt's signature, which I will not get), and (ah ha! Here's the trick!) file my petition before Kurt files his."
(1) If you registered 1,586 members before I joined, you wouldn't need to convince one more. (2) Collecting and filing 1,586 signatures before I get to Pierre with my 100 would indeed be quite a trick.
>"... [parties] must have the strength to carry out their responsibilities and help maintain the integrity of the ballot."
There's a difference between what parties and candidates ought to do and what the law ought to mandate. I'm wondering what draconian legal restrictions you'd impose to force independent candidates to maintain (your perception of) the "integrity of the ballot"...
On September 20, Cory Heidelberger had written to me:
>>"Kurt, you say John English is working hard—will he recruit ongoing support for the SDLP?"
And I'd replied:
>"Yes, I believe John is conducting himself in a manner that will attract the kind of people the party needs."
This week I learned that John had actually filed a campaign finance termination report with the secretary of state's office several days before I posted that comment. As far as I know, he hasn't said a word about this to anyone in the party. He seemed like a highly intelligent, highly qualified, highly motivated candidate, and he may have had a good reason for ending his campaign, but his failure to let the rest of us know what's going on seems to indicate a lack of integrity.
For anyone scoring at home, I'm still campaigning for Emmett, Ken and myself. John has joined Haber on the blacklist.