Urgent request for help: Libertarian Party lawsuit to overturn I-872

Dear Libertarians,

Prior to the LP Convention in Denver, Washington state was part of Region 2 (California is now a region of the LNC by ourselves).

As I reported in my LNC regional report prior to the Denver convention, there's a serious threat to the future of the LP in Washington state.

Voters passed I-872, which essentially lets only the top 2 candidates (regardless of party affiliation onto the November ballot). BTW, in some district that could be 2 R's or 2 D's. But, unless the R's or D's fail to run someone, you can be sure that there will be no Libertarians, no Greens, etc. on the November ballot.

The attached below is an email note is from the lawyer who's been handling this case for years. The LPWA has less than 30 days to response with a brief to address issues not covered in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

They need $5,000 in order to file this brief. If successful, we'll have a chance to be on the ballot in November. If not, we might as well close up shop there.

I'm told that other states are looking into this initiative to place on the ballot, including California.

Make no mistake, this is third party killer. And, it must be stopped before it spreads elsewhere!

I've already gone to the LP of Washington's web site: www.lpwa.org and made a donation to the cause and I urge you to do likewise. If you do donate, please earmark the donation for I-872.

If you'd like a complete history of the case, I'd be happy to send you the 6 page PDF document from the lawyer: Richard Shepard. Just drop me a email note to "mark@..." and you'll have it.

This is a political cancer that we need to stop and stop now.

Please help if you're able.

Yours in liberty,

Mark Hinkle,
LNC Region 2 (CA) Rep.
Tel: 408-779-7922

Just got this

I was following up on a blog I frequent which broke the news recently about
the tragic death on July 4 of one of my favorite writers, Thomas M. Disch,
when today's entry referenced the Libertarian Party's presidential
candidate, commenting about another notable death that occurred that same
day.

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010421.html#010421

The best thing the Barr campaign could have done would have been to say
nothing at all about Jesse Helms. The worst thing they could have done is
what they ended up doing. Even people like Patrick who were earlier willing
to vote for Barr now seem inclined to associate the LP with racism and
homophobia.

Terry

Thank you for the post, Terry. I shiver at what other damage to the
Libertarian Party Mr. Barr is poised to inflict during his campaign.
To me, he obviously has no feel for libertarianism, and was chosen as
the Libertarian standard bearer out of a misguided hope that name
recognition would translate into votes. To mitigate the damage that
some of us see coming, my suggestion would be to focus our efforts
during the coming months in countering the undeserved but existing
"uncaring" image Libertarians carry -- perhaps in writings on our
Website and elsewhere, tablings with solution-oriented literature,
mailings.

Regards,

Marcy

I was following up on a blog I frequent which broke the news

recently about

the tragic death on July 4 of one of my favorite writers, Thomas M.

Disch,

when today's entry referenced the Libertarian Party's presidential
candidate, commenting about another notable death that occurred that

same

day.

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010421.html#010421

The best thing the Barr campaign could have done would have been to say
nothing at all about Jesse Helms. The worst thing they could have

done is

what they ended up doing. Even people like Patrick who were earlier

willing

Marcy,

  I'm not really sure whether Bob Barr has a feel for libertarianism or not. But he has shown no inclination that I'm aware of to talk about the Non-Aggression Principle or to rely on it to determine his positions on various issues. Although I would not go so far as to say he has no core values or principles, my fear is that he is making his campaign decisions largely on the basis of seeking to maximize his votes to the degree he can do so without going against what he personally believes. Unfortunately, what he personally believes may be significantly more conservative than what the Libertarian Party stands for, and he shows no evidence of placing any importance on the vital pragmatic consideration of reaching out to the left as much or more than to the right, so as to maintain the LP's appeal to both sides of the conventional political spectrum.

  From Barr's point of view, a laudatory statement on Jesse Helms was probably seen as good politics. I believe he assumed it will get him more votes from conservatives than it costs him from others. That could even be correct. But unlike a pragmatic effort to reach out to the left, this "pragmatic" action is bad for the Libertarian Party and bad for the cause of liberty. I don't even entirely disagree with the text of the Barr campaign's eulogy of Helms. The statement itself was not racist, and it's true that the former North Carolina Senator was a staunch anti-communist, something for which I believe he *does* deserve credit.

  However any libertarian eulogy of Helms is incomplete without noting substantial disagreement with his intolerant views on social issues. This is especially important when the statement is coming from the party's presidential standard-bearer, and even more so when that candidate is someone like Barr, a recent conservative who should be still seeking to establish his libertarian credentials and to educate his conservative following about how libertarianism is different from conservatism. If he is not interested in doing that -- and he seems to be showing little interest thus far -- he is doing us a great disservice by running, no matter how many votes he gets. Votes won under non-libertarian pretenses by a candidate who does not win his race do little to help the LP, and in this case may well hurt the party by bringing more conservatives on board who are not interested in libertarianism but who seek to remake the LP in the image of their own ideology, at a time when the party is already leaning dangerously in that direction. To the extent a losing Libertarian campaign fails to educate the public about libertarian ideas and projects an image of the LP which is not fully libertarian, it does nothing to help the cause of liberty.

  Bottom line, this eulogy of Helms was the wrong statement made by the wrong person, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Hi Starchild,

As usual, very well said! You have expressed my sentiments much better
than I could ever do. Now the challenge, in my opinion, for us who
feel as you describe is "What to do about it?" I would suggest
keeping an eye on what is said in our name and putting pressure
(e-mails, phone calls, etc) on the campaign not to stray too far from
our principles. Also, of course, do our best to propagate our
principles on blogs, tablings, LTE's etc.

Regards,

Marcy

Marcy,

  Thanks for your kind words. What I plan to "do about it" at this point is simply to not support or vote for the Barr/Root ticket, and instead to focus on promoting liberty in other ways this year, in particular getting the prostitution decriminalization measure passed, and helping down-ticket candidates like Phil. I don't intend to go out of my way to speak out against Barr/Root, but I'm not going to be silent about my views on it if the topic comes up, either. Of course I'm open to revising my stance one way or the other if Barr/Root get dramatically better or worse between now and November.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Very good! I agree with your plan.

Marcy