Hard Fought Battle Achieves Election Reform, Instant Runoff Voting

Press Release:

FairVote Minnesota Applauds Supreme Court Decision on Ranked Choice Voting

MINNEAPOLIS –– Jeanne Massey, executive director of FairVote Minnesota, applauded the Minnesota Supreme Court decision handed down today that upholds the constitutionality of Minneapolis’ ranked choice voting (RCV) law.

“Today, in a unanimous opinion, the Minnesota Supreme Court blazed a path that every community in our state can follow toward better elections and a stronger democracy,” Massey said. “The Court’s decision is a resounding endorsement of ranked choice voting. It gives a bright, green light for Minneapolis to implement RCV for this year’s elections and for other communities around the state – Saint Paul, Duluth and others – to move ahead as well.”

In its ruling, the Court explained that the RCV system satisfies constitutional requirements because all votes are treated equally: “[e]very voter has the same opportunity to rank candidates when she casts her ballot, and in each round every voter’s vote carries the same value.” The Court also found that there was “no indication, much less proof” that RCV would impose a burden on the right to vote. Finally, Chief Justice Magnuson stressed in the opinion, “[t]he voters of Minneapolis chose to adopt the IRV method.” Under these circumstances, the Court held that it would not interfere with that choice.

It is expected that today’s ruling will set the stage for other communities to move ahead on RCV initiatives. The Saint Paul City Council, for example, voted in 2008 to uphold a citizen’s petition to place RCV on the ballot in 2009 upon resolution of the law suit in Minneapolis. In Duluth, there is a strong and active citizen’s effort to put RCV on the ballot for municipal elections next year.

FairVote Minnesota attorneys James Dorsey and Nicole Moen praised the Court’s decision: “The Court carefully examined each of the plaintiffs’ constitutional arguments and rejected all of them. The Court also noted that RCV promotes many legitimate state interests, such as increasing voter turn-out and decreasing election costs.”

Dorsey and Moen also dismissed the impact of the plaintiffs’ intention to appeal today’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court: “The Minneapolis City Attorney has already determined that a ruling from the Minnesota Supreme Court requires the city to implement RCV for this election cycle. The Court’s decision rests on a thoughtful and solid analysis of Minnesota and United States Supreme Court precedent. If the plaintiffs pursue their claims in federal court, the outcome will likely be the same.”

Today’s decision is consistent with the outcomes of similar cases in other states, most notably Johnson v City of New York (1937) Moore v Election Commissioners of Cambridge (1941) and Stephenson v Ann Arbor Bd. of Canvassers (1975). In each case, RCV was upheld under the state constitution and/or election laws.

In 2006, Minneapolis voters approved the use of RCV by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, 65 percent to 35 percent. The case, Minnesota Voters Alliance v City of Minneapolis (27-cv-08-15), was filed in December 2007 to challenge implementation of the voting method, but was rejected last January by Hennepin County District Judge George McGunnigle.

RCV is a tested, accepted and implementable system by which voters rank candidates in order of preference, ensuring majority winners in single-winner races where there are more than two candidates on the ballot. Under RCV, voters cast their vote for their favorite candidate knowing that if he or she doesn’t gather enough votes to be one of the top two finishers, their votes will count toward their second choice. Votes cast for the least popular candidate are not “wasted”, but rather redistributed to more popular candidates, based on the voters’ second choices, until one candidate emerges with a majority of votes. In multi-winner elections, like the Minneapolis Park Board RCV ensures majority rule while empowering small groups of voters with greater opportunity to elect a candidate that represents them.

RCV is already in use in more than a half a dozen jurisdictions around the United States and in democracies such as Ireland and Australia.

Eight jurisdictions in six states – California, North Carolina, Maryland, Vermont, Colorado and Washington – currently use RCV voting methods without legal challenge. Nearly a dozen other cities are slated to use RCV in the near future; nowhere has RCV been legally challenged.

FairVote Minnesota was founded in 1996 to work for better democracy through public education and advocating progressive voting systems that lead to greater competitiveness, better representation and more participation.

Eco-Savvy Storytellers watching the greening of politics.

Hard Fought Battle Achieves Election Reform, Instant Runoff Voting

Press Release:

FairVote Minnesota Applauds Supreme Court Decision on Ranked Choice Voting

MINNEAPOLIS –– Jeanne Massey, executive director of FairVote Minnesota, applauded the Minnesota Supreme Court decision handed down today that upholds the constitutionality of Minneapolis’ ranked choice voting (RCV) law.

“Today, in a unanimous opinion, the Minnesota Supreme Court blazed a path that every community in our state can follow toward better elections and a stronger democracy,” Massey said. “The Court’s decision is a resounding endorsement of ranked choice voting. It gives a bright, green light for Minneapolis to implement RCV for this year’s elections and for other communities around the state – Saint Paul, Duluth and others – to move ahead as well.”

In its ruling, the Court explained that the RCV system satisfies constitutional requirements because all votes are treated equally: “[e]very voter has the same opportunity to rank candidates when she casts her ballot, and in each round every voter’s vote carries the same value.” The Court also found that there was “no indication, much less proof” that RCV would impose a burden on the right to vote. Finally, Chief Justice Magnuson stressed in the opinion, “[t]he voters of Minneapolis chose to adopt the IRV method.” Under these circumstances, the Court held that it would not interfere with that choice.

It is expected that today’s ruling will set the stage for other communities to move ahead on RCV initiatives. The Saint Paul City Council, for example, voted in 2008 to uphold a citizen’s petition to place RCV on the ballot in 2009 upon resolution of the law suit in Minneapolis. In Duluth, there is a strong and active citizen’s effort to put RCV on the ballot for municipal elections next year.

FairVote Minnesota attorneys James Dorsey and Nicole Moen praised the Court’s decision: “The Court carefully examined each of the plaintiffs’ constitutional arguments and rejected all of them. The Court also noted that RCV promotes many legitimate state interests, such as increasing voter turn-out and decreasing election costs.”

Dorsey and Moen also dismissed the impact of the plaintiffs’ intention to appeal today’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court: “The Minneapolis City Attorney has already determined that a ruling from the Minnesota Supreme Court requires the city to implement RCV for this election cycle. The Court’s decision rests on a thoughtful and solid analysis of Minnesota and United States Supreme Court precedent. If the plaintiffs pursue their claims in federal court, the outcome will likely be the same.”

Today’s decision is consistent with the outcomes of similar cases in other states, most notably Johnson v City of New York (1937) Moore v Election Commissioners of Cambridge (1941) and Stephenson v Ann Arbor Bd. of Canvassers (1975). In each case, RCV was upheld under the state constitution and/or election laws.

In 2006, Minneapolis voters approved the use of RCV by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, 65 percent to 35 percent. The case, Minnesota Voters Alliance v City of Minneapolis (27-cv-08-15), was filed in December 2007 to challenge implementation of the voting method, but was rejected last January by Hennepin County District Judge George McGunnigle.

RCV is a tested, accepted and implementable system by which voters rank candidates in order of preference, ensuring majority winners in single-winner races where there are more than two candidates on the ballot. Under RCV, voters cast their vote for their favorite candidate knowing that if he or she doesn’t gather enough votes to be one of the top two finishers, their votes will count toward their second choice. Votes cast for the least popular candidate are not “wasted”, but rather redistributed to more popular candidates, based on the voters’ second choices, until one candidate emerges with a majority of votes. In multi-winner elections, like the Minneapolis Park Board RCV ensures majority rule while empowering small groups of voters with greater opportunity to elect a candidate that represents them.

RCV is already in use in more than a half a dozen jurisdictions around the United States and in democracies such as Ireland and Australia.

Eight jurisdictions in six states – California, North Carolina, Maryland, Vermont, Colorado and Washington – currently use RCV voting methods without legal challenge. Nearly a dozen other cities are slated to use RCV in the near future; nowhere has RCV been legally challenged.

FairVote Minnesota was founded in 1996 to work for better democracy through public education and advocating progressive voting systems that lead to greater competitiveness, better representation and more participation.

Thanks for your continued subscription. If you have an insight or piece of news that seems to fit our blog, please feel free to contact us.

Naomi Wolfe Describes Her New Work "Give Me Liberty"

Interview with Naomi Wolf author of “Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries” given October 4, 2008 on Mind Over Matters, KEXP 90.3 FM Seattle.

Eco-Savvy Storytellers watching the greening of politics.

Naomi Wolfe Describes Her New Work “Give Me Liberty”

Interview with Naomi Wolf author of “Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries” given October 4, 2008 on Mind Over Matters, KEXP 90.3 FM Seattle.

Naomi Wolfe Describes Her New Work "Give Me Liberty"

Interview with Naomi Wolf author of “Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries” given October 4, 2008 on Mind Over Matters, KEXP 90.3 FM Seattle.

Thanks for your continued subscription. If you have an insight or piece of news that seems to fit our blog, please feel free to contact us.

Zogby Poll Shows that More than Half of Independents Want Nader and Barr in the Debates

This Zogby on-line poll concludes that 55% of likely voters want Barr included in Presidential Debates. It also states that 46 per cent of independents want Nader in the debates.

read more | digg story

Libertarian Phillies Reflects on His Party’s Internal Struggles Over Selection of Barr

Reprinted by permission of the Miller Politics, Ben Miller

Miller Politics exclusive interview with former 2008 Libertarian presidential candidate George Phillies:

MP: “Many traditional libertarians were unhappy with Bob Barr winning the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party. Do you feel Barr is libertarian enough and are you supporting his candidacy?”

Phillies: “As State Chair, I am extremely busy getting our U.S. Senate candidate, Bob Underwood, on the ballot for this fall. The same nominating papers also put onto the ballot a full slate of electors. Petitioning for Libertarians in Massachusetts is momentarily challenging. People do not know about our Presidential candidate, and that does not help petitioning or recruitment. I am also busy with Liberty for America, my State and Federal PACs, my new Libertarian magazine, and with efforts to engender local activism in Massachusetts. Historically, Presidential campaigns have largely run themselves–there are a bunch of campaign finance issues here–and I expect Barr/Root will do the same.

“I confess I would be happier if my contact to Barr/Root, asking how to reach their volunteer coordinator, had not more or less indicated that they do not have one. After all, the main value of a Libertarian Presidential campaign is strengthening the party, volunteer mobilization is the larger part of party strengthening, and no volunteer mobilization means that the major value of the Presidential campaign is missing.

“Now, Massachusetts has the technical difficulty that our Secretary of State has changed his mind about whether or not we have substitution. Last Fall, the Secretary of State said we could replace our candidate when the candidate’s name was determined. We chose President and VP
candidates, and started petitioning. At the moment we are petitioning for Phillies/Bennett rather than Barr/Root, because by starting early we collected lots of signatures. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State now says we cannot substitute. It is likely that this matter will be litigated. I advised the National Party they could keep petitioning and hope the lawsuit won in time, or they could start over. They chose to hope rather than to start over. If we prevail, Barr/Root is on the Ballot. If not, Phillies/Bennett is on the ballot.

“I view the outcome of our last national convention as a train wreck in process. Large parts of the party are disenthused about a Presidential candidate who was (probably correctly) afraid to debate his Libertarian opponents more than once. The Barr-Root deal (Barr has committed to
support Root’s 2008 nominating campaign) possibly will not sit well with the party’s radical wing. Running two ex-Republicans rather than, say, an ex-Republican and a conspiracy theorist did not anchor the party together.

“There are at least four or five fault lines causing our party to drift apart. We have a group of social conservatives, right-leaning Libertarians, conservatives who want to wreck the GOP… who line up with Barr-Root. We have an anarchist/radical/purist wing, attached to Mary Ruwart and Steve Kubby, who are very unhappy about things. We have the people who believe all the conspiracy theories from 9/11 to the Federal Reserve being privately owned to gold fringies on the flag means that the court must follow Admiralty Law. These people border with the Ron Paul people, the larger part of whom are not libertarians. Finally we have a party centrist wing, which did quite poorly at the National Convention, but seems to have more support elsewhere.

“I have done a moderate amount of travel since the national convention, and I am encountering very little Bob Barr support among Libertarians.”

MP: “You have launched a new website, LibertyForAmerica.com. On the site it says: ‘Liberty for America is not currently a political party.’ Down the road do you plan to start a new party?”

Phillies: “The statement as meant to be read literally, namely Liberty for America is not as I type this answer functioning as a political party. I could have omitted the ‘currently’, but then if anything happens and LfA becomes a party people could have raised ‘inconsistent’ lines. Happens? For example, LNC, Inc., the corporation behind the National Committee, has in the past decade repeatedly flirted with serious fiscal insolvency. If it had instead become insolvent, at some point a new organization with new leadership might have made more sense to many people. Historically, in Massachusetts we had a Libertarian State Party that did not do that the things activists expected, leading to formation of a parallel organization ‘Liberty for Massachusetts’ which started doing partylike things. LfM eventually absorbed the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts.”

MP: “Do you have any plans for running for office in the future?”

Phillies: “I might, though I very much doubt for 2012, run for a Presidential nomination again. That’s assuming that by 2012 or 2016 we have a functioning Libertarian Party, which is up in the air.

“As seems to be forgotten, in 2006 the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire decided to choose its own Presidential candidate, so that they would have time to do the needed petitioning. Why? They had the serious complication that New Hampshire does not allow substitution of
Presidential candidates, so they had to make their own choice who to run, and start petitioning early, or wait until after the National Convention, and probably fail to do petitioning successfully for lack of time.

“They invited everyone who was running to compete. I was chosen as the nominee. They did the petitioning. I filed the Declaration of Intent and paid the deposit. Barring unexpected events, I will be on the ballot in New Hampshire this November as a Libertarian candidate.

“Barr has also filed his Declaration. There will now be an attempt to petition for Barr/Root. The LPNH people question whether Barr will succeed. If he does, we have two Libertarian Presidential candidates on the New Hampshire Ballot, giving New Hampshirites unprecedented amounts of choice. If not, and this is the far more important outcome for the LPNH, no matter what happens they will have a Presidential candidate on the ballot this fall.

“The LPNH and the Libertarian National Committee discussed this matter last year, so the situation has been on the record for every Libertarian all this time. The LNC chose to take no action last year. None of my opponents for our Presidential nomination cared about the matter enough to make an issue of it. Mind you, when you jump into a campaign with a month or two to go, you lack time to get your ducks all in a row, but I was also running against fine Libertarians like Steve Kubby and Wayne Root, and they also said nothing.”

Eco-Savvy Storytellers watching the greening of politics.

Libertarian Phillies Reflects on His Party’s Internal Struggles Over Selection of Barr

Reprinted by permission of the Miller Politics, Ben Miller

Miller Politics exclusive interview with former 2008 Libertarian presidential candidate George Phillies:

MP: “Many traditional libertarians were unhappy with Bob Barr winning the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party. Do you feel Barr is libertarian enough and are you supporting his candidacy?”

Phillies: “As State Chair, I am extremely busy getting our U.S. Senate candidate, Bob Underwood, on the ballot for this fall. The same nominating papers also put onto the ballot a full slate of electors. Petitioning for Libertarians in Massachusetts is momentarily challenging. People do not know about our Presidential candidate, and that does not help petitioning or recruitment. I am also busy with Liberty for America, my State and Federal PACs, my new Libertarian magazine, and with efforts to engender local activism in Massachusetts. Historically, Presidential campaigns have largely run themselves–there are a bunch of campaign finance issues here–and I expect Barr/Root will do the same.

“I confess I would be happier if my contact to Barr/Root, asking how to reach their volunteer coordinator, had not more or less indicated that they do not have one. After all, the main value of a Libertarian Presidential campaign is strengthening the party, volunteer mobilization is the larger part of party strengthening, and no volunteer mobilization means that the major value of the Presidential campaign is missing.

“Now, Massachusetts has the technical difficulty that our Secretary of State has changed his mind about whether or not we have substitution. Last Fall, the Secretary of State said we could replace our candidate when the candidate’s name was determined. We chose President and VP
candidates, and started petitioning. At the moment we are petitioning for Phillies/Bennett rather than Barr/Root, because by starting early we collected lots of signatures. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State now says we cannot substitute. It is likely that this matter will be litigated. I advised the National Party they could keep petitioning and hope the lawsuit won in time, or they could start over. They chose to hope rather than to start over. If we prevail, Barr/Root is on the Ballot. If not, Phillies/Bennett is on the ballot.

“I view the outcome of our last national convention as a train wreck in process. Large parts of the party are disenthused about a Presidential candidate who was (probably correctly) afraid to debate his Libertarian opponents more than once. The Barr-Root deal (Barr has committed to
support Root’s 2008 nominating campaign) possibly will not sit well with the party’s radical wing. Running two ex-Republicans rather than, say, an ex-Republican and a conspiracy theorist did not anchor the party together.

“There are at least four or five fault lines causing our party to drift apart. We have a group of social conservatives, right-leaning Libertarians, conservatives who want to wreck the GOP… who line up with Barr-Root. We have an anarchist/radical/purist wing, attached to Mary Ruwart and Steve Kubby, who are very unhappy about things. We have the people who believe all the conspiracy theories from 9/11 to the Federal Reserve being privately owned to gold fringies on the flag means that the court must follow Admiralty Law. These people border with the Ron Paul people, the larger part of whom are not libertarians. Finally we have a party centrist wing, which did quite poorly at the National Convention, but seems to have more support elsewhere.

“I have done a moderate amount of travel since the national convention, and I am encountering very little Bob Barr support among Libertarians.”

MP: “You have launched a new website, LibertyForAmerica.com. On the site it says: ‘Liberty for America is not currently a political party.’ Down the road do you plan to start a new party?”

Phillies: “The statement as meant to be read literally, namely Liberty for America is not as I type this answer functioning as a political party. I could have omitted the ‘currently’, but then if anything happens and LfA becomes a party people could have raised ‘inconsistent’ lines. Happens? For example, LNC, Inc., the corporation behind the National Committee, has in the past decade repeatedly flirted with serious fiscal insolvency. If it had instead become insolvent, at some point a new organization with new leadership might have made more sense to many people. Historically, in Massachusetts we had a Libertarian State Party that did not do that the things activists expected, leading to formation of a parallel organization ‘Liberty for Massachusetts’ which started doing partylike things. LfM eventually absorbed the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts.”

MP: “Do you have any plans for running for office in the future?”

Phillies: “I might, though I very much doubt for 2012, run for a Presidential nomination again. That’s assuming that by 2012 or 2016 we have a functioning Libertarian Party, which is up in the air.

“As seems to be forgotten, in 2006 the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire decided to choose its own Presidential candidate, so that they would have time to do the needed petitioning. Why? They had the serious complication that New Hampshire does not allow substitution of
Presidential candidates, so they had to make their own choice who to run, and start petitioning early, or wait until after the National Convention, and probably fail to do petitioning successfully for lack of time.

“They invited everyone who was running to compete. I was chosen as the nominee. They did the petitioning. I filed the Declaration of Intent and paid the deposit. Barring unexpected events, I will be on the ballot in New Hampshire this November as a Libertarian candidate.

“Barr has also filed his Declaration. There will now be an attempt to petition for Barr/Root. The LPNH people question whether Barr will succeed. If he does, we have two Libertarian Presidential candidates on the New Hampshire Ballot, giving New Hampshirites unprecedented amounts of choice. If not, and this is the far more important outcome for the LPNH, no matter what happens they will have a Presidential candidate on the ballot this fall.

“The LPNH and the Libertarian National Committee discussed this matter last year, so the situation has been on the record for every Libertarian all this time. The LNC chose to take no action last year. None of my opponents for our Presidential nomination cared about the matter enough to make an issue of it. Mind you, when you jump into a campaign with a month or two to go, you lack time to get your ducks all in a row, but I was also running against fine Libertarians like Steve Kubby and Wayne Root, and they also said nothing.”

Libertarian Phillies Reflects on His Party’s Internal Struggles Over Selection of Barr

Reprinted by permission of the Miller Politics, Ben Miller

Miller Politics exclusive interview with former 2008 Libertarian presidential candidate George Phillies:

MP: “Many traditional libertarians were unhappy with Bob Barr winning the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party. Do you feel Barr is libertarian enough and are you supporting his candidacy?”

Phillies: “As State Chair, I am extremely busy getting our U.S. Senate candidate, Bob Underwood, on the ballot for this fall. The same nominating papers also put onto the ballot a full slate of electors. Petitioning for Libertarians in Massachusetts is momentarily challenging. People do not know about our Presidential candidate, and that does not help petitioning or recruitment. I am also busy with Liberty for America, my State and Federal PACs, my new Libertarian magazine, and with efforts to engender local activism in Massachusetts. Historically, Presidential campaigns have largely run themselves–there are a bunch of campaign finance issues here–and I expect Barr/Root will do the same.

“I confess I would be happier if my contact to Barr/Root, asking how to reach their volunteer coordinator, had not more or less indicated that they do not have one. After all, the main value of a Libertarian Presidential campaign is strengthening the party, volunteer mobilization is the larger part of party strengthening, and no volunteer mobilization means that the major value of the Presidential campaign is missing.

“Now, Massachusetts has the technical difficulty that our Secretary of State has changed his mind about whether or not we have substitution. Last Fall, the Secretary of State said we could replace our candidate when the candidate’s name was determined. We chose President and VP
candidates, and started petitioning. At the moment we are petitioning for Phillies/Bennett rather than Barr/Root, because by starting early we collected lots of signatures. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State now says we cannot substitute. It is likely that this matter will be litigated. I advised the National Party they could keep petitioning and hope the lawsuit won in time, or they could start over. They chose to hope rather than to start over. If we prevail, Barr/Root is on the Ballot. If not, Phillies/Bennett is on the ballot.

“I view the outcome of our last national convention as a train wreck in process. Large parts of the party are disenthused about a Presidential candidate who was (probably correctly) afraid to debate his Libertarian opponents more than once. The Barr-Root deal (Barr has committed to
support Root’s 2008 nominating campaign) possibly will not sit well with the party’s radical wing. Running two ex-Republicans rather than, say, an ex-Republican and a conspiracy theorist did not anchor the party together.

“There are at least four or five fault lines causing our party to drift apart. We have a group of social conservatives, right-leaning Libertarians, conservatives who want to wreck the GOP… who line up with Barr-Root. We have an anarchist/radical/purist wing, attached to Mary Ruwart and Steve Kubby, who are very unhappy about things. We have the people who believe all the conspiracy theories from 9/11 to the Federal Reserve being privately owned to gold fringies on the flag means that the court must follow Admiralty Law. These people border with the Ron Paul people, the larger part of whom are not libertarians. Finally we have a party centrist wing, which did quite poorly at the National Convention, but seems to have more support elsewhere.

“I have done a moderate amount of travel since the national convention, and I am encountering very little Bob Barr support among Libertarians.”

MP: “You have launched a new website, LibertyForAmerica.com. On the site it says: ‘Liberty for America is not currently a political party.’ Down the road do you plan to start a new party?”

Phillies: “The statement as meant to be read literally, namely Liberty for America is not as I type this answer functioning as a political party. I could have omitted the ‘currently’, but then if anything happens and LfA becomes a party people could have raised ‘inconsistent’ lines. Happens? For example, LNC, Inc., the corporation behind the National Committee, has in the past decade repeatedly flirted with serious fiscal insolvency. If it had instead become insolvent, at some point a new organization with new leadership might have made more sense to many people. Historically, in Massachusetts we had a Libertarian State Party that did not do that the things activists expected, leading to formation of a parallel organization ‘Liberty for Massachusetts’ which started doing partylike things. LfM eventually absorbed the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts.”

MP: “Do you have any plans for running for office in the future?”

Phillies: “I might, though I very much doubt for 2012, run for a Presidential nomination again. That’s assuming that by 2012 or 2016 we have a functioning Libertarian Party, which is up in the air.

“As seems to be forgotten, in 2006 the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire decided to choose its own Presidential candidate, so that they would have time to do the needed petitioning. Why? They had the serious complication that New Hampshire does not allow substitution of
Presidential candidates, so they had to make their own choice who to run, and start petitioning early, or wait until after the National Convention, and probably fail to do petitioning successfully for lack of time.

“They invited everyone who was running to compete. I was chosen as the nominee. They did the petitioning. I filed the Declaration of Intent and paid the deposit. Barring unexpected events, I will be on the ballot in New Hampshire this November as a Libertarian candidate.

“Barr has also filed his Declaration. There will now be an attempt to petition for Barr/Root. The LPNH people question whether Barr will succeed. If he does, we have two Libertarian Presidential candidates on the New Hampshire Ballot, giving New Hampshirites unprecedented amounts of choice. If not, and this is the far more important outcome for the LPNH, no matter what happens they will have a Presidential candidate on the ballot this fall.

“The LPNH and the Libertarian National Committee discussed this matter last year, so the situation has been on the record for every Libertarian all this time. The LNC chose to take no action last year. None of my opponents for our Presidential nomination cared about the matter enough to make an issue of it. Mind you, when you jump into a campaign with a month or two to go, you lack time to get your ducks all in a row, but I was also running against fine Libertarians like Steve Kubby and Wayne Root, and they also said nothing.”

Thanks for your continued subscription. If you have an insight or piece of news that seems to fit our blog, please feel free to contact us.

Congress to Grant Immunity to Telecoms

In a hurry to take their summer recess, the Democrats have capitulated again to the Republicans.

Democracy Now reports:

Leaders in the Democratic-controlled House and Senate have agreed to rewrite the nation’s surveillance laws and to give what amounts to legal immunity to phone companies that took part in the Bush administration’s secret domestic surveillance program. The bill has been described as the most significant revision of surveillance law in three decades. The legislation gives the government new powers to eavesdrop on both domestic and international communications. One provision would allow the government to wiretap Americans for up to a week without a court order. The House is expected to approve the measure today. The Senate will vote next week. Several prominent Democratic Senators criticized the bill. Senator Russ Feingold said, “The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation.”