North Carolina Libertarian Party says it will sue to get on ballot

Kentucky.com ^ | 8/23/05 | JIM MORRILL

[Libloather]

Party says it will sue to get on ballot
Libertarians lose place for failing to get enough votes last November
JIM MORRILL
Staff Writer
Posted on Tue, Aug. 23, 2005

Leaders of North Carolina's Libertarian Party said they'll challenge the state's election laws in court after the state elections board decertified the party Monday.

The board voted unanimously to deny the Libertarians an automatic place on state ballots after the party failed to get enough votes last November to qualify.

The decision effectively erases the names of Libertarian candidates from municipal ballots this fall, including five in Mecklenburg County. Two Libertarians, Pamela Guignard and Rusty Sheridan, were to face off in a Sept. 27 city primary.

Now they and the other Libertarians would have to run as write-in candidates.

But Libertarian leaders say they'll go to court.

"I'm angry," said party chairman Thomas Hill. "My main concern is our candidates in Winston-Salem and Charlotte ... We're going to do whatever we can to keep our candidates on the ballot."

Executive director Sean Haugh said the party will challenge state law, including the rule that a party get 10 percent of the votes in the previous gubernatorial or presidential race to stay on the ballot. It's one of the nation's most restrictive laws.

"We're going to ask that the entirety of North Carolina's ballot-access law be struck down," Haugh told the Observer.

Barring a court order, the state's 13,006 registered Libertarians will get letters from local elections boards saying they can re-register with another party or as Unaffiliated. Libertarians can qualify for the 2006 ballot by getting 70,000 petition signatures by next summer. In the meantime, candidates are in limbo.

Justin Cardone, running at-large for Charlotte City Council, said he's waiting to see what the party and courts do. "It's difficult enough to run as a Libertarian," he said. "Running as a write-in is next to impossible."

[stacytec]

I agree, but I've always argued with folks that the Perot situation shows that people will actually use other options if they are present. I consider that election result to be more a reflection of Bush Sr's shortcommings. It shouldn't, however, be seen as a necessity for restricting options at the ballot box - although IVR is certainly a reasonable option.

[burzum]

We have to be careful on our definitions of liberals, libertarians, and conservatives, IMHO. When I tend to think of a conservative, I tend to think about our present issue with our Republican leaders who support government pork, a middle ground on government welfare, open borders, and moral issues. But a Regan conservative would support no pork, very little government welfare, secure borders, and moral issues. A libertarian would support no pork, no welfare, open borders, and no moral restrictions. Obviously I can't support the liberal, the modern conservative view, or the strictly libertarian view. I strongly support the Regan conservative view. I think halfway between modern conservative and libertarian is the Regan conservative. Many people call themselves libertarians who are actually Regan conservatives. They have just become so disenfranchised with modern Republicans that they no longer wish to be called conservatives.

[Michael Goldsberry]

"But a Regan conservative would support no pork, very little government welfare, secure borders, and moral issues. A libertarian would support no pork, no welfare, open borders, and no moral restrictions."

*clapping!*

You pretty much nailed it there, buddy.

Very well done!

[stacytec]

I'd have to modify your statement as Leapfrog was quick to point it out.

"A libertarian would support no pork, no welfare, open borders, and no federally enforced moral restrictions. "

Some folks think morality should be self imposed, not imposed by the government. That doesn't mean Libertarians or others with similar views lack morals, it means they see the danger in giving government the authority to enforce them.

[GoldwaterChick]

That's a great line! I didn't know you could be a man of so few words--numbers?--considering those genes! :)

[samm1148]

Me too--fellow Constitution Party guy. But frankly if I thought a Liberatarian could carry off an election over a republican and most definetly a national socialist...oops I mean democrat I'd vote for the Liberatarian (providing one of our guys wasnt running). They may have whacked out views on some things but there wouldnt be drugs on the street and open immigration everywhere were one elected as a county commissioner or state representative or some such lower office. But provided a conservative majority there would be lower taxes, less government spending and regulation.

[George Smiley]

But isn't the act of litigating the initiation of force?

I thought they didn't believe in that!

[wimpycat]

"Running as a write-in is next to impossible."

Strom Thurmond was 1st elected Senator on a write-in, IIRC.

[Sean Haugh]

I will still never understand the value of people who say they are for freedom attacking fellow freedom fighters first and actually fighting for freedom little or not at all. To use your screen name to define yourself by who you loathe proves a spiritual and intellectual vacuum within.

Any one who is truly for more Liberty is my friend and ally, and that most emphatically includes the Constitution Party and conservatives of any party (or none) who actually practice what they preach.

We can disagree on many issues, but should be united on the general goal -- freedom! If you are against having more choices on the ballot then you are worse that a Soviet or Chinese communist atheist. At least they are honest about trying to destroy God and freedom. I'm not so arrogant to say that God is on the Libertarian side, but I will say the attacks here against us are nothing more than direct quotes from Satan.