Seebeck, Kosinski Review Libertarian Convention
[Mike Seebeck sent in the following notes on May 1 in reply to an article about the state Libertarian convention.]
The [review about the] hearing proposal I made omits a couple of major points.
The proposal as I wrote it would have required each side to present oral arguments to the Board in an appellate-style hearing, giving the Board as the appellate panel the proper role to operate the hearing in a productive manner. Those of us who were there at the Stanley hearing saw how a courtroom style of hearing just didn't work due to time constraints and other problems. It also allows each side to better prepare their cases and responses, which is very fair. It also keeps the whole thing from becoming even more of a circus than it already is. The limitations proposal you did mention was put in because the way it is worded now, the Board, being members, are restricted to one complaint for one candidate per cycle. If we have this problem happen again (and it will!) with more than one candidate in a cycle, we're screwed. Further, there is no addressing any conflict of interest for a Board member who is also a candidate having a complaint filed against him or her. The language of the proposal also covered that base.
The big problem is that the rules we have now are not written with the mentality of looking at loopholes that people can exploit but in the sense of a general process. There are too many loopholes to be exploited. I fear that not enough members, both local and statewide, are not looking at these things in that manner. If that mentality doesn't change, we're in for a lot of interloper trouble. Better to fix it now than later when it may be too late.
Loopholes allow people to get away with things they shouldn't. We may not be able to much about that on the legal level right now, but within our own rules we can, and we should while we can.
[Eva Kosinski sent in the following notes on May 2.]
Ari Armstrong [wrote,] "A person can become a member of the Libertarian Party of Colorado in one of two ways: by registering to vote as a Libertarian or by paying dues."
One side-issue associated with this got me burned last year when trying to run for County Commissioner in Boulder. The Colorado Revised Statutes have a cute little gotcha which says if a registered 3rd party member (membership in the Libertarian Party is irrelevant for this purpose) was a member of either of the major parties within a calendar year, they are precluded from running for any office. The candidate affidavit requires the date you were registered with the County Clerk, and if you run afoul of that you cannot run. If you were an Independent before, you are OK.
If you want I can go back and find the actual statute (I hunted it up once, but have now forgotten exactly where it is). Don't know if this is actually ever enforced, but I chickened out because I didn't want to be the first example (yeah, I know, I'm a wimp. I don't think I'd make the same decision again, but I also got nominated just before the actual election with very little time to plan a campaign).
However, this little setback is in the past. I am now running for City Council in Louisville (Nov 04).