Libertarian’s ballot request denied

“This deprives Ohio voters of choice, and this is neither right nor fair”
Associated Press
Apr 4, 2014


The Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday denied a request from a Libertarian candidate seeking to force the state’s elections chief to place his name on primary ballots.

Last month, Secretary of State Jon Husted disqualified attorney general candidate Steven Linnabary from the May 6 ballot. His decision came after Linnabary’s nominating petitions were successfully challenged on two grounds: that a signature gatherer failed to comply with Ohio law requiring he be either Libertarian or politically independent and that he disclose his employer.

Linnabary’s attorneys sought to have the state’s Supreme Court compel Husted to certify his candidacy, arguing that the man who protested Linnabary’s petitions lacked standing to do so. They also said state law does not require certain petition circulatorsto disclose employment because they are independent contractors.

Attorneys for the state had told the justices that among other arguments, Linnabary’s petition circulators should have revealed their employment, regardless of whether they are “employees” or “independent contractors”

“This is a simple case about a candidate who did not follow the law — a law that is plain in its meaning, that is easy to comply with, and that serves an important purpose,” attorneys for the state wrote in a court filing last month.

The high court said in its Thursday ruling that Husted reasonably interpreted Ohio law.

Linnabary’s attorney, Mark Kanfantaris, said he was disappointed with the decision. He said it conflicted with previous state rulings allowing circulators to submit signatures without declaring an employer.

“This deprives Ohio voters of choice, and this is neither right nor fair” Kanfantaris said.

Separately, the Libertarian Party of Ohio is appealing a federal judge’s order in an effort to get its gubernatorial candidate, Charlie Earl, on the May ballot.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has said the court will take quick action on the party’s overall request to allow Earl to appear on primary ballots. He also was disqualified on the grounds that two of his petitioners failed to properly disclose their employers.



“This is a simple case about a candidate who did not follow the law — a law that is plain in its meaning, that is easy to comply with, and that serves an important purpose,” attorneys for the state wrote in a court filing last month regarding Libertarian's candidacy being denied.
Is that anything like not signing a petition required by law?
Why didn't the Libertarian guy find a "placeholder" to qualify.


Obviously he needs to take lessons from the Damschroder clan. By the way did you know unless you are a registered Democrat or Republican you CANNOT be a polling place judge or worker?


If you cross over during early voting and become 'the other' can you then be a pollworker for your 'new' party? Did you know some counties allow candidates to be pollworkers?


The one thing Republicans and Democrats agree upon is keeping elections and therefore power for themselves. Consider the decisions from the US Supreme Court on election spending and it is obvious the political class/ruling elite only answers to those with money.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I hear a supporter of congressional and supreme Court term limits! Happy to be aboard with you!


Yes, just started researching the subject. Noted there have been attempts introduced in Congress that will likely go nowhere. But also stumbled upon an effort to try to directly amend the constitution but know very little about the topic.

Your thoughts?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I'd suggest picking up a copy of "The Liberty Amendments" by Mark Levin.

In addition, what you are referencing is a Convention of the States, which was thankfully included by our founding fathers to be a secondary way of amending the Constitution without the need for Congress. As of today about half the states have passed legislation to guide delegates in how to operate at such an upcoming event. Thankfully this movement has been silently sweeping across the nation without the interference of various media outlets drawing attention to it. As such you haven't read about it much I presume despite it's steady steam building. If you want to follow what's going on with this convention please visit:

If there's anything else you'd like to know or would like references to other things (or just a good conversation) let me know. I'm happy to help!

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

On a separate note, what the Supreme Court ruled isn't necessarily "bad". For one and those who knee-jerk it as being so (understandably) it gets us talking about term limits. After all, lifetime Senators such as Mitch McConnell from Kentucky no longer can nor will have a use for warchests built over 30 years to squash any primary opposition nor outspend others by an increasing amount if they are limited to, say, 12 years maximum in Congress (as either or both Representative or Senator, of course Senators need to go back to being delegated by the States and not popularly elected, which will also handle a huge money issue. We can talk about that more too if you want.)

But consider this. With the ruling that was just placed, what need is there for the myriad of confusing PACs, Super PACs, etc. that came from the campaign finance reform of before? Isn't it funny how a bill that was supposed to make things more fair set up a baffling array of organizations the public can't keep track of, still included the ability for so-called "dark money" to be generated, and yet we STILL had record-breaking political collections especially for our current President?

With this ruling, now a bill can be passed that simply says something along the lines of "Any U.S. citizen or U.S. Corporation can donate any amount they wish, however all donations must be public record." That bill is both easy to understand by the public, makes the public able to access who gave what to whom, and holds donors responsible for their contributions. Where is there a loss to the citizenry in this?

Also consider this: because this breaks the special powers to hide and manipulate money by PACs (and their ilk) it encourages donors to donate to candidates instead of parties or organizations. That is a practice I would recommend for people to do anyway. Support a candidate you believe in, not a party because you will inevitably be betrayed by the party who will support their GOBs over fresh faces who actually wish to enact beneficent change in the way things are done.

I'd be honored to talk about this more with you. I read other things you write (especially in the more local issues such as kerfuffle regarding courts, vendors, the AG, etc.).


An offshoot of term limits is that it takes away the pervasive corruption of seniority in Congress. The leaders in Congress will have to be decided more by ability rather than by who has been there longest. That is another real benefit of term limits.
It takes away much of the power of parties and makes politicians more beholden to their constituents instead of a party. It is where the power should be... in the hands of the people, not a party.

You will make the left wingnuts heads explode if they read Mark Levin... but that said he is very good and detailed in his writings, especially about the Constitution.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

It would also mean Congress members MUST return to the society from whence they came (including any laws that they passed upon us smallfolk) instead of cloistering in D.C. to form their political cartels. It would mean that long-brewed rancor or alliances that glaze over corruption and ethical decisions are less likely to form. It would mean that "the way things are/work" would HAVE to change because you don't have to be in office for 20 years to "learn the ropes".

It would mean a constant influx of fresh ideas and less propensity for pet projects and "bridges to nowhere" to be able to be built. The people get representation by their populace instead of representation of the government to them. In the House, anyway.

The Senate? It gets restored to being the chamber of the states how it was originally intended to be and performing the functions it was supposed to do. Senators are chosen (and can be repealed) by the state leaders who themselves are closer to the people than a popular vote could hope to achieve (and effectively makes no difference between the chambers, giving us a "bicameral" Congress in name only).

How can any of this be negative? There's much more than can be done, too, but it's a good start to enact these two things even ahead of any kind of a mandatory budget amendment.

thinkagain's picture

Olly olly oxen free! OK Contango, you can come out now…

Pterocarya frax...

He has been a little busy lately.