The practice of California in 1912 does not define the limits of how a State may appoint its presidential electors any more than the practice of Tennessee in 1796 did.

State law could vest the authority to nominate the presidential candidate in a national convention, or even a national primary, and then let that candidate name the presidential electors.

It sounds like you guys really don’t like Bob Barr and that you have a legitimate grievance over ballot access. I can’t speak to the latter but the former was hashed out at the convention. New Hampshire and many others were heard but their view did not prevail. If our state affiliates don’t view ballot access for our chosen nominee as a formality but rather as another battle for the candidates, it will do enormous long-term harm to the libertarian movement.

I will personally go up and help the New Hampshire LP collect signatures next time round if tomorrow they relent and remove Phillies from the ballot before this unnecessary lawsuit has to be filed. Or we can all dig in about our grievances and undermine our best opportunity in a presidential election in a long time.

Given our repeated complaints about ballot access timing/difficulties which we made National aware of, which they dismissed and preferred to blame on individuals, we faced a moral dilemma of how to best serve our members. (Risk having no ballot line again, or start early with a candidate we felt good with)

We (the LPNH board at the time, plus open discussions with others during board meetings) considered the options, made all parties aware of the options and issues, and held a public nomination convention with the LNC’s full knowledge, witnessed by our Rep. NOTA was always an option, and could have won if a simple majority wished.

If what we were doing was immoral or unethical in the eyes of the LNC, they should have had their representative speak up right there and then, with a warning to our voting membership, or forever hold their peace. Or at least file for disaffilation right there and then (by the next LNC meeting). The fact they didn’t says that the decision, while unpopular with many of them, didn’t meet any real standard by which they felt sure we’d crossed a moral line worthy of tossing us out of the LP. Filing now would amount to a case of sour grapes over split milk. You can’t let stand an immoral choice until you suddenly feel like filing a complaint about it later on – either it was wrong in the first place, or it wasn’t, so a failure to take action says that it wasn’t immoral.

You need to read DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. WISCONSIN EX REL. LA FOLLETTE, 450 U. S. 107 (1981). If you want the LPNH to withdraw its affiliation from the LNC, that’s one thing. But if you want the LPNH to retain its affiliation that’s another.

1) LPNH held a convention and picked a candidate. Barr was not our choice, nor was the choice “To be determined later”, nor was the choice NOTA.

2) LPNH ExecComm has never held a vote wanting to substitute. Discussed it, yes. But even if we did, it’s unclear that we even have the authority under the bylaws and constitution of LPNH to order it. We couldn’t even replace a nominee (Governor) decided at the same convention as we decided on Prez.

3) LNC is bringing the lawsuit, NOT LPNH. In fact, they asked us if we’d join them, NOT the reverse.

I imagine a judge could well write:

“The logical flaw in the lawsuit is that it assumes the national convention in May changed the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. In law, national conventions have no authority whatsoever. They only have moral authority. Any state party (whether a major party or a minor party) is free to choose its own presidential candidate, since in law, only state parties nominate candidates for presidential elector. The presidential electors are the true candidates in November, and if a state party ignores the choice of the national party, it may do so.”