Comments on: Kansas Secretary of State Removes Baldwin from Ballot

By: jake

jake — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:03:18 +0000

On a Reform Party side note I see that the website has been relaunched eventhough the information is still has no updated.

Anyway, it’s good to see some things moving foward.

By: Bev Kennedy

Bev Kennedy — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:35:11 +0000

If everyone understood that the ONLY reason there are national political parties is for all the state parties to have one common presidential candidate, I doubt anyone would be surprised at the Kansas SOS decision.

Nobody would be the least bit surprised if this article was about a state Democratic or Repiblican party.

I suspect if it was a Dem or GOP party, everyone posting here would expect the state SOS to put the nominee of “the party” on the ballot. I suspect everyone would also think it was totally illogical to even think, or hope, the SOS might do otherwise.

Bev

By: Mark Seidenberg

Mark Seidenberg — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:15:02 +0000

Glaivester,

You are incorrect. There was only one convention of
the American Independent Party at that took place in Sacramento, CA on July 5, 2008. Alan Keyes was
the pick of the delegates to that convention. I was elected the Chairman of the AIP 2008 ctonvention.

Anne E. Thomas was not a delegate to the convention
either in 2004, 2006, nor in 2008. She was an non
member officer, so according to all editions of
Roberts Rules of Order she had no authority under
the by-laws, manual of parlimentary proccedures, or
the election laws of the State of California to call to order any meeting of the California AIP.
Therefore that is one of many reasons that the events in Los Angeles on June 28 & 29, 2008 was a
void act and could not be an act of the AIP.

Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party.

By: Glaivester

Glaivester — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:35:23 +0000

That is, that the legitimate AIP California convention was the one held by the Baldwin supporters, not the one held by Noonan and the party hijackers.

By: Glaivester

Glaivester — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:34:26 +0000

I’m disappointed in this ruling (in that I would have preferred to have had Baldwin on the ballot), but I am not outraged. I am not certain in this case that there is a principle by which the national party should not have the right to have its person selected.

The reason, however, why Mr. Seidenberg is wrong to charge hypocrisy is that, as far as I understand it, there was no contingent in Kansas clamoring for Weill, the national Reform Party candidate. There were no dueling conventions in Kansas.

In California, the members of the AIP clearly wanted Baldwin for President, but Noonan and Seidenberg hijacked the Party.

In other words, the issue is not that the AIP owes Baldwin the nomination, but that the Baldwin convention was clearly the legitimate one.

By: jake

jake — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:01:24 +0000

I think we can all agree here and say hmmmm,and it seemed like the Reform Party was moving somewhere foward with the latest ruling about the Convention this past summer and cleaning it up a bit.

I am registered Reform and all I can say is I don’t know. In principle it makes sense to have Weill/McEnulty as the ticket in Kansas. At the same time though Kansas would be a solid state for Baldwin and why not let them garner some votes and bring some excitement to the Kansas RP.

I will probably be in the minority with that statement, but I’ve already been the minority a few times within the party.

Does Weill/McEnulty even have a website? I’ve offered to the McEnulty team a few times to help out, but of course not even received a thank you for being interested email. I find it funny you email the Nader team and you’ll have a state rep. either calling or emailing you within the day.

By: Mark Seidenberg

Mark Seidenberg — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:06:58 +0000

To Richard:

You state it is “logically inconsistent” for SoS
of California “to place Keyes on the ballot in
California” and “also think that Ted Weill should
be on the ballot in Kansas” (by the Kansas SoS).

It is my view that it is not inconsistent because
California and Kansas are both sovereign states and
each has its own laws. 3 USC section 5 leaves it
up to each of states the rules on conducting a
Presidential Election (Act of June 25, 1948, chap. 644, 62 Stat. 673).

I remember when I was a graduate student at UCLA,
I purchased a t-shirt stating “I support the UCLA
Bruins or any team opposing USC”.

I do not know Ted Weill, but I can see the Kansas
SoS ruling a ballot access based on Kansas Law and
a California SoS ruling on California Law.

I recall that in 1968, the Peace & Freedom Party
had different people on the ballot for President in
different states or no listing at all, viz., California and Utah.

What I would like to know is the figure of 37 states that Cody Quirk gave as for the number
of states that Baldwin was on the ballot included
the State of Kansas or not?

Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party of California.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:41:23 +0000

It is logically inconsistent for anyone to think that the California Secretary of State is correct to place Keyes on the ballot in California, and also think that Ted Weill should be on the ballot in Kansas. Kansas Secretary of State is going with the principle (which is wrong) that the national convention trumps the actions of state officers of the state party. If the Kansas Secretary of State’s position were valid, then Baldwin should be the nominee of the AIP in California even if absolutely no one in the California AIP supports Baldwin. The California AIP participated in the national convention of the Constitution Party.

By: Mark Seidenberg

Mark Seidenberg — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:43:16 +0000

Just found a typing error in the above. It should
have stated “the ticket of Alan Keyes (President)
and Wiley S. Drake, Sr. (Vice President).”

Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party of California.

By: Mark Seidenberg

Mark Seidenberg — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:33:13 +0000

Bill Lussenheide asked “LET THE KANSAS SoS KNOW HOW
YOU FEEL HERE-”. I am the current Vice Chairman of
the American Independent Party. Our past Chairman
was named one of the Real Party In Interest in a Writ of Mandamus in the Superior Court of California for Sacramento County. They did not name me in that lawsuit yet. I expect to be named
a party in suit # two, since I was the elected Chairman of the 2008 convention of the AIP held in
Sacramento and was the elected leader of the
California delegation to the Constitution Party
Convention. Therefore, I am now informing my
attorney and his lawfirm partners and associates
in Topeka that you might have a conflict with our
retainer agreement by associating with the Brewtown
lawfirm that tried to get its lead attorney admitted Pro Hac Vice in the case of King v. Bowen.

Bottom line to my attorney in Topeka, please do not
let your firm associate with a Brewtown, Wisconsen
law firm on a suit against the Kansas SoS until I
know the I am free from lawsuits in California related to the 2008 Convention of AIP selection of
the ticket of Alan Keyes (President) and Wiley S.
Drake, SR. (Vice Chairman).

Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party of California.