I Don't Care About Today's Primary

Why should I? Only one of the seven Fishers Town Council seats is challenged... but I would have to take a Republican primary ballot in order to cast a vote. There is only one Democrat running for any of the seven seats, so provided he casts a vote, he wins his primary.

I don't care to take either a Republican or Democratic primary ballot. Why? Besides disagreeing with the kind of policy both of these parties write into law, I have also read and understood Indiana's election laws, which state in IC 3-10-1-2:

Political parties required to hold primary election
Sec. 2. Each political party whose nominee received at least ten percent (10%) of the votes cast in the state for secretary of state at the last election shall hold a primary election under this chapter to select nominees to be voted for at the general election.

I am not interested in voting for the candidates of either of the two parties that qualify. None other will appear on any ballot. So, by law, I am disenfranchised. Beyond that, I believe that if the elections law interprets so plainly the primary election to be political party business, then it should be paid for by the political parties, not the taxpayers. Even had I won 10.01% in my run for Secretary of State, and had thereby obligated my party to participate in the primary election, I would have objected to the requirement on the same grounds.

Also consider IC 3-5-1-2:

(3) Primary election, which is conducted for the purpose of choosing by ballot the
following:
(A) The candidates who will be the nominees of a political party for elected offices in a general or municipal election.
(B) The precinct committeemen of a political party.
(C) The delegates to a political party's state convention.
(4) School district election, in which the electorate of a school district chooses by ballot members of the school board.
(5) Special election, which is conducted for a special purpose as provided by law.

Except that there aren't any school board seats up for grabs here, there isn't a special election of any kind, and my party has been excluded, by IC 3-6-2-1:

Political parties entitled to precinct committee members
Sec. 1. Each political party whose nominee received at least ten percent (10%) of the votes cast in the state for secretary of state at the last election may have precinct committeemen elected at the same time as a primary election in accordance with IC 3-10-1-4.5 if provided by the rules of the political party.

So, what's the point? Fortunately, turnout for this non-event will be so sparse that I won't have to wait in any sort of line. Turnout in Hamilton County in 2003 (the same cycle) was 20%.

I'll go, ask for an independent ballot, which will confuse everyone in the building. Then, after they don't know what to do because there would be nothing to hand to me, I'll have them enter me as voted without having cast a ballot of any kind.

Tell me how this differs from, say, Cuba, in the pointlessness of the 'event'.

Star Takes My Position on Elections

One of today's Indianapolis Star editorials took my position that moving the school board elections from the Primary Election to the General Election in November would be beneficial. From the Star editorial:

Our position: Moving school board elections from May to November would help voters to have more influence on education.

Wonder if races for school board seats in Indiana should be moved from the primary period in May to the general election in November? Consider the spectacularly low voter turnout for the last round of school district elections in 2004.

Only 13 percent of voters cast ballots in races for seats on 10 Marion County school boards in May 2004, lower than the 19 percent turnout for the overall primary and four times smaller than for the general election six months later.

...

The fact that the elections take place during the primary in May, a time in which intraparty struggles are decided, means few voters who aren't registered as Democrats or Republicans will show up. The new media also tend to pay less attention to primary elections.

Moving school board elections from May to November would enable voters to receive more information on issues surrounding the races. They're also more likely to pay attention during the fall election cycle. And turnout is sure to be higher.

Given the importance of education, school board elections deserve a higher profile. A shift to November is overdue.

Now, if only the Star could give credit where credit is due. Here are excerpts from my April 3, 2006 press release, which was widely circulated to various columnists, reporters, and editorial staffers:

Primary Elections Are Also Open To Libertarians and Independent Voters

All voters, regardless of party, can vote on important school board seats

Fishers, IN- Turnout at Primary Elections are routinely low throughout Indiana. One reason is that Primaries are dominated by the party business of the Republicans and Democrats, marginalizing voters who aren’t true believers of those parties.

That’s too bad, because important non-partisan races for school board are a significant part of the primary ballot in many Hoosier counties, and everybody can vote for these candidates.

Libertarians and independent voters often feel marginalized by the Primary Election process. While they wish to fulfill their civic duty by voting on Primary Election Day, because they have no interest in taking a partisan Republican or Democrat ballot, these voters too often stay home.

Even with the big combined Presidential-Gubernatorial, an embarrassing 21% of registered Indiana voters turned out at the 2004 Indiana Primaries.

...

It’s curious that the two parties don’t use conventions more broadly to slate candidates. They will nominate some of their candidates at a statewide convention this summer, so they know how to do it.

Non-partisan school board candidates could be voted on in the General Election, eliminating the Primary Election entirely. The taxpayers would be relieved of the cost of the spring election and the free day for government employees.

Some original thoughts over at the Star's editorial board, eh? It would be nice to get just acknowledgment from the Star. Unfortunately, old media that they are, the Star is behind the trending growth and relevance of the Libertarian Party here in Indiana. Let's hope that changes soon. We are saying things a month in advance of anyone else that are wholly relevant to public policy. Why blacklist us?

Indiana Primary Dilemma

OK, so it's no dilemma for those who refrain from participating in Primary Elections on the basis of these elections essentially being the private business of the political parties, and not a genuine public function. The basis for this position in some areas?

All Indiana primaries are closed primaries. This means you have to choose either a Democratic or Republican ballot. For instance, there is no Libertarian ballot. There is no independent or non-partisan ballot. The "offices" being voted on include Precinct Committeeman and Delegate to the Party Convention. Primary info from the Secretary of State's office.

But, some areas will have non-partisan school board races, and fewer still will have local issues. If you object to our Primaries on the basis of it being publicly funded private function, be certain that these two items are not on your ballot before resolutely staying home. If these are on your ballot, and you don't care to vote in the D or R Primary, ask for "a school board ballot".

Normally, my primary voting goes like this: I walk into the polling place. I find my precinct station. I ask the volunteer if there is a Libertarian ballot knowing full well that there isn't. When the volunteer advises me that there is only a Democratic or Republican ballot, I say 'thank you,' I sign the book, and I leave. The volunteer says, 'Don't you want to vote?' and I reply, 'I just did in the only way I can that represents my views'.

Some Libertarians will face a different dilemma this year, because they want to cast a vote for Ron Paul- the only Primary candidate remotely close to representing our views. A problem arises for those who take the letter of the law seriously. The law reads:

IC 3-10-1-6Eligible voters
Sec. 6. A voter may vote at a primary election:
(1) if the voter, at the last general election, voted for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election; or
(2) if the voter did not vote at the last general election, but intends to vote at the next general election for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election;as long as the voter was registered as a voter at the last general election or has registered since then.
As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.6.

There is great temptation for many Libertarians to vote in the Republican Primary. It isn't because they are eager to cast votes for a slate of Republicans in the November General Election. It is so they can cast a vote for Ron Paul- the only Primary candidate remotely close to our views.

Chances are great that the partisan Libertarians don't qualify to take a partisan D or R Primary Ballot, for either or both of the clauses found in the law above.

Come November, most Libertarians are going to want to cast votes for as many Libertarians as are on the ballot, perhaps one or two Democrats, one or two Republicans, and more likely, have a whole bunch of blanks because you can't vote None Of The Above.

As for me, I will not cross over and take a Republican ballot. I did support Ron Paul's campaign and wish him well, but the coronation of McCain is complete, and my one vote in favor of Paul has no meaning. In fact, it would be worse. It would signal a willingness to vote Republican, which I am utterly unwilling to do. With the marginalization of Paul, the Republican Party has further reinforced its disinterest in general liberty and limited government, so I'm not going to give them my vote, only because I think Democrats are slightly worse. I'll vote as I always have- go in, sign the book, leave.

Side note: Did you know that Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are still on the Indiana Primary Ballot? It's true. Link.

Primary Vote Deadline Approaching

If you intend to vote in the Indiana primary elections, you need to get registered to vote if you aren't already. From the Noblesville Ledger article:

If you're going to vote in the May 2 primary, you've got to register by 4:30 p.m. Monday.

The stakes are high. Officeholders will determine tax rates, decide how schools will operate, prosecute criminals, establish budgets for poor relief and township fire protection and run communities and county offices, among other duties.

In northern Hamilton County, 86 names will be on the Republican and school board ballots. A handful of Democrats are challenging some Republicans and those races will be determined in the Nov. 7 general election, but many of the offices will be filled when votes are cast May 2.

What this means is that in many counties across Indiana, often one party is so dominant that the primary election is the de facto election, as the second and third parties are so distant that they fail to post a significant challenge. In some counties, the second party doesn't even post candidates. This is can be the case for Democrats in Hamilton and other counties, and Republicans in Lake and other counties, where the Libertarians will post more candidates in November than the minorty major party.

The Libertarian Party of Indiana currently has minor party status, and does not participate in the primary elections. Libertarians spare the taxpayers the expense, and host their own county conventions.

The law is such that if you vote in the primary election and select either a Republican or Democratic ballot, you are making the statement, under the penalty of perjury, that you intend to vote for that party's candidates as the majority of your votes in the general election. Here are your options if you vote Libertarian and wish to vote on primary election day:

Simply ask for an independent ballot. There may be local issues on the primary ballot, but it is unlikely. Independent voters can still cast votes for candidates for non-partisan office such as school board.

If you intend to cast the majority of your votes for Republicans or Democrats, select that ballot. You can still split your November ballot and vote for Libertarians.

Primary Elections For Indiana Libertarians

I have documented at some length about my manner of 'voting' in Indiana's primary elections, wherein I would go to my precinct, sign the book, and walk out. This caused some amusing confusion among election workers, as they couldn't fathom how I didn't want either an R or D ticket.

Ok, in my precinct, they really couldn't fathom how I didn't want a Republican ticket.

I would ask for the non-partisan school board ballot. If there was none, I signed the book and left. If there was one, I would vote accordingly.

No more. The non-partisan school board elections have been shifted from the primary to the general election this year. Municipal issues will also be added to the general election ballot. There is no possible non-partisan voting at the primaries. I'm not complaining. I called for this back in 2006, in the hopes that the school board elections would see more voters, and the private partisan business nature of the primaries would be laid bare and eventually lead to their elimination

I found out about the changes when I went to vote early. It dawned on me that I would be out West on primary election day, so I went to my county seat of Noblesville to do my usual 'sign the book and run' voting. There was the usual confusion at my insistence that I was neither an R or D. Couldn't I just sign the book and go? No- the books aren't at the county for the early voting.

In Hamilton County, Kathy Richardson is the Elections Administrator, and also a member of the Indiana House. I went over to her office to confirm that there really was nothing for me this time around. She confirmed it. We discussed the perjury laws associated with the process, and in her opinion, it would be a perjury this year for one to sign the book and walk out, acknowledging that I used to do this in the past, and it was not an act of perjury then.

I looked at the Secretary of State's website, and found a lengthy pdf file with everything anyone wanted to know about the primary elections- except the bit about the non-partisan school board races being moved to the general election. It takes to Pg 20 before you even get to who is being voted upon.

More than ever now, the primary elections are the private business of the Republican and Democratic Parties, being held at public expense. I object to this, and am proud that the Libertarian Party nominates its candidates at conventions that it funds itself, without tax dollars.

I've heard some discussion about the Rs & Ds doing likewise, with the inevitable rejoinder that it would lead to party insiders picking the candidates.

Got news for you. In 2010, primary turnout in Indiana was only 21%. The people going to the primaries to pull a partisan ballot are largely party insiders. Certainly, the parties themselves treat primary voters that way. If you vote for the same party 3 primaries in a row, never wonder why that party and its candidates hit you up with regularity in their fundraising efforts. The primary voter rolls are where they grab those names from.

Still, a worthy debate to be had. In the meantime, no voting for partisan Libertarians to do.

Election Follies, Part Ten

Secretary of State is Indiana's ballot status race. For any political party, their candidate for Secretary of State must earn at least 2% to win automatic ballot access for the following four years. Automatic ballot access is important, for it means the parties are spared the need for petitioning in order for its' candidates to appear on the ballot.

Petitioning is expensive, and frankly, not very fulfilling. It's a lot of work, and you really aren't getting to talk about your issues. Ballot access was valued at $80,000 by Brad Klopfenstein when he was Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Indiana. He made his estimate on a purely paid petitioning effort. We can ask Bill Stant and the Greens what its' value is.

I am the Libertarian candidate for Indiana Secretary of State. I am running for many reasons. Among them is for continued Libertarian automatic ballot access. I want to make sure Libertarian candidates go straight to talking issues, passing petitioning. If this is important to you, please donate via this link today.

There are other ballot status thresholds that are tied to a party's outcome in the Secretary of State race, such as Major Party and Minor Party status. A political party is declared a Major Party when its' candidate for SOS earns at least 10%.

Major Parties particpate in the primary elections. Major Parties have representatives on the Indiana Elections Commission. Minor Parties are excluded from the primaries and the Elections Commission.

Obviously, being represented on the Elections Commission is a big deal. The Commission decides how rigorously enforce Indiana Code and impose fines. If your party isn't on the Commission, you have to worry if you get hauled before them.

The Republicans and Democrats use the Primary Elections to find out who their likely true-blue (or true-red) supporters are. Indiana is not a registration state, where voters declare their political affiliation. I wish it were. I would know who all these people who vote Libertarian are, and I could communicate with them directly. Rs & Ds communicate directly with those voters who take a partisan 'R' or 'D' ballot at the Primary. Nice little advantage they have created for themselves, but it isn't just bad for Indiana's Minor Parties.

It's bad for the voters. Most voters are not partisans. They're independents. They scratch vote across the three parties. When campaigning, I hear a great many tell me that they vote for the best candidate and not the party. I believe them. So, this majority is fairly alienated by a Primary Election that requires the voter to take only either a partisan 'R' or 'D' ballot, the act of which is a declaration that, under threat of perjury, the voter intends to cast the majority of their votes for that same party in the November General Election.

Scratch voters haven't made up their minds in May. They are waiting to see the character of the candidates emerge on the trail. They stay away from the polls in May. Here's the proof: The turnout in 2006 for the Primary was merely 19% statewide. That's 19% of registered voters, not of eligible adult citizens. That's embarrassing.

It's time for the General Assembly to look at the mechanics of the partisan ballot. It's time to eliminate the perjury clause. It's time to make voter information available to all parties, by making Indiana a registration state.

It's also time to re-evaluate what it means to be a Major Party statewide in Indiana.

I believe that a Major Party is one that fully participates in the elections statewide. A Major Party should therefore run a candidate in every race that is on the ballot for statewide office, for Federal office, and for Indiana House and Senate. If a party is truly a Major Party, it has the resources and the wherewithal to run a candidate in each of these races, otherwise it is just packing it in and doing a disservice to the voters.

The Indiana Democrats are a joke party if they can't or won't run a candidate for US Senate. They should be stripped of their Major Party status immediately.

To be fair, no party would be a Major Party under my listed criteria, as the gerrymandering of districts has made it so both Democrats and Republicans pack it in for a significant number of Indiana House and Senate Districts. You want to brag on your Major Party status? Give the voters representation in every district. Otherwise, join the Libertarians as Minor Parties.

Libertarians are laughed at when we fail to post candidates for high posts. Very well. Let's now laugh at the Democrats and Republicans, because they are as guilty as anyone.

Major Party status is currently set with the comfort of Republicans and Democrats in mind, and discomfort for the Libertarians and all other parties similarly in mind. That's what happens when election laws are written by Republicans and Democrats. If two oil companies wrote the laws on oil production, distribution, and sale, we would call it collusion. Guess what Indiana election law is?

It is important that we have competitive elections in Indiana. It allows for issues to be vigorously discussed until November instead of until May. It means greater turnout at the polls. It means more people paying attention to what government does. It means more accountable elected officials. In sum, it means a better representative government.

Until Rs & Ds have to work to earn their Major Party status, we will continue to see lazy efforts by them, whereby they surrender 40% of the seats each to one another, and fight over about 20% of them to see who gets the majority in the Indiana House. Until the Indiana Legislature changes the rules to make it tougher on the Rs & Ds, the people of Indiana will continue to be ripped off by those parties, and the voters will stay home.

Radio Ad Text

The following is the original text from the radio ads that the Kole Campaign ran in the days leading up to the Primary Election. Unfortunately, while it was a great speech, it was much more than a 60-second radio ad. It was significantly edited to fit inside those parameters.

My name is Mike Kole. I’m a Libertarian candidate for Secretary of State. You won’t be able to vote for me when you vote in the Primary Election, and that’s worth thinking about.

Libertarians are not part of the Primaries. Even though it might be perceived that Libertarians are shut out of the process, we like it that way. We select our candidates at county and statewide conventions, sparing the taxpayers the cost of staging our private, political party business.

The Republicans and Democrats also like the primary process just as it is. That should be no surprise- they wrote the rules. They like that the taxpayers pay for their private business. They like the fact that when voters take a partisan primary ballot, they learn who their supporters are, and who to raise money from. They’re happy that Libertarians do not have this tool.

But, what’s good for the political parties can be bad for voter participation. In 2004, with all the star power of presidential and gubernatorial candidates, the turnout in Marion County was only 13%, and 21% statewide.

That trend will likely continue this year, as Hoosiers who scratch vote, or who consider themselves independents, and Libertarian voters often feel shut out of the process because they do not have an interest in taking a partisan ballot.

That’s a shame, because there are also important non-partisan races on the primary ballot, such as for school board.

School Board offices are very important, as the people elected to these offices have a great deal of influence on how our children are educated, and on the amount of tax dollars taken from the public to fund the schools.

While the Secretary of State’s office spent more than a million dollars educating Hoosiers about the new voter ID law, it didn’t even spend a penny to advise that any registered voter can vote in the primary, even if they don’t want a partisan ballot. It’s hard to figure why so much money was spent on educating people about having an ID for an election they probably aren’t going to participate in. Cart and horse, I’m afraid.

It is my hope that we can do away with the Primaries in Indiana in the near future,
sparing the taxpayers the expense of private political party business, and shifting the School Board races to Fall, when the turnout is higher.

Until then, I encourage every registered voter to exercise their civic privilege and vote in the Primaries. Please come out to vote on Tuesday, May 2. The non-partisan voter merely needs to ask for the school board ballot to participate.

Then in November, you’ll be able to vote for Mike Kole for Secretary of State, and a host of other Libertarians who believe in fair elections, lower taxes, and smaller government.

This message paid for and authorized by the Committee to Elect Mike Kole. Ame Langmack, Treasurer.

A later post will have the edited script, and an audio link to the actual ad.

Ballot Discrimination In North Dakota

I was infuriated at seeing this item in the news. From the Forum of Fargo-Moorhead:

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Al Jaeger that was filed by three Libertarian candidates for the North Dakota Legislature who sought placement on the November ballot.

Richard Ames of Wahpeton, along with Grand Forks residents Thommy Passa and Anthony Stewart, argued that North Dakota’s ballot access requirements are unconstitutional because they require candidates to get a minimum number of primary election votes, even if they run unopposed.

It isn't a partisan outrage. If these were Socialist candidates, I'd feel the same way. I detest the judge's reasoning:

In an order issued today, District Court Judge Ralph R. Erickson wrote that states can require candidates to demonstrate a certain degree of support in a primary election.

Primary elections serve as a mechanism to “winnow out and reject all but serious candidates,” and ballot requirements allow states to avoid voter confusion, overcrowded ballots and frivolous candidates, Erickson wrote.

He concluded that North Dakota’s ballot requirements for the general election are “non-discriminatory and serve a compelling state interest.”

That's bullcrap. What exactly does an 'overcrowded ballot' look like? And, what is a frivolous candidate? That's for the voters to decide!

We have to work hard to make sure Mike Wherry gets his votes here in Indiana so that the Libertarian Party can maintain its ballot access for four more years. It isn't safe to leave the matter in the hands of judges, as this example in North Dakota shows, and as we're aware affected the Libertarian Party in Ohio for several years.

(h/t: Patriot Paul)

Election Follies, Part Eight

I was recently asked in an email why the Libertarians aren't running a candidate for Hamilton County Commissioner against Christine Altman, in light of the clear case we make against the high cost of light rail and mass transit boondoggles. After all, Altman is a Republican who is on record supporting regional mass transit, and this is an obvious case of wasteful pork. It should be a good place for a Libertarian to challenge where a Democrat could not- on grounds of fiscal conservatism. Altman represents Clay Township, which is to say Carmel, where fiscally conservative voters rule the day.

It's a good question, and perfectly well observed. This is a race that a Libertarian could make interesting. Here's the problem, and why nobody wanted to step forward:

Although the County Commissioner represents a district in the county, the whole county votes on the position, even those living outside the district that the Commissioner would represent.

This is per IC36-2-3-3:

IC 36-2-2-3
Election of executive; terms

Sec. 3. (a) The executive shall be elected under IC 3-10-2-13 by the voters of the county. The number of members to be elected to the executive alternates between one (1) and two (2) at succeeding general elections.

(b) The term of office of a member of the executive is four (4) years, beginning January 1 after election and continuing until a successor is elected and qualified.As added by Acts 1980, P.L.212, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.5-1986, SEC.33.

So what, you ask? Observe how it has played out in other Commissioner races.

Steve Dillinger has been a Hamilton County Commissioner since the mid-1980s. He has routinely lost in the townships he represents- Delaware and Noblesville. However, he has won in the townships he does not represent, and since those townships make up the lion's share of the county, he has been continually re-elected.

This kind of election is its own kind of gerrymandering. The incumbent can thoroughly alienate his district and still be re-elected, merely because his party holds a solid majority countywide. Because Republicans hold a countywide majority in Hamilton County, the incumbents really don't even have to campaign outside their districts. They go to the bank on the majority. It has the effect of reducing the accountability of the Commissioners. Why listen to the District if the others in the County will elect you?

It also has the effect of making elections non-competitive, where it's over with the May Primary Election. That's a huge disservice to voters, not only in November, but for the entire time from May to November, where the incumbent's best strategy is to be relatively invisible. Want to talk issues? Go talk to that wall.

For a challenger, it means that you have to campaign over the entire county, even though you will only represent a portion of the county. In the case of running against Altman, it means campaigning in nine townships for the privilege of serving just one- Clay Township. It's daunting and therefore prohibitive. You could go door-to-door in one township, but the County?

So, Altman runs unopposed in the General Election in November. She remains unaccountable to the district, and the people are given another reason to not bother turning up at the polls. Not to pick on Altman- this happens across our state, where most of the 92 counties are dominated by either the Rs or Ds. Only a handful- Marion, Monroe, and LaPorte come to mind- are competitive at the county level. (Is that why Mitch Daniels promotes elimination of Township offices? Well, that's another topic for another day.)

It is time for the Indiana Legislature to end this kind of election. It's time to make the Commissioners accountable to their districts by having only their districts vote for the candidates that would represent them.

It is time to revise IC 36-2-3-3 to read: "The executive shall be elected under IC 3-10-2-13 by the voters of the district within the county.

Bayh Quits

The first thing that came to mind for me upon the news of Evan Bayh's sudden announcement that he is retiring from the US Senate is regards the rules for elections. Tomorrow is the deadline for Democrats and Republicans to file their signatures to be on their parties' respective primary election ballots. A Huffington Post article sums up the rules well.

It does not appear that there will be time for Indiana Democrats to choose a top-flight candidate to back, and get signatures for. There was one intrepid Democrat, Tamara D'Ippolito, who was prepared to give Bayh a Primary challenge- if she herself could collect the necessary signatures on time, which has not been done. This suits the Democratic Party elite, apparently. From Fire Dog Lake:

I just spoke with Tamyra D’Ippolito, the candidate who was already running in the US Senate primary as a Democrat in Indiana before Evan Bayh ended his re-election bid today. D’Ippolito’s potential presence on the primary ballot complicates the ability for Indiana Democrats to handpick a nominee. If nobody qualifies for the primary, Indiana Dems can choose the candidate. But if D’Ippolito qualifies, then she would be the only candidate on that primary ballot, and Brad Ellsworth or Baron Hill or whoever would have to run a write-in campaign to defeat her in that primary in May.

So how’s D’Ippolito doing? She’s collected 3,500 of the 4,500 signatures, 500 in each Congressional district in Indiana, which are needed by noon tomorrow in order to qualify. D’Ippolito said that she’s particularly short in IN-08, in the Terre Haute/Evansville area of the district. Her campaign manager has contacted all of the heads of the county Democratic parties asking them if they would help her get on the ballot.

But she’s not getting the sense that they want to be helpful in that effort. “Politics in Indiana is the old boy’s school. They’re getting ready to put one of their own in,” D’Ippolito, a cafe owner in Bloomington who gained experience in politics running a primary campaign for Gretchen Clearwater in 2006. “My gut feeling tells me they’re meeting in a room, I don’t know if they’re smoking cigars,” D’Ippolito said, basically working under the assumption that Bayh’s announcement was timed so the state party could pick the nominee by themselves. “The timing of this is amazing.”

D’Ippolito told me she is the first woman to ever run for the US Senate in Indiana. Her impression from working on prior campaigns and from this one is that Indiana political culture is a “tight old boys school, it borders on sexism.” In a state where the population is 52% women, D’Ippolito says “in the future, we women of Indiana are not going to tolerate” the chummy, insider culture.

Now, I suspect it may be as much as that she's a complete unknown, and one that hasn't raised any significant money, and hasn't yet mustered the needed signatures. Her website is child's play. Really, when I looked it over this afternoon, the first thing I thought was, "A complete amateur like this could perhaps win the US Senate, thanks to party label. I can think of a thousand better Libertarians".

But her comments are interesting. The Democrats? Good ol' boys? Borderline sexists? I love it. May they eat each other alive.

Ads Running!

Be certain to tune in to WXNT 1430-AM in Indianapolis to hear my unusual campaign ads. They are running once per hour, from 7am to 8pm, every day in the run-up to the Primary Election.

The ads are unusual in that neither I nor any other partisan Libertarian appears on the Primary ballots. The ad calls attention to this fact, and to the nature of the slating of candidates by the parties. Libertarians bear the costs of their conventions. Republicans and Democrats soak the taxpayers for a Primary Election that gets less than 25% average participation statewide.

The purpose is to highlight yet another area of waste caused by Rs & Ds, and to show that a better way is out there.

Another thing the ads did was advise voters that they can still participate, even if the Primaries are widely perceived as private party business. I urge non-partisans, scratch voters, Libertarians, and independents to vote- simply ask for the School Board Ballot. This frees you from having to take a partisan R or D ballot.

The Secretary of State's Office spent $1.2 million to educate Hoosiers about voter ID, but didn't put any money or effort into educating non-partisan, non-R & non-D voters. Don't ever wonder why turnout is so low.

Letters to the Editor V

The Indy Star printed one of mine today, urging Libertarians and independents to crash the primary party and have an effect on things.

In case there is any confusion, you should know that any registered voter, even if you are not a Democrat or Republican, has the right to participate in the primary election. In past years, I would often just show up, sign the book, and go home. I find it more satisfying now to identify a David Orentlicher as a socialist and to vote in the Democratic primary against him, tallying for his opponent. If enough of us do this, his primary numbers drop, his confidence sags, and he looks at how he has to re-tool his message away from socialism and back towards some modicum of common sense.

Another strategy for Libertarians is to vote in a Republican primary for candidate who appear that they would be vulnerable in November to our message of less taxes and smaller government.

In sum, there is no reason not to vote. You can exercise you conscience even if your first choices aren't available until November.

Email From Lugar

When the debt ceiling votes were before us, I emailed Senator Dick Lugar to ask him to vote against raising it, and to cut spending dramatically, primarily by ending the wars. Here's his response:

Dear Mr. Kole:

Thank you for contacting me. Under President Obama and the Democratic Party controlled Senate, our federal debt has ballooned from $10.6 trillion to more than $14.3 trillion. This spending is unsustainable and unacceptable.

I have voted against numerous policies promoted by the Obama Administration which contributed directly to high deficits, including the so-called stimulus bill, the health care bill, the annual spending bills, and the bureaucratic financial regulatory reform bill.

I have cosponsored, supported, and voted for numerous Republican proposals to rein in spending including the Cut, Cap and Balance Plan and a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. I likewise supported the Ryan Budget and the Toomey Budget plans. I have supported and will continue to support efforts to overhaul, repeal, or restrain out of control spending policies.

On August 2, 2011, I voted for the Budget Control Act of 2011, the final default avoidance plan that substantially reduces government spending by at least $2.4 trillion and does not raise taxes. The legislation also advances the cause of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, a measure I have supported 16 times since my election to the U.S. Senate. The passage of this legislation is a step toward long term spending reform, while also preventing a default on our nation's debts. Thank you, again, for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Richard G. Lugar
United States Senator

Obviously the US Senator isn't going to address me personally. I know that I have to expect a form response, since I haven't given him five figures lately. Or, ever. In fact, not even one figure. Still, this is a pretty lame response. What I was hoping for was a response that read, "Yes, Mr. Kole. I will vote against increasing the debt ceiling." Or, "Yes, I will vote to reduce the spending". Well, that would have required a timely response. Barring that, I would have settled for, "Mr. Kole, I voted against raising the debt ceiling".

Can you tell he's thinking ahead to the primary election, still some 9 months away? He blames the Democrats and President Obama, and brags on how he voted against Democratic legislation. Clearly, he is hoping I'll read this and remember it as I go to the Republican primary... something I would never do, being that I am not a partisan Republican. But, he voted to raise the debt ceiling! This, of course, is conveniently left out of his email, as were all of his votes supporting the Republican bloating of the debt during the Bush years.

Why cite all of this year's failed bills that he supported, when the thing that mattered- the item he voted for that passed into law- did the opposite of what I asked for? Simple: He's trying to bullshit me. A deception.

There really wasn't much chance that I was going to vote for Lugar if he makes it to the general election in November of 2012. Now there is no chance whatsoever.

If I didn't get this load of BS, I probably wouldn't have posted at all about my email exchange with the Senator's office. But since I did get a steaming load...

Primary Voting For Libertarians

I've been asked about voting at Indiana's Primary Elections May 4 as a Libertarian, so I thought to post some pointers.

Most Libertarians will want to ask for a 'School Board Ballot'. This ballot will not have any partisan 'R' or 'D' voting attached to it, only the non-partisan school board candidates, and any local issues. This is what I will do.

Some Libertarians may be tempted to vote on the Republican or Democratic ballot, for a variety of reasons. Be advised of this: If you pull a partisan ballot, you are making a legal statement. Pulling a partisan ballot legally commits you to vote for a majority of that same party's candidates in the General Election in November.

So, if you take a Republican Primary Ballot in May, and you vote straight ticket Libertarian in November, you will be guilty of perjury, by law.

Also, if someone at the polling place recognizes you as a Libertarian, and you are asking for a partisan 'R' or 'D' ballot, and they challenge your affiliation, you may be barred from taking that partisan ballot, or reduced to casting a provisional vote. Only a member of that party can challenge you, but they can in the interest of protecting their party's private business.

See: Indiana Code 3-10-1-9.

Why is the challenge possible? Why can't people just vote however they like? Some think it is merely rhetorical when Libertarians declare the Primaries to be largely private, partisan political party business. This law is the proof that it is not mere rhetoric. Republicans and Democrats see fit to foist the cost of their business onto all of the taxpayers. They wrote it into the law as a bi-partisan effort.

There is no Libertarian ballot. We conducted our business at our county convention, at our expense. The law also dictates that, but as a matter of principle, that's the way we think it should be done.

So, look into your school board candidates. See if there are local issues. Please vote in the May 4 Primary Election.

Election Follies, Part 12

I think every Hoosier wants our elections and their process to have integrity. That's not going out on a limb. So, it's bothersome to find a lack of integrity and injustices throughout the electoral process.

Part Twelve is a follow-up to Part Seven, from LaPorte County. This one follows the Orwellian "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

In my original post, the LaPorte Libertarians pointed out that in 2006, as in 2003, the Republicans failed to even file a CFA-4 form, as required by law. To be fair, the Dems also failed to file the required CFA-4 in 2003. It is worth recalling that the Republicans and Democrats wrote the law that requires a CFA-4. It is also worth recalling that the Indiana Elections Division is refusing to certify eleven Libertarian candidates this year, because even though forms were filed, and on time, a procedural step was missed.

Greg Kelver, in front of the Libertarian booth at the LaPorte County Fair

So, the Libertarians filed a complaint seeking the maximum fines to be imposed on the GOP. The fines are $50/day late, with a maximum of $1,000. As the forms were roughly 150 days late, it would be a $1,000 fine.

So, was the maximum fine imposed? From the Michigan City News Dispatch report:

LaPORTE - The LaPorte County Republican Party on Monday will not be penalized for not filing a pre-primary campaign finance report by the April 17 deadline.

The Board of Election Commissioners took no action in a brief meeting at the county courthouse. The meeting was called after the LaPorte County Libertarian Party complained that the Republicans had not filed its report.

So, why wasn't a fine imposed?

Election Commissioner Gary Davis said he thought it was good the Election Board was meeting to address the issue.

“I really feel like, if it's an intentional thing, then certainly that would be a different issue, but it's a mistake that both parties made last time,” he said.

and

The local GOP leader promised no repeats of the oversite.

“I guarantee it will not happen again on my watch. We're guilty; there's no question about it, but it was not intentional, we're volunteers and we're doing the best we can,” Pendergast said.

So, when the GOP mistakenly flubs on the basis of doing the best it can, that's treated with kid gloves. When the LP mistakenly flubs on the same basis, that warrants a death sentence because the law is the law. Also, if one party makes a mistake, the others are justified in future mistakes.

Anyone see an injustice here? How about a complete lack of integrity?

I call upon the Indiana Election Commission to do one of two things:

1. De-certify all Republican candidates who were not filed properly in Indiana
2. Certify the Libertarian candidates who were not filed properly in Indiana

Whatever the Commission stands by, it must be consistent. Otherwise, the Commission lacks integrity and stands for injustice.

Update, 8/24/06: The Michigan City News Dispatch ran my letter, along with one from Karen Wolf, about the unequal treatment. It also ran an editorial taking the LaPorte County Election Board to task for the kid gloves treatment. Curiously, neither of these features are available on the paper's website. Greg Kelver of LaPorte advises me that he will send a scanned pdf file of these items.

I "Voted". So What?

I walked in to Fishers Town Hall, went to the table for Delaware Precinct 3, observed the poll workers playing, and showed my ID. I signed the book and walked out.

Voting, in 30 seconds or less.

I guess I'm just stubborn. Most others seem to get the futility of this kind of "voting", but that whole notion of civic duty just nags at me. I mean, can you really run for Secretary of State, the chief elections official in Indiana, one year and then not vote in the very next election? I thought not.

But the vast majority of those who get the pointlessness of yesterday's exercise ruled the day. Turnout seems to have averaged around 10%.

In Hamilton County, there should not be a primary election at all. The three parties should stage their own county conventions at their expense. In most counties, the Ds & Rs already stage slating conventions. Why then the farce of a primary? To throw crumbs to the voters to make them think they've done something that sets them apart from the Iraqis or the Cubans?

Farce. Sham. Waste. Dollars, get into the shredder!

The candidate backed by the Republican Party in the one contested primary won handily. That business should be handled away from taxpayer dollars. Republicans should insist on that, if they in fact believe in cutting out the waste of taxpayer dollars.

Latest Press Release

The Kole Campaign has recently issues the following press release. I felt it was important to be out front on some important issues. While the press has taken the cue from Democrats on Voter ID as a top issue, I believe the turnout itself is a much greater issue.

As Secretary of State, encouraging turnout will be one of my a top priorities.

Primary Election Turnout Embarrassing

Kole Questions Secretary of State’s Priorities

Fishers, IN- It looks like the Secretary of State’s Office put the cart before the horse, spending $1.2 million on Voter ID education. It begs the question, why educate people on how to do something they aren’t likely to do?

The statewide turnout for the 2006 primaries was 23%. Several counties had shockingly low turnout numbers: Hamilton, 17%; Allen, 16%, Marion, 14%; Monroe, 13%, St. Joseph, 13%.

“I would be embarrassed by the primary turnout numbers, if it happened like this on my watch,” said Kole, adding, “Voter ID is a fine idea. Getting people to vote is an even better idea. As Secretary of State, I will make it a priority to encourage all Hoosiers to vote- regardless of political affiliation.”

Voter ID was an important part of the Republican legislative agenda in 2006, so it came as no surprise that current Secretary of State Todd Rokita, a Republican, made a big production out of promoting the Voter ID, spending $1.2 million on TV, radio, and print ads in all 92 counties1.

But, was the advertising the best use of taxpayer dollars, especially given the light turnout at the recent primary elections? Shouldn’t Rokita have spent that money and energy encouraging all Hoosiers to vote? Libertarian candidate Mike Kole thinks so.

“As the state’s top elections official, encouraging voter turnout should be the Secretary of State’s top priority,” said Kole.


It can’t be said that Rokita made no effort to encourage turnout. It’s just that it wasn’t directed at Hoosiers.

“I was floored when I saw Rokita’s press release encouraging Katrina evacuees to vote in Louisiana2,” said Kole, adding, “I didn’t realize voters from Louisiana were the Indiana Secretary of State’s responsibility.”

But there wasn’t even as much as a press release urging Hoosiers to vote, let alone an ad campaign.

Kole asks, “Why did a handful of people from Louisiana merit more attention than a few million Hoosiers? Why was Voter ID education more important than actually getting Hoosiers to the polls so they could show their Ids? These are big mistakes. The people of Indiana deserve better,” said Kole.


Hoosier voters are the priority. Let’s get Hoosiers to the polls first.

Having an ID isn’t that tricky a concept, and didn’t merit $1.2 million in taxpayer dollars spent.

Mike Kole will have his priorities in order as Secretary of State.


1 http://www.in.gov/sos/press/2006/03152006.html
2 http://www.in.gov/sos/press/2006/03222006.html

Unsolicited Advice For Ron Paul

I'm glad I never had to endure a primary election as a candidate, where you battle with those within your party, splitting hairs while making the case for yourself, often with negativity coming through in the process of showing difference.

But I'm a Libertarian, and the differences between one LP candidate and another generally comes down to nuance. Not so in the Republican primary. Ron Paul is vastly different from the rest of the field, which does only separate by nuance.

I'm not just talking the war. Paul stands alone as one who would shrink the size, scope, and cost of government. Huckabee and Romney have raised taxes as governors. Thompson and McCain have voted for outrageous spending.

So, Dr. Paul, I have some unsolicited advice for you: Promote your ecomonic points first and foremost, even to the near exclusion of everything else.

Why? First off, you have to win the GOP nomination. It's just too much to ask of the Republican base, the people who are voting delegates, to go from supporting George Bush through this misguided war to taking the opposite position. If the war remains your #1 issue, you cannot win the nomination. Yes, you've been invoking Bush's campaign stances on foreign relations circa 2000, but it scarcely makes the 6+ years since 9/11/2001 vanish.

Give these folks a chance to save face. If you make the Republican base remember the fiscal conservatism of their increasingly distant past, you could well win the darned thing. None of the other Republicans sounds even remotely like a fiscal conservative, and when comparing their records to yours, most of them look like Karl Marx. You are making great points about the need for sound money. Americans who hate facts and study scoff at the gold standard and discussions of anti-inflationary monetary policy, but it's hard for anyone to deny being worried about the fact that the US dollar is weaker than the Canadian dollar.

That point alone sets you up for winning the election post-nomination. There isn't a single other candidate who has been talking about sound money, and it is becoming evident to absolutely everybody that our economy is beginning to ring the bowl. Every candidate who has voted for massive spending and borrowing- which is to say, everyone else- is guilty of causing the problem. They are guilty of making the US dollar weaker than the Euro, and weaker than the Canadian dollar.

You will not alienate your supporters by talking up fiscal policy. Indeed, that's why many of us support you, and give you these increasingly worthless greenbacks.

You have to win the nomination. Iraq is a losing issue strategically, at least right now. Go with your suprior fiscal policies.

Complete Numbers, Please!

13 days after the primary election, the Secretary of State's website still does not have all of the numbers from the elections. Link to 2006 primary results page.

Will we have to wait this long after the general election, too?

14 Days, And Counting

14 days after the primary election, the Secretary of State's website still does not have all of the numbers from the elections. Link to 2006 primary results page.

Significant counties such as Allen and Hamilton are not even listed. Why the major delays? The press releases out of the Secretary of State's office prior to the primaries indicated that everything was working smoothly. Is this smooth? Link to SOS press releases.

This info should have been fully compiled and available online within 48 hours of the conlcusion of the elections.