FW: Ballot Access Committee Report

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Bill Redpath <bill.r...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2025 10:25:13 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Ballot Access Committee Report

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Ben Weir <ben....@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2025 4:10:13 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Bill Redpath <bill.r...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Ballot Access Committee Report

Fellow LNC, 

Thank you for finally preparing and distributing the ballot access report (which I reminded and requested of many months ago). After reviewing it, I want to raise several concerns specifically regarding how LNC funds were spent in a few states and whether those expenditures reflect a reasonable or sustainable return on investment for the Party.

Some of the figures in the report are extremely difficult to justify from a fiduciary standpoint. The most striking example is New Mexico, where the LNC spent $54,590 and the presidential ticket received only 3,745 votes... an outcome of 0.06 Presidential votes per LNC dollar. That level of return should prompt immediate scrutiny of the decision to proceed under “emergency” conditions without a clear cost–benefit analysis.

This pattern repeats in Maine, where the LNC contributed $10,000 toward what appears to be roughly $35,000 total spent, yet the final result was only 5,304 votes... or 0.53 Presidential votes per LNC dollar and 0.15 votes per dollar overall. North Dakota and Arkansas show nearly identical efficiency problems, both returning around 0.15 votes per total dollar spent, and only 0.27–0.28 votes per LNC dollar. In Kentucky, the LNC invested $27,501 for 6,409 votes, which equates to 0.23 votes per LNC dollar, again without any oversight or explanation on why this level of spending was necessary or what performance standards were applied to petitioning contractors.

These numbers collectively raise a foundational question that the report does not address: Why is the LNC devoting tens of thousands of national dollars to ballot access efforts in states where affiliates cannot even mobilize a volunteer pool sufficient to collect signatures themselves? 

If we are going to rely heavily on paid petitioning... often under rushed timelines... then we need a coherent rationale, advance budgeting, clear contract expectations, and a post-cycle evaluation process. At present, the expenditures appear reactive rather than planned, and the returns suggest that we are not managing these projects with the level of rigor required for responsible stewardship of donor funds.

Ballot access is unquestionably important, but our approach must be defendable and efficient. As it stands, the report leaves large gaps in explaining how these decisions were made and what steps will be taken to prevent similar inefficiencies in upcoming cycles. It would be nice to know the total dollar amount spent per state, to include LNC, state affiliate, and individual donor money. 

I would appreciate further attention to this matter going forward... and maybe a post-mortem on how we utterly failed our membership and irresponsibly spent donor funds without a way to sustain the efforts. Especially since most of these states didn’t meet the vote threshold to keep ballot access into 2026 and 2028. I would also appreciate any spreadsheets or tracking info that were written/collected from these ballot access drives to be made available for LNC review. 

Respectfully,

Ben Weir

Region 6 Alternate

Libertarian National Committee

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android

---

From: Bill Redpath <bill.r...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2025 5:25:13 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Meredith Hays <meredi...@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2025 4:58:30 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Ben Weir <ben....@lp.org>; Bill Redpath <bill.r...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Ballot Access Committee Report

Ben,

I agree the numbers are concerning. We did implement some guidelines last year AFTER the drives were finished (during the Miami meeting) so they have not been put into full practice yet. I believe this was prompted by the cost of New Mexico.

Meredith Hays

Region 4 Rep, Libertarian National Committee

lp.org | meredi...@lp.org

---

From: Ben Weir <ben....@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2025 8:10:13 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2025 5:37:53 AM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Bill Redpath <bill.r...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: Ballot Access Committee Report

Thank you for the report, Bill.

Getting our presidential ticket on the ballot in 47 jurisdictions is objectively impressive, and the petitioners who braved North Dakota winters and New Mexico heat deserve genuine gratitude.

That said, the financial picture this report paints is indefensible for a party that claims to stand for fiscal responsibility and grassroots power.

$164,162 in LNC ballot-access spending for 2023-2024, with individual drives ballooning to $15–$20+ per valid signature in states like New Mexico and Kentucky, is not “hard-fought success” — it is a textbook example of why we must stop outsourcing our sovereignty to a handful of paid vendors year after year. The return on investment is abysmal: in several of these states, we earned vote totals in the low thousands—often comparable to or fewer than the valid signatures required—while facing another expensive drive in 2026 or 2028 to retain access.

We have a proven, scalable alternative that multiple LNC members (including myself) have repeatedly brought forward and that the current Ballot Access Committee leadership has (until recently) just as repeatedly blocked or stymied: the Operator Program.

If we had invested even half of this $164k into training and deploying Operators in every congressional district—people who live in the communities they petition, who build county affiliates and triad leadership teams (chair/treasurer/secretary) while they collect signatures—we would have:

• Locked in ballot access at a small fraction of the per-signature cost
• Grown sustained, dues-paying membership and donor bases in every state
• Created permanent infrastructure instead of one-cycle paid drives
• Ended the embarrassing spectacle of writing five- and six-figure checks to the same tiny circle of vendors every four years

This is not theory. Multiple states have shown hybrid volunteer/paid models work when we prioritize people over contractors. Yet every time ideas like the Operator Program were brought up as the future of ballot access, they were shot down — often by the same voices who would then turn around and sign $50k+ checks to their associates for “emergency” petitioning. Now that the Operator/Overwatch program has been adopted and training has started, the next obvious problem comes from approving funds for literally anyone who isn't already a member of the crony clique.

A few specific lowlights from the report itself:

• New Mexico — $54,590 for ~3,562 valid signatures. The LNC extended extraordinary goodwill to a brand-new, embattled affiliate. That goodwill was met with last-minute “emergency” rates that tripled the cost. It's stunning.
• North Dakota & Kentucky — Tens of thousands spent ($21,500 LNC for ND; $27,501 for KY), yet we couldn’t crack 2% in either state (Oliver received ~1,500 votes in ND and ~4,000 in KY, per election results) and will be petitioning again in 2026 or 2028.

We do not need another cycle of begging donors for $200k+ so the same insiders can divvy it up among themselves. We need to finally pull the trigger on the Operator Program with real funding and bring ballot access in-house, sustainably, and at a cost that actually builds the party instead of bleeding it dry.

A Path Forward

While the report is a step forward — especially after the substantial concerns raised in Ben Weir's September 8, 2025, letter about its delinquency — several questions remain to ensure full accountability and prevent future issues:

1. Why was the ballot access report delayed, as noted in Weir's letter, and how did this impact the formation of a new committee?
2. Is there a long-standing practice in LNC leadership of providing ballot access support to other parties without full disclosure to members, and if so, why hasn't this been formalized as policy to align with our principles of transparency?

This report, dropped without commentary, feels like a whitewash rather than a reckoning. We need more than thanks and totals — we need reforms:

1. Mandate cost-per-signature caps and volunteer-first strategies for future drives.
2. Require BAC members to disclose all personal payments/reimbursements quarterly, with LNC pre-approval for self-contracting, and enhanced conflict disclosure rules. 
3. Shift focus to high-ROI states and hybrid models (e.g., Maine-style registration) to stretch every dollar.
4. Specific motions I would recommend members propose at this weekend’s meeting:
5. Direct the Ballot Access Committee to present a detailed 2026–2028 plan built around the Operator Program as the primary vehicle, with outside paid petitioning used only as a supplement in dire cases.
6. Cap any single-state paid drive at $5,000 without explicit LNC vote and competitive bidding transparency.
7. Require quarterly public disclosure of all reimbursements and payments to BAC members or their immediate associates.
8. Commission an independent third-party audit of 2023–2024 ballot-access expenditures by March 31, 2026, including FEC cross-checks.

The era of writing blank checks to a ballot-access cartel must end. The Operator Program is ready, tested in multiple states, and waiting.

Let’s finally choose infrastructure over invoices.

Mahalo!

Austin Martin

LNC Region 1

Join the fight and support the removal of Socialism from the LP by donating at the link below:

Lp.org/martindonor 

---

From: Bill Redpath <bill.r...@lp.org>
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2025 12:25:13 PM