FW: In Response to LP Oregon's Nomination of a Republican

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 3:39:30 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Fw: In Response to LP Oregon's Nomination of a Republican

Forwarding to the public list per request of member in my region. 

Joe Hannoush

Libertarian National Committee 

---

From: Kyle Davis <m...@kyledavis.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:35 AM
To: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>
Subject: In Response to LP Oregon's Nomination of a Republican

 

To the Esteemed Members of the Libertarian National Committee:

The Libertarian Party exists to fight for liberty with one of the primary goals thereof to run Libertarian candidates. 

Article 5, 4 is explicit on the singular rule that all of our affiliates must follow:
 “No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in any partisan election. No affiliate party shall take any action inconsistent with the Statement of Principles or these bylaws.”

There is no carveout for fusion candidates. There never has been. Previous LNCs have often turned a blind eye to that fact when an affiliate party runs a candidate who receives the nomination from another party as well. 

Mr. Martin’s proclamation that the bylaws of this party should be ignored because of fusion ballots is, quite simply, nonsense. Every affiliate must abide by that rule, with it being the only rule the membership of this party has taken the time to enshrine in the bylaws as never acceptable for any affiliate to violate. 

What happened in Oregon was not a case of a Libertarian also getting a Republican or Democrat nomination, which is not ideal but far more acceptable and arguably kosher under the bylaws, as a Libertarian who runs on a fusion ticket as both a Libertarian and a Republican/Democrat is still a Libertarian first. The LPO brought Republicans in to vote to ensure that the Republican candidate would defeat the Libertarian candidate. The vice chair, Mr. Richard Burke, gave a speech asking for the delegates to vote for the Republican on the grounds that Libertarians cannot win higher office, so we must accept “decent Republicans.” 

Members of the LNC, speaking as a lifetime member myself, there are no “decent Republicans.” Republicans and Democrats are the enemy. They continue the tyranny for which this party is built to fight. They build upon it daily. 

It is the requirement, by our bylaws, for all leadership of this party at all levels, to recognize that Libertarian candidates are who we support in the fight against tyranny. There is no room on any Libertarian ballot for the nominated Republican to come in and take the nomination from a Libertarian.

Joseph Lehman is such a Libertarian. 

Mr. Martin further goes on to claim that the LNC has no right to control state affiliates. That is, in a very skewed way, correct. The LNC has the obligation, as handed to it by the membership of this party, to enforce the contract freely entered into by the affiliates governed by the membership via the bylaws. 

Ms. Hogarth is completely correct that the LNC should discuss this. If Ms. Feintech has no explanation beyond that which Mr. Burke gave, for which she herself voted, and that which the Republicans in attendance at one of our affiliate’s conventions affirmed they had been asked to attend for? Then the bylaws only give the LNC one option. 

The LNC does not serve the affiliates, as Mr. Martin claims. Our bylaws are quite clear about this. The LNC serves the membership. This weekend, by all appearances, an affiliate attacked that membership for its own goals.

I request my representative, Mr. Joe Hannoush, or his alternate, Mr. Omar Recuero, forward my response to the public list.

In Liberty,

-Kyle Davis 

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 4:01:41 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: In Response to LP Oregon's Nomination of a Republican

Well, there you have it.

The foreign-backed, data-stealing, liberty-hating antifa-leftists want to make the LP state parties lick boot.

Fusion ballots are a state-autonomy issue. The bylaws are to be read in harmony with each other — not interpreted so that one phrase should cause violence against another. The LNC endorsement prohibition can only apply to the presidential ticket, where its enforcement would not violate state and regional autonomy. 

But facts and reasonable interpretation does not matter to a frothing, bloodthirsty mob. They attack, gang-stalk, coerce, fabricate rumors, and defame the personal reputation of any who speak against them. They prefer censoring, criminalizing, and delegitimizing critics, rather than answering for their staggering failures and abusive conduct. In short, they default to force and fraud, rather than reason. 

They are coming to disaffiliate and sue any state party that doesn't obey our far-left, Democrat/Socialist masters on the LNC.

No due process.

No fair hearing.

No reasonableness. 

No respect for the liberty movement — just a political summary execution to make room for our replacements. 

Hence, my earlier use of the word "Nazi" was descriptive, not pejorative, Mr. Chair. 

I believe I have a right to accurately describe the political orientation of the members of this board. 

Austin Martin 

R1

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 28 July 2026 08:39:30

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 4:37:51 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: In Response to LP Oregon's Nomination of a Republican

Mr. Martin,

You are out of line and I call you to order.

Mr. Davis is not a member of this committee and does not speak for any member of the LNC.

Your continued assertions, using both the LNC public list and public comments made on social media, degrading and demeaning members of this board and party members are inappropriate and in violation of the LNC Policy Manual Behavioral Standards. 

Evan McMahon Chair Libertarian National Committee evan.m...@lp.org ‪(317) 455-6986 lp.org

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 12:01 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 4:47:38 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: In Response to LP Oregon's Nomination of a Republican

Double standards, injustice, and scapegoating don't inspire obedience or loyalty in libertarians, Mr. Chair. 

Only resentment. 

Grow up. 

Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 28 July 2026 09:37:51

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 4:50:48 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik

To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: In Response to LP Oregon's Nomination of a Republican

Neither does harassment, threats, obstruction, and continued unprofessionalism, Mr. Martin.

You are the one acting like child here - you grow up.

Evan McMahon Chair Libertarian National Committee evan.m...@lp.org ‪(317) 455-6986 lp.org

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 12:47 PM

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 5:17:39 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: In Response to LP Oregon's Nomination of a Republican

Greetings. 

This message contacting us seems to reinforce the idea that there's elements chomping at the bit to disaffiliate more state parties and replace them. 

Thank you. 

Alfa Shaw

Region 6

"Relationships begin with Understanding"

---

From: Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 28 July 2026 12:50:48

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:25:16 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>; Evan McMahon <evan.m...@lp.org>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Joe Hannoush <joe.ha...@lp.org>; LNC Public <lnc-p...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>

Subject: Re: In Response to LP Oregon's Nomination of a Republican

If a state officer really spoke against a Libertarian-only candidate because he doesn't believe Libertarians can win, that is troubling. 

I agree with Mr. Davis that "No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in any partisan election." forbids the endorsement of a fusion candidate - those candidates are running with other Parties in partisan elections for public office.

However, given that the LP has historically not brought this up in regards to fusion candidates, I think it's possible some affiliates could honestly believe there's no issue in endorsing a "Democrat-Libertarian" or a "Republican-Libertarian." Personally, I do not think the LP of Oregon is at a point where disaffiliation is appropriate.

I'm not trying to excuse what their officer allegedly said, nor am I saying I support states endorsing the (fused) candidate of another Party. 

But given that this has historically been a gray area, I do think less nuclear options would be best used. In the case of the former New Hampshire affiliate, their endorsement of President Trump had no such excuse - they were overtly violating the bylaws.

While Oregon is still endorsing a Republican candidate, the fact that the candidate is now also running under our banner complicates it enough that I do not see the situations as the same.

At this time, I think the appropriate response would be for the LNC to make its interpretation of the rules clear.

Keith Thompson At-Large Representative Libertarian National Committee   Keith.Thompson@LP.org LP.org/ThompsonDonor

---

From: Alfa Shaw <alfa...@lp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 12:17 PM