Following the Superior Court ruling in my recent action, the judge's opinion seems to indicate that any candidate for any political office can have only one party. If this ruling is allowed to stand, it will be the end of fusion candidacies in Delaware and will force the members of every political party to limit their nominations to members of their own party, regardless of their preferences. This action is as big of a threat to the so-called "minor" parties as HB245, which increased the required number of registered voters to double the previous requirement for ballot access.
We believe that this opinion is deeply flawed as Delaware has historically allowed fusion candidacies. A number of examples were cited in our arguments, just from 2008. The difference in this case is that this time the candidates of a minor party attempted to fuse with one of the major parties. Both the Democrats and Republicans filed motions to intervene in our case, jointly. Just when you thought the Democrats and Republicans couldn't agree on anything, they have demonstrated that they do very much agree on continuing their monopoly on political power in the State of Delaware.
This cannot be allowed to stand.
We are in the process of reaching out to all of the other parties in the State of Delaware and encouraging them to support an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court and have this decision overturned. If you are interested in helping, please contact me via email at mcvay.will@gmail.com. We are also seeking and accepting donations to help cover our filing fees in the Supreme Court, which amount to $480. I will periodically update this posting to reflect the remaining funds yet to be raised.
Please help support the freedom of members of all parties to nominate a candidate of their choice instead of allowing the established two-party committees to remove candidates from their primary ballot through the rulings of an activist judge.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Arguments Before the Court
Thank you your honor.
First, I’d like to apologize to the court for the emergency nature of my petition filing, but as you are aware, there is a deadline to be met for the printing and mailing of absentee ballots in the upcoming primary election. This means that the matter takes on some added urgency if a favorable finding from your honor is to offer any real redress.
I filed for the Republican and Democratic primaries on the 6th of July, almost two weeks ago, and a full week prior to the filing deadline. Despite this, I only became aware of my removal from the ballot last Wednesday thanks to the media and the newspaper articles published on the subject. While the Department of Elections did send a certified letter informing me of this development, it did not arrive until well after I had filed with the Chancery Court and about an hour before that hearing was scheduled. Luckily I followed up on the media reports and contacted the Department of Elections and the State Attorney General’s office on my own. I shudder to think of what the result would have been if I had not taken the initiative and instead relied upon the State of Delaware to act in a timely manner in so grave a situation.
I also apologize to this court for the amateur manner in which my case is being presented. Neither my campaign nor the Libertarian Party has the resources to hire a team of attorneys to represent our interests, so I have no option but to represent myself. I am not an attorney, I am a software engineer. I’ve seen lawyers in the movies, so I think I can at least make a credible and coherent enough case in real life. Clearly the attorneys presenting on behalf of the defendant leave me outgunned.
I am a registered Libertarian, and I am active in the Libertarian Party’s small but growing organization. I have made no secret of this fact and declare it with the utmost pride. I have been duly nominated by the Kent County and Delaware State Libertarian Parties to contest the 32nd District Representative election. I believe that the libertarian message has great appeal beyond what our limited registration numbers suggest. I believe that this appeal resonates not just with independent and unaffiliated voters, but also with members of the public who have registered with the Democratic and Republican parties, whether they have done so out of genuine affection for those parties or simply to participate in the State of Delaware’s closed primary system.
In consideration of this appeal, I filed to contest the Democratic and Republican primary elections, which were otherwise uncontested. I filed the appropriate forms and delivered the appropriate payments to the Kent County Department of Election. Copies of these filings have been filed with the court as Exhibit A. Following these filings, the Defendant included me on a list of primary election candidates available through their website. They also removed the Democratic and Republican party-endorsed candidates in these primaries from the general election listing which they had been previously entitled to as uncontested nominees.
Over a week after these events, I learned through the media that my filings had now been rejected and that a letter from the Department of Elections had been sent. This letter has been presented to the court as Exhibit B.
In this letter, the defendant admits to acting at the behest of the Democratic and Republican Party committees. The defendant cites the parties’ assertion that I was not and have never been “affiliated” with their parties. The first paragraph of the letter was devoted solely to this purpose. The remainder of the letter indicated that due to my lack of “affiliation” I was therefore ineligible to contest their primary.
Their assertion that I am not and was never “affiliated” with these parties is patently false, as I have not only been registered as a member of both of these parties in the past, but I have also worked extensively with candidates from both parties, attended meetings organized by both parties, and conducted comprehensive outreach via electronic media to the voters represented by both parties. The parties’ assertion, despite its falsehood, is nevertheless irrelevant.
There is no supporting language in the applicable chapters of the Delaware State Code indicating that a candidate in the primary elections must be “affiliated” or registered to the party whose primary the candidate is contesting. In the Delaware Superior Court case, which I will be referring to often, of the Democratic Party of the State of Delaware v. the Department of Elections of New Castle County, et al., No. 94C-08-227, the Honorable Judge Henry DuPont Ridgely ruled that a candidate’s party registration was not relevant to the primaries in which they can participate. He wrote in his opinion under section IV, “Nowhere in these statutes is there any explicit requirement that a candidate be registered to vote in the party for whose nomination he or she seeks.” Furthermore, Judge Ridgely found that, “The right of a person to be a candidate for public office is a fundamental one that should be restricted only by clear constitutional or statutory language.” He goes on to quote an earlier ruling stating, “[A]ny question or doubts of eligibility of a candidate should be resolved in favor of the candidate.” Most importantly, Judge Ridgely states unequivocally that, “Under Delaware’s present statutory scheme, it is for the eligible voters of a party to ultimately decide whether the candidate should be the nominee of their political party notwithstanding her present registration…” That is all I am asking this court to do, to ensure that the party members of the 32nd District are given the opportunity to select their own nominee without interference from the party machines.
The defendant’s defense will no doubt rely a great deal on a sixteen year old 1994 Attorney General’s opinion, written in part by this defendant’s attorney, picking apart the language in Chapter 31 of Title 15 and finding a new excuse to exclude candidates, after the aforementioned court case, decided only weeks earlier, destroyed their original excuse.
Much is made of the use of the singular case when referring to a “political party” vs. “political parties”. The AG’s opinion uses this out-of-context citation to make an unsupported leap of logic in asserting that a candidate may only run as the nominee of a single party. Not only is this assertion another attempt to, again in the words of Judge Ridgely, “read words into the statute restricting candidacy which are not there,” but this facet of the AG’s opinion has been repeatedly and conveniently ignored in the recent past by the numerous other fusion candidates presented to the voters of Delaware under multiple parties’ nominations. These candidates include, from the Department of Elections own website listing election results, just for 2008, Karen Weldin Stewart of the Democratic and Working Families Parties for Insurance Commissioner, Tyler Patrick Nixon of the Republican and Libertarian Parties for State Representative, Dennis E. Williams of the Democratic and Working Families Parties for State Representative, Terry R. Spence of the Republican and Working Families Parties for State Representative, Jesse Priester IV of the Republican and Libertarian Parties for State Representative, William A. Oberle Jr. of the Republican and Working Families Parties for State Representative, Vincent A. Lofink of the Republican and Working Families Parties for State Representative, and Jerry L. Semper of the Democratic and Working Families Parties for State Representative. JUST IN 2008! Granted these candidates were registered to the major parties and then sought the support of the smaller parties, but that is due to the statutory differences in the mechanism for selecting nominees in each party. Is the defendant asserting that a fusion candidacy is only legal if the major parties are using the good name of the minor parties, but not if a minor party is trying to influence the direction of a major party? Is this double-standard supported by the law? I have certainly not seen it, and it is not the role of the State to play favorites and defend the major parties from their own members.
Not only does this new excuse fail to pass statutory muster, but the AG’s opinion furthermore conflicts directly with the ruling of Judge Ridgely by again raising the issue of, “their respective political party.” The AG’s opinion asserts that the phrase refers to the candidates registered party rather than the party whose primary they are contesting. Judge Ridgely’s words are again prescient when he declares in part IV, “the references to the candidate’s respective political party in §3106 merely mean the party the candidate has identified as her own on the Notice of Candidacy.”
The remainder of this opinion continues to focus on the issue of party affiliation with respect to the specific question presented to the Attorney General’s office in 1994, and has no bearing on the language included in the law or the interpretation in Judge Ridgely’s opinion. The AG’s entire opinion brings to mind a quote from Shakespeare’s MacBeth in that, “It is a tale…full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
The defendant may also argue that allowing a Libertarian to participate in the primaries will create “confusion” or “chaos”. Due to my clear identification as a Libertarian and proud declaration as such to anyone who will listen, this argument is insulting to the intelligence of 32nd District voters. What they really mean is that it will create “chaos” and “confusion” within the party organizations as they may nominate a candidate who does not answer to them, but instead answers to the candidate’s own constituents. It is not the responsibility of the state to protect the established interests of any political party. Are they not satisfied to have more money, more lawyers, more name recognition, a longer history, and a state sponsored primary process? Have they so little faith in their chosen candidates that they cannot allow an outsider to ask their membership for a nomination? I recognize that I have a disadvantage not only in the general election as a Libertarian, but also in each party’s primary. What motivates the major parties to fight such an insignificant threat, rather than simply accepting a significant filing fee, enjoying the additional funds, and laughing at my expense, all the way to the bank?
When considering the meaning of any law, and Chapter 31 of Title 15 included, it is important to consider legislative intent. There could also be an argument, that whatever the precise language of Title 15, the General Assembly of the State of Delaware did not intend to enable fusion candidacies in drafting Title 15. Not only does Judge Ridgely again offer a relevant opinion, namely that, “If public policy arguments favor a different statutory scheme, that is a decision for the General Assembly, not this Court,” but the General Assembly did in fact consider a different statutory scheme when it considered HB177 under the 144th General Assembly in 2007. Under HB177, Chapter 31 and Chapter 33 of Title 15 would have been amended to require that no candidate be nominated by any party unless the candidate was a registered member in that same party. The synopsis of HB177 also declared that the explicit purpose of the bill was to abolish fusion candidacies. The fact that this bill was introduced indicates recognition by the General Assembly that fusion candidacies were legal, and the fact that this bill was defeated indicates a legislative intent to maintain the option of fusion candidacies in the future.
Your honor, the decision by the defendant to remove my name from the primary ballot and reject my Candidate Filing Form is not supported by the applicable statutory law, or the case law. Instead it is supported only by the opinion of a Deputy Attorney General. The Attorney General is a partisan political position, and based on the admission of the defendant in her letter presented as Exhibit B, I was only removed from the ballot following identical complaints from the Democratic and Republican establishments, despite meeting the statutory requirements. They expressed their willingness to take this issue to court. I wish they had. Instead, the Attorney General’s office bent to the will of the major parties rather than following the letter, spirit, and established precedent of the law. In doing so they gave compromised legal direction to the Department of Elections.
To paraphrase Judge Ridgely, it isn’t the role of the court to substitute its opinion, or the Attorney General’s opinion, for that of the General Assembly. I firmly believe that the sovereign authority of the State of Delaware should not be compromised by coercive threats of legal action from establishment interests. It is the role of the State to protect all citizens equally before the law. That the major parties need only threaten legal action when I must take legal action demonstrates that the State of Delaware, and specifically the Attorney General’s office, responsible for providing unbiased legal opinions to the Department of Elections, answers to special interests before it answers to the rule of law and the people of Delaware.
First, I’d like to apologize to the court for the emergency nature of my petition filing, but as you are aware, there is a deadline to be met for the printing and mailing of absentee ballots in the upcoming primary election. This means that the matter takes on some added urgency if a favorable finding from your honor is to offer any real redress.
I filed for the Republican and Democratic primaries on the 6th of July, almost two weeks ago, and a full week prior to the filing deadline. Despite this, I only became aware of my removal from the ballot last Wednesday thanks to the media and the newspaper articles published on the subject. While the Department of Elections did send a certified letter informing me of this development, it did not arrive until well after I had filed with the Chancery Court and about an hour before that hearing was scheduled. Luckily I followed up on the media reports and contacted the Department of Elections and the State Attorney General’s office on my own. I shudder to think of what the result would have been if I had not taken the initiative and instead relied upon the State of Delaware to act in a timely manner in so grave a situation.
I also apologize to this court for the amateur manner in which my case is being presented. Neither my campaign nor the Libertarian Party has the resources to hire a team of attorneys to represent our interests, so I have no option but to represent myself. I am not an attorney, I am a software engineer. I’ve seen lawyers in the movies, so I think I can at least make a credible and coherent enough case in real life. Clearly the attorneys presenting on behalf of the defendant leave me outgunned.
I am a registered Libertarian, and I am active in the Libertarian Party’s small but growing organization. I have made no secret of this fact and declare it with the utmost pride. I have been duly nominated by the Kent County and Delaware State Libertarian Parties to contest the 32nd District Representative election. I believe that the libertarian message has great appeal beyond what our limited registration numbers suggest. I believe that this appeal resonates not just with independent and unaffiliated voters, but also with members of the public who have registered with the Democratic and Republican parties, whether they have done so out of genuine affection for those parties or simply to participate in the State of Delaware’s closed primary system.
In consideration of this appeal, I filed to contest the Democratic and Republican primary elections, which were otherwise uncontested. I filed the appropriate forms and delivered the appropriate payments to the Kent County Department of Election. Copies of these filings have been filed with the court as Exhibit A. Following these filings, the Defendant included me on a list of primary election candidates available through their website. They also removed the Democratic and Republican party-endorsed candidates in these primaries from the general election listing which they had been previously entitled to as uncontested nominees.
Over a week after these events, I learned through the media that my filings had now been rejected and that a letter from the Department of Elections had been sent. This letter has been presented to the court as Exhibit B.
In this letter, the defendant admits to acting at the behest of the Democratic and Republican Party committees. The defendant cites the parties’ assertion that I was not and have never been “affiliated” with their parties. The first paragraph of the letter was devoted solely to this purpose. The remainder of the letter indicated that due to my lack of “affiliation” I was therefore ineligible to contest their primary.
Their assertion that I am not and was never “affiliated” with these parties is patently false, as I have not only been registered as a member of both of these parties in the past, but I have also worked extensively with candidates from both parties, attended meetings organized by both parties, and conducted comprehensive outreach via electronic media to the voters represented by both parties. The parties’ assertion, despite its falsehood, is nevertheless irrelevant.
There is no supporting language in the applicable chapters of the Delaware State Code indicating that a candidate in the primary elections must be “affiliated” or registered to the party whose primary the candidate is contesting. In the Delaware Superior Court case, which I will be referring to often, of the Democratic Party of the State of Delaware v. the Department of Elections of New Castle County, et al., No. 94C-08-227, the Honorable Judge Henry DuPont Ridgely ruled that a candidate’s party registration was not relevant to the primaries in which they can participate. He wrote in his opinion under section IV, “Nowhere in these statutes is there any explicit requirement that a candidate be registered to vote in the party for whose nomination he or she seeks.” Furthermore, Judge Ridgely found that, “The right of a person to be a candidate for public office is a fundamental one that should be restricted only by clear constitutional or statutory language.” He goes on to quote an earlier ruling stating, “[A]ny question or doubts of eligibility of a candidate should be resolved in favor of the candidate.” Most importantly, Judge Ridgely states unequivocally that, “Under Delaware’s present statutory scheme, it is for the eligible voters of a party to ultimately decide whether the candidate should be the nominee of their political party notwithstanding her present registration…” That is all I am asking this court to do, to ensure that the party members of the 32nd District are given the opportunity to select their own nominee without interference from the party machines.
The defendant’s defense will no doubt rely a great deal on a sixteen year old 1994 Attorney General’s opinion, written in part by this defendant’s attorney, picking apart the language in Chapter 31 of Title 15 and finding a new excuse to exclude candidates, after the aforementioned court case, decided only weeks earlier, destroyed their original excuse.
Much is made of the use of the singular case when referring to a “political party” vs. “political parties”. The AG’s opinion uses this out-of-context citation to make an unsupported leap of logic in asserting that a candidate may only run as the nominee of a single party. Not only is this assertion another attempt to, again in the words of Judge Ridgely, “read words into the statute restricting candidacy which are not there,” but this facet of the AG’s opinion has been repeatedly and conveniently ignored in the recent past by the numerous other fusion candidates presented to the voters of Delaware under multiple parties’ nominations. These candidates include, from the Department of Elections own website listing election results, just for 2008, Karen Weldin Stewart of the Democratic and Working Families Parties for Insurance Commissioner, Tyler Patrick Nixon of the Republican and Libertarian Parties for State Representative, Dennis E. Williams of the Democratic and Working Families Parties for State Representative, Terry R. Spence of the Republican and Working Families Parties for State Representative, Jesse Priester IV of the Republican and Libertarian Parties for State Representative, William A. Oberle Jr. of the Republican and Working Families Parties for State Representative, Vincent A. Lofink of the Republican and Working Families Parties for State Representative, and Jerry L. Semper of the Democratic and Working Families Parties for State Representative. JUST IN 2008! Granted these candidates were registered to the major parties and then sought the support of the smaller parties, but that is due to the statutory differences in the mechanism for selecting nominees in each party. Is the defendant asserting that a fusion candidacy is only legal if the major parties are using the good name of the minor parties, but not if a minor party is trying to influence the direction of a major party? Is this double-standard supported by the law? I have certainly not seen it, and it is not the role of the State to play favorites and defend the major parties from their own members.
Not only does this new excuse fail to pass statutory muster, but the AG’s opinion furthermore conflicts directly with the ruling of Judge Ridgely by again raising the issue of, “their respective political party.” The AG’s opinion asserts that the phrase refers to the candidates registered party rather than the party whose primary they are contesting. Judge Ridgely’s words are again prescient when he declares in part IV, “the references to the candidate’s respective political party in §3106 merely mean the party the candidate has identified as her own on the Notice of Candidacy.”
The remainder of this opinion continues to focus on the issue of party affiliation with respect to the specific question presented to the Attorney General’s office in 1994, and has no bearing on the language included in the law or the interpretation in Judge Ridgely’s opinion. The AG’s entire opinion brings to mind a quote from Shakespeare’s MacBeth in that, “It is a tale…full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
The defendant may also argue that allowing a Libertarian to participate in the primaries will create “confusion” or “chaos”. Due to my clear identification as a Libertarian and proud declaration as such to anyone who will listen, this argument is insulting to the intelligence of 32nd District voters. What they really mean is that it will create “chaos” and “confusion” within the party organizations as they may nominate a candidate who does not answer to them, but instead answers to the candidate’s own constituents. It is not the responsibility of the state to protect the established interests of any political party. Are they not satisfied to have more money, more lawyers, more name recognition, a longer history, and a state sponsored primary process? Have they so little faith in their chosen candidates that they cannot allow an outsider to ask their membership for a nomination? I recognize that I have a disadvantage not only in the general election as a Libertarian, but also in each party’s primary. What motivates the major parties to fight such an insignificant threat, rather than simply accepting a significant filing fee, enjoying the additional funds, and laughing at my expense, all the way to the bank?
When considering the meaning of any law, and Chapter 31 of Title 15 included, it is important to consider legislative intent. There could also be an argument, that whatever the precise language of Title 15, the General Assembly of the State of Delaware did not intend to enable fusion candidacies in drafting Title 15. Not only does Judge Ridgely again offer a relevant opinion, namely that, “If public policy arguments favor a different statutory scheme, that is a decision for the General Assembly, not this Court,” but the General Assembly did in fact consider a different statutory scheme when it considered HB177 under the 144th General Assembly in 2007. Under HB177, Chapter 31 and Chapter 33 of Title 15 would have been amended to require that no candidate be nominated by any party unless the candidate was a registered member in that same party. The synopsis of HB177 also declared that the explicit purpose of the bill was to abolish fusion candidacies. The fact that this bill was introduced indicates recognition by the General Assembly that fusion candidacies were legal, and the fact that this bill was defeated indicates a legislative intent to maintain the option of fusion candidacies in the future.
Your honor, the decision by the defendant to remove my name from the primary ballot and reject my Candidate Filing Form is not supported by the applicable statutory law, or the case law. Instead it is supported only by the opinion of a Deputy Attorney General. The Attorney General is a partisan political position, and based on the admission of the defendant in her letter presented as Exhibit B, I was only removed from the ballot following identical complaints from the Democratic and Republican establishments, despite meeting the statutory requirements. They expressed their willingness to take this issue to court. I wish they had. Instead, the Attorney General’s office bent to the will of the major parties rather than following the letter, spirit, and established precedent of the law. In doing so they gave compromised legal direction to the Department of Elections.
To paraphrase Judge Ridgely, it isn’t the role of the court to substitute its opinion, or the Attorney General’s opinion, for that of the General Assembly. I firmly believe that the sovereign authority of the State of Delaware should not be compromised by coercive threats of legal action from establishment interests. It is the role of the State to protect all citizens equally before the law. That the major parties need only threaten legal action when I must take legal action demonstrates that the State of Delaware, and specifically the Attorney General’s office, responsible for providing unbiased legal opinions to the Department of Elections, answers to special interests before it answers to the rule of law and the people of Delaware.
Monopoly Wins.
I am deeply disappointed in the outcome of this hearing, but the judge has made his ruling and I do not believe I have the resources to appeal this decision or continue this fight. Too much time, money, and energy have already been spent fighting this election campaign in the courts rather than in the 32nd District. We will at the very least look into the process of appealing this decision. Despite the fact that the fundamental right of party members to nominate who they choose has been denied, I hope that members of all parties will follow my candidacy and consider voting for me and other Libertarians, like Brent Wangen, Matt Flebbe, Scott Gesty, and all of the principled candidates we have nominated for this November. This campaign is far from over and I am still the Libertarian Party’s nominee. I look forward to continuing that campaign on behalf of the sovereignty of the State of Delaware and its citizens. This matter has been very educational for me and has elevated a few new issues as priorities for my campaign.
I have been forced to spend $600 of my limited funds in a futile attempt to simply enforce the law as it is written. These funds were spent just because the law is so muddled and unclear that it is impossible for a layman to discover the appropriate remedy when his rights are violated without the assistance of a highly trained attorney. I will fight to ensure that all laws passed by the Delaware General Assembly are plainly written and impossible to twist to the benefit of special interests that may have an undue influence on the agencies charged with interpreting and enforcing them. I will also fight to ensure that any citizen of Delaware whose rights are compromised have a plain, simple, and affordable remedy available to them.
There has been a great deal of speculation that following this incident, the next General Assembly will move quickly to pass legislation clearly preventing fusion candidacies. I believe that not only did our case rest on solid legal grounds, but also on the fundamental right of the membership of any party to nominate a candidate they support regardless of that candidate’s party affiliation. To force the members of a party to nominate another member of that party forces them to choose from a more limited range of options when some other candidate may have more support within the local community. If I am elected, I will be a strong and steady voice in support of this fundamental right of all members of all parties and in support of clearly permitting fusion candidacies.
Finally, this experience has reaffirmed my commitment to breaking down the monopoly of power maintained by the Democratic and Republican Parties. It is clear from these events that despite their highly theatrical disagreements over how to divide the spoils of big government, they are fundamentally agreed that government should be large and should exclude the average citizens that that government is intended to represent with their consent. If I am elected, I will not only prove that their time has passed, but I will fight to improve upon that progress by further dismantling the laws and policies which protect their monopoly.
I would also like to make perfectly clear that I have no reason to believe that either of my opponents were involved in this despicable exercise to deny the voters of the 32nd District their legitimate choice. One of my opponents even contacted me to wish me luck in my hearing. It is the two-party establishment that is solely responsible for this travesty of justice. I look forward to continuing my campaign in the 32nd District instead of in the courts, based on the issues facing the state instead of the Machiavellian machinations of the major party establishments.
Thank you.
I have been forced to spend $600 of my limited funds in a futile attempt to simply enforce the law as it is written. These funds were spent just because the law is so muddled and unclear that it is impossible for a layman to discover the appropriate remedy when his rights are violated without the assistance of a highly trained attorney. I will fight to ensure that all laws passed by the Delaware General Assembly are plainly written and impossible to twist to the benefit of special interests that may have an undue influence on the agencies charged with interpreting and enforcing them. I will also fight to ensure that any citizen of Delaware whose rights are compromised have a plain, simple, and affordable remedy available to them.
There has been a great deal of speculation that following this incident, the next General Assembly will move quickly to pass legislation clearly preventing fusion candidacies. I believe that not only did our case rest on solid legal grounds, but also on the fundamental right of the membership of any party to nominate a candidate they support regardless of that candidate’s party affiliation. To force the members of a party to nominate another member of that party forces them to choose from a more limited range of options when some other candidate may have more support within the local community. If I am elected, I will be a strong and steady voice in support of this fundamental right of all members of all parties and in support of clearly permitting fusion candidacies.
Finally, this experience has reaffirmed my commitment to breaking down the monopoly of power maintained by the Democratic and Republican Parties. It is clear from these events that despite their highly theatrical disagreements over how to divide the spoils of big government, they are fundamentally agreed that government should be large and should exclude the average citizens that that government is intended to represent with their consent. If I am elected, I will not only prove that their time has passed, but I will fight to improve upon that progress by further dismantling the laws and policies which protect their monopoly.
I would also like to make perfectly clear that I have no reason to believe that either of my opponents were involved in this despicable exercise to deny the voters of the 32nd District their legitimate choice. One of my opponents even contacted me to wish me luck in my hearing. It is the two-party establishment that is solely responsible for this travesty of justice. I look forward to continuing my campaign in the 32nd District instead of in the courts, based on the issues facing the state instead of the Machiavellian machinations of the major party establishments.
Thank you.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Jurisdiction?
I am disappointed that the two-party run legal system has become so convoluted and confusing that it is impossible for an average citizen of average means to protect their rights in an affordable and straightforward manner. Acting on advice that I had been given, the source of which I am unable to reveal for fear of unwarranted retribution from the two-party establishment against him, I filed in the Court of Chancery. Vice-Chancellor Noble has determined that this was not the proper venue for this matter. I must now wait for a new hearing in the Superior Court where I remain confident that this issue will be satisfactorily resolved. I am concerned, however, that it will not be resolved soon enough to protect the free-choice of those of our citizens serving overseas or otherwise unable to come directly to the polling place and therefore voting by absentee ballot.
I hope you will all continue to follow this topic and attend my upcoming hearing at the Superior Court. It has been scheduled for 12pm tomorrow, Tuesday the 20th of July.
I hope you will all be able to attend, thank you.
I hope you will all continue to follow this topic and attend my upcoming hearing at the Superior Court. It has been scheduled for 12pm tomorrow, Tuesday the 20th of July.
I hope you will all be able to attend, thank you.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
July 20th, Kent County Libertarian Party Meeting
Our next Kent County Libertarian Party meeting and fundraiser will be on the 20th of July, 7:00pm, at the Uno in Dover. The last fundraiser resulted in $130 from Uno and $65.20 in additional donations! (I don't know who put two dimes in there!) Please attend if you are able, as we will be voting on the proposed bylaws of the Kent County Libertarian Party as well as the Executive Committee members. We will also have Jack Peterman, who is contesting the Republican primary in the 33rd Representative District as well as George Phillips who is contesting the Republican primary in the 29th Representative District in attendance to present BRIEF remarks and take questions. I will also be available to discuss fusion candidacies and any questions or concerns on that topic. I look forward to seeing you there!
Will McVay
Kent County Chair,
Libertarian Party of Delaware.
Will McVay
Kent County Chair,
Libertarian Party of Delaware.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Intimidation.
I've been running all over Dover today trying to figure out why I was taken off of the ballot and how I can get the State of Delaware to follow its own laws rather than the whims of the Democratic and Republican parties.
It seems that the Democratic and Republican parties colluded to remove me from the ballot by threatening to take the Department of Elections to court if they did not. Why they only have to threaten the State when I must in fact spend the $380 filing fee and actually take the State to court, I don't know. Nevertheless, the paperwork has been filed, the exorbitant fee has been paid, and the hearing is scheduled for Monday, the 19th of July at 2:00pm. According to Deputy Attorney General Anne Woolfolk, attorney for the Department of Elections, the Democratic and Republican parties are likely to present a case also.
This is shaping up to be me, without a lawyer because the court costs were expensive enough, arguing that the State of Delaware should follow its own laws with the State Attorney General's Office and however many lawyers the Ds and Rs decide to send after me...I guess we'll see if the law runs Delaware or if the D/R duopoly does.
Please come to the courthouse if you can to show your support or just to enjoy the spectacle!
Facebook for Event Details
It seems that the Democratic and Republican parties colluded to remove me from the ballot by threatening to take the Department of Elections to court if they did not. Why they only have to threaten the State when I must in fact spend the $380 filing fee and actually take the State to court, I don't know. Nevertheless, the paperwork has been filed, the exorbitant fee has been paid, and the hearing is scheduled for Monday, the 19th of July at 2:00pm. According to Deputy Attorney General Anne Woolfolk, attorney for the Department of Elections, the Democratic and Republican parties are likely to present a case also.
This is shaping up to be me, without a lawyer because the court costs were expensive enough, arguing that the State of Delaware should follow its own laws with the State Attorney General's Office and however many lawyers the Ds and Rs decide to send after me...I guess we'll see if the law runs Delaware or if the D/R duopoly does.
Please come to the courthouse if you can to show your support or just to enjoy the spectacle!
Facebook for Event Details
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Unwelcome.
The Democratic and Republican parties do not support an open political dialogue. They do not support a free exchange of ideas. They do not support offering the members of their party a choice in who they will nominate for political office.
While I was at work today, the State Department of Elections website was updated, removing Brent Wangen and myself from the primaries we had filed and paid for. Celia Cohen is indicating that the cause was a legal opinion issued by the attorney general in 1994 that a candidate not "involved" with the party they file with can be disqualified from the primary ballot. I have attended Republican meetings, been turned away from Democratic meetings due to my party registration, and been registered as both a Democrat and a Republican in the past. But none of that matters.
The opinion is not supported by the Delaware Code governing elections. Ms. Cohen even mentions a court decision allowing a candidate uninvolved in the party's activities to compete for its nomination. I am not a lawyer, but I have read the law. I believe that I have followed the proper procedures and met the appropriate qualifications to be listed on the Democratic and Republican primary ballots. I believe that the Democratic and Republican voters of the 32nd District should have more choices than those presented to them by the entrenched political interests of a two party system.
I am exploring every option to ensure that the 32nd District is presented the choices it is entitled to under the duly enacted laws of the State of Delaware. I will appreciate any support you can offer and gladly answer any questions on this or any other subject.
302-670-1971.
Previous Comments
While I was at work today, the State Department of Elections website was updated, removing Brent Wangen and myself from the primaries we had filed and paid for. Celia Cohen is indicating that the cause was a legal opinion issued by the attorney general in 1994 that a candidate not "involved" with the party they file with can be disqualified from the primary ballot. I have attended Republican meetings, been turned away from Democratic meetings due to my party registration, and been registered as both a Democrat and a Republican in the past. But none of that matters.
The opinion is not supported by the Delaware Code governing elections. Ms. Cohen even mentions a court decision allowing a candidate uninvolved in the party's activities to compete for its nomination. I am not a lawyer, but I have read the law. I believe that I have followed the proper procedures and met the appropriate qualifications to be listed on the Democratic and Republican primary ballots. I believe that the Democratic and Republican voters of the 32nd District should have more choices than those presented to them by the entrenched political interests of a two party system.
I am exploring every option to ensure that the 32nd District is presented the choices it is entitled to under the duly enacted laws of the State of Delaware. I will appreciate any support you can offer and gladly answer any questions on this or any other subject.
302-670-1971.
Previous Comments
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Filed for the Democratic and Republican Primaries
I have filed for the Democratic and Republican primaries. I hope to offer the small-l libertarians registered in the Democratic and Republican parties the opportunity to create a Unity Candidate for 2010 and to support the philosophies of freedom, constitutional government, and state sovereignty which have been lacking from our government. I'd appreciate all of your support on September 14th during the primary elections, and on November 2nd during the general election.
Filing fees are expensive! I also love donations! Thanks!
What the media is saying:
Fusion Candidate Poll
News Journal Blog
Delaware Politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)