Sue Jeffers Update

Here’s the new official position of the Libertarian Party of Minnesota about the Sue Jeffers candidacy:

June 13, 2006

Libertarian Party of Minnesota Nullifies Previous Sue Jeffers Endorsement

Following Sue Jeffers’ recent announcement to pursue the Republican Party of Minnesota nomination in the 2006 Gubernatorial primaries, on Monday, June 12th, the Libertarian Party of Minnesota Executive Committee formalized the nullification of its previous endorsement for Sue Jeffers.

“It was a very difficult decision, and there was much discussion,” said Lee Brennise, State Chair, “but as a result of Sue’s decision to forgo our endorsement, in conjunction with her intent to run as a Republican in the Gubernatorial primaries, we will be unable to petition for ballot access for Sue Jeffers to be in the general election as a Libertarian. As exceptional as a candidate as Sue is, the Libertarian Party of Minnesota will not endorse a candidate in the Republican primaries, or a Republican for the general election.”

The Libertarian Party unanimously decided not to withdraw the endorsement, but confirmed that the endorsement was null as a result of party bylaws, and does not have plans to endorse another gubernatorial candidate for 2006.

“While party bylaws and statute preclude an endorsement of Sue, we encourage individuals to continue support in a volunteer capacity. No other current gubernatorial candidate is as dedicated to the cause of liberty as Sue Jeffers.”

posted by Stephen Gordon
  • Trevor Southerland

    A Libertarian who chooses to run in a primary (and follow the LP Platform) is okay.

    A Republican who chooses to run as a Libertarian (and follow the LP Platform) is okay.

    But Sue Jeffers appears to be another William Weld, a Republican who simply wanted to get a little media attention but had no intent to follow the LP Platform or run as a Libertarian.

  • http://libertarianyouth.blogspot.com Nigel Watt

    So…now she won’t be on the ballot at all? Woohoo, yay for Sue Jeffers.

  • http://UnCivilDefence.blogspot.com MRJarrell

    So, who will the LP of Minn be running in the election? Oh, that’s right. No-one. Who says Republicans are stupid?

  • http://articulatecampaigns.com Allen Hacker

    If there’s a cost to integrity and this be it, I say, Well Paid! A tip of the hat to the Minnesota LP. Hopefully, this is a sign that the lesson of NY/Weld has been well learned by all.

    -0-

  • Artus Register

    It would have been nice if she would have loudly vocalized that the GOP couldn’t stand her fiscal conservatism or belief in limited government, and not continued to pursue the nomination.

    She could then have made a lot of noise as an LP candidate illustrating the true nature of the Republican Party.

    Still, it may be largely positive to have a freedom-minded person pointing out that the self-proclaimed party of small government is a collection of despotic hacks who want to rule every aspect of peoples lives and continue to give validity to Minnesota’s moniker: Land of a Thousand Taxes.

  • TerryP

    From my understanding everybody new she was going to try and win the republican nomination. This is no news. If there was a problem in the bylaws about this it should have been brought up at the LP nomination. What would have happened if she would have gotten the republican parties endorsement? Same thing. She still would have been running as a republican and because of the bylaws she couldn’t have run as a libertarian. If there was a problem with the bylaws about her running on another ticket as well she should have never been endorsed as the LP nominee in the first place.

    It was obvious that she wasn’t going to run a race on a 100% LP platform. Who would and still expect to get more than a few % of the vote? She wants to win, not just make a good showing.

    IMO we knew all this prior to the LP nomination. If people had a problem with it they should have voiced their concern about the bylaws and the platform at that time, not after she received the nomination.

  • Devious David

    Minnesota LP screwed up by getting involved with her in the first place. What libertarian wants to support a candidate that is running in the GOP platform? Furthermore, LPers should at least by now not to get all wrapped up with Republicans. I won’t hold my breath. I think the Minnesota LP finally came to their senses, so maybe there is hope afterall.

  • http://www.LPWI.org Rolf Lindgren

    Jeffers could have gotton 5% as Libertarian candidate, plus a lot of news coverage.

    Now she will get 0%.

  • George Whitfield

    Jeffers has disappointed me. She no longer links to the LP on her website. She evades the question of what she will do if she does not win the Republican nomination. However, now I can focus on other races.

  • MLS

    I guess none of you read this part of the press release:

    “While party bylaws and statute preclude an endorsement of Sue, we encourage individuals to continue support in a volunteer capacity. No other current gubernatorial candidate is as dedicated to the cause of liberty as Sue Jeffers.”

    Perhaps we should first examine our own party before dragging Jeffers through the mud… Like the LPMN says: “No other current gubernatorial candidate is as dedicated to the cause of liberty as Sue Jeffers.”

  • http://iliketocomplain.blogspot.com Christopher Monnier

    > But Sue Jeffers appears to be another William Weld, a Republican who simply wanted to get a little media attention but had no intent to follow the LP Platform or run as a Libertarian.

    Wrong. If anything, Jeffers “used” the Republican party for publicity. She didn’t get any media attention until she decided to try for the Republican nomination. Because of her association with the Minnesota LP, the word “libertarian” was uttered on the radio and in the newspaper many more times than it would have otherwise been. Sue Jeffers was a positive force in the media for liberty.

    > It would have been nice if she would have loudly vocalized that the GOP couldn’t stand her fiscal conservatism or belief in limited government, and not continued to pursue the nomination.

    She did this. I heard her say it to a very large audience on Minnesota Public Radio while they were covering the state Republican convention.

    (continued below)

  • http://iliketocomplain.blogspot.com Christopher Monnier

    > Minnesota LP screwed up by getting involved with her in the first place.

    I personally worked with Sue as a member of the University of Minnesota Campus Libertarians way before the whole governor issue. She spoke at an anti smoking ban rally that we organized. As a bar owner, one could argue that she had a personal stake in defeating the smoking ban.

    But while discussing the smoking ban, SHE brought up the fact that government was expanding and becoming too powerful.

    The Minnesota LP seems to have nullified their endorsement of Jeffers because of a technicality, but to me that sort of sounds like an excuse to keep the party “pure.” I think it’s a mistake for them to drop her.

    Nevertheless, I think she’ll do fine without their endorsement. In fact, she may do even *better* without the baggage of the LP.

  • Corey

    Since I am from Minnesota, and I’m a Libertarian I should chime in…

    Sue is technically a member of the Libertarian Party. She is also very principled in her libertarian views, except politically she is pandering more to conservatives since she is now running in the GOP primary. She is running to win, and that’s why she changed her registration to Republican. She is also trying to gain a coalition of support, rather than from one party.

    Did she disappoint me? Yes.
    Will I vote for her in the primary? Most likely.
    Is there any other candidate that supports liberty more than Sue? Hell no. At least she is paying lip service to it.

    I support the LP, and in rare, rare cases like Ron Paul, I would support a Republican, or maybe even a Democrat, but 9 times out of 10 I support our LP candidates. I even voted for Jesse Ventura because he talked like a libertarian.

    The LP in MN has very principled members and that’s why I’m still a proud member and supporter.

  • Corey

    One last thing about dropping the Sue endorsement. If Sue didn’t accept our endorsement than the party is obligated to nullify it according to the party bylaws. The LPMN Lee Brennise is a stickler for the bylaws and he knows his stuff. At least the LP is sticking to the rules and sticking to some principle. I think that’s a good thing. Many of us will still support her, including myself.

  • http://www.smokeoutgary.org Dan McGrath

    Wait until September before prognosticating on Jeffers’ election share. The contest now is Jeffers v. Pawlenty. It’s come a bit earlier than some expected, but there will still be a good fight. Who are you rooting for?

  • Devious David

    Jeffers V. Pawlenty? LOL. It’s Democrat “versus” Republican. Same as it always is. Different uniforms, same team. Same dumb electorate.

  • Lex

    It’s actually a lot easier to win in the primaries, because voter turnout is so much lower. Bust a move, and get people out there.

    Are the primaries open in Minnesota, or do you have to be registered as a Republican to vote in the Republican primary?

  • MLS

    Minnesota doesn’t have party registration.

  • http://www.thirdpartywatch.com Austin Cassidy

    I think people are forgetting that this was shaping up to be a 3-way battle in November. The Minnesota Independence Party has a candidate that can probably draw at least 10% of the vote and will likely suck all of the oxygen out of the contest for other minor parties.

    Jeffers running as a Republican gives her a clear shot at the governor in a one-on-one race that she can probably top 25-30% of the vote in. As a Libertarian it would have been virtually impossible to touch 5% (or even 2%) with the IP involved. Just my 2 cents anyway.

  • Jane Green

    Maybe Sue just realized that the Libertarian Party has devolved into just another Marxist or Communist popular front group? After it was revealed the Alabama’s Loretta Nall supported the destruction of the the US Republic by way of “open borders” wise Libertarians were awakened to the fact that her campaign could’ve have been orchestrated by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

  • http://www.GetLiberty.org Aaron

    Sue Jeffers is a principled, passionate, hard-working candidate. The LP continues to make amateur political mistakes. No surprise.

  • http://articulatecampaigns.com Allen Hacker

    To my mind, this was never about LPMN’s bylaws, nor Jeffers’ particular positions on the issues. The endorsement violated the LP’s bylaws concerning the qualifications and obligations of affiliate (state) parties. Those bylaws prohibit any affiliate or subdivision of any affiliate from endorsing a candidate who is a member of another party. Jeffers changing her registration nullified her nomination, and the LPMN did the right thing in saying so. When the choice is between having no candidate and having no party, it’s an easy choice.

    The message here is clear, and carried well by the LPMN: don’t be so desperate to have a candidate or win approval in public opinion that you’ll sell out the store.

    -0-

  • http://www.ilovephysics.com Chris Moore

    Who really cares whether the LPMN nullifies Jeffers’s endorsement. She will not be running in the general election as a Libertarian. If you think Sue Jeffers is libertarian enough to warrant a vote, then vote for her in the Republican primary.

    Though personally, I think she should have accepted the LPMN endorsement and ran as a Libertarian after the Republican nomination fell through. But I know nothing of MN politics or the specifics of her campaign. I’ve spoken to ZERO MN Republicans, and have no inside information that her campaign may and probably does have. So my opinion means nothing.

    I don’t care whether a candidate calls themselves a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Presbyterian. If I agree with most of their views, then they get my vote.

  • http://www.smokeoutgary.org Dan McGrath

    Chris-Thank you for that enlightened opinion. Principles are far more valuable than labels, are they not? If Jeffers principles earned her an LP endorsement, shouldn’t Libertarians support her regardless of labels?

    Libertarians still have the option of voting for Sue, and I hope they do. Get to the primaries, and vote Jeffers. You can leave the rest of the ballot blank if you want to.

  • Caleb Shingledecker

    I think any Minnesotan that believes in the principals of liberty should show up and vote. She is as close to a true liberation as any candidate in recent years. Who cares if she is running as a republican, its not like the MNLP has been running gubernatorial candidates. Jeffers wants more rights and less tax, so why are you looking a gift horse in the mouth?

  • http://www.suejeffers.org Mark Fox

    Compare this maneuvering to sports. Jeffers is, as shown by the MNLP endorsement, a star by libertarian principles. She was playing for a team in the building stage. Although it was her hometown team, she saw a chance to win the championship and traded herself to a true contender.

    Sure, the Minnesota Libertarians would rather have this star scoring in their jersey. It would help them win a few more games. When we switch from the metaphor back to the real world, that feel-good allegiance to an LP uniform will cost libertarians a chance to effect a reduction in government coercion.

    Jeffers’ move does nothing to diminish all the work done to build the MNLP into a legitimate minor party. Put those resources to service, as suggested in the PR, and Jeffers has a better chance to knock off Pawlenty. Combined with the GOP bankroll that comes with a primary victory, Jeffers will crush the DFL candidate.

    Score one for liberty.

    And, MNLP will receive some very public gratitude. Make it 2-0.

  • disinter

    She got killed in the primary yesterday…. Will she now run as a Libertarian for the general election?