2008 State Convention Wrap-Up

by Rob Rossi

Postponed to 2008 by December's big snowstorm, the 2007 IP State Convention was nonetheless a well-attended and successful event, at which many important decisions were made. 91 voting delegates and some 25 visitors were in attendence at the outset, and these numbers grew for the key afternoon sessions. Participants included Senator Dean Barkley, Representative Tim Penny, and Peter Hutchinson.

Platform matters were considered in the morning session. A proposal to strip explicit support for PRT from the transportation platform failed, while motions to strike some other specifics carried.

The afternoon session started with a short but inspiring address from Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, in which he emphasized the many fronts on which he hoped to work with the IP, the service role of his office, and in which he asserted that under his leadership the Secretary of State's office would not attempt the same ballot-access blocking maneuvers that had infused some very bad blood between the IP and his predecessor as Secretary of State, Mary Kiffmeyer.

The convention then took up the matter of whether to affiliate with the new national organization initiated by the Independence Party of New York, called the Independence Party of America (IPOA). State party Vice Chair Diane Goldman gave the report of the Affiliating Committee, which she headed, and John Vinje, CD6 chair, gave an empassioned speech in support of affiliation. Peter Theraldson, CD5 treasurer, advanced a motion for affiliation with the IPOA, and some discussion ensued as to the nature of the proposed relationship. Frank MacKay, chair of the IPOA, was in attendence, and he was asked to speak. He explained the motivation, situation, and proposed relationship, emphasizing that every national party is in fact but an affiliation of state parties, and that each state party affiliated with the IPOA will reserve its powers of endorsement and autonomy. Concerns from the delegates focused on the details of the proposed national party, which MacKay said were not yet decided and would be a matter for all the founding parties to work out together, and concerns about the IP expending resources on national races that might better be spent on state and local races and issues. In the end, observations that many would-be IP supporters are frustrated by the party's state boundary; the promise of taking a leading position in a national independent movement so as to "do it right," avoiding the mistakes of the Reform Party; and support for the long-term goal of providing ready ballot access to independent candidates for national office carried the day, and the affiliation motion was passed by a large majority.

Next the convention turned to the long-standing and highly contentious issue of cross-endorsing candidates from other political parties. A compromise bylaw revision co-written and honed by several authors was put into consideration, and the exact wording and details debated and amended at some length. A restriction on the total number of candidates eligible for cross-endorsement statewide (10) was struck, along with a requirement that there be a balance in the party affiliations of those cross-endorsed. In both cases, the view that local entities of the party should not have their hands tied by the actions of other local entities carried the day. Dan Justesen also put forth an amendment to the proposed bylaw change which would require that at minimum eight party members be invovled in any cross-endorsement decision. If these numbers were not available at the most local level of the party, the decision on cross endorsement would move up until sufficient numbers were. So, for example, for a state house endorsement, if there were not eight delegates present at the LD level, the decision on cross-endorsement in that LD would move up to the CD level. This amendment passed, and after some other minor changes the bylaw change itself was taken up. Impassioned speeches on each side of the issue were heard, and the room was tense. When the vote finally came, there was a motion for a secret ballot, but it did not win a majority. Hence the delegates openly voted, and it was clear that the bylaw change had sufficient votes to pass, despite strong opposition from many delegates. The change, as passed, requires cross-endorsed candidates adhere to IP funding requirements, and only allows for cross-endorsement of state and federal legislative candidates; thus, with so many candidates for such offices accepting PAC funding and other financial assistance that the IP funding requirements prohibit, cross endorsement may remain rare...then again, perhaps more candidates may prove willing to forsake such financing, and instead focus on public financing, in order to earn our endorsement.