@JoeNierman @RobertBarnes @vivafrei
I wanted to share a strategic concept for consideration regarding Libertarian Party of New York (LPNY) ballot access—specifically a parallel, underutilized pathway grounded in existing New York election law.
Core Concept
Rather than relying exclusively on the gubernatorial cycle for ballot access, LPNY can pursue a complementary and potentially more durable route through the judicial nominating convention process. This involves participation in elections for delegates to the New York State Supreme Court nominating conventions, administered under NYSUCS and NYSBOE frameworks.
Why This Matters
• Reduces dependency on high-cost, statewide campaigns
• Avoids the significant petition thresholds tied to gubernatorial races
• Establishes a repeatable, lower-barrier entry point into the ballot system
• Creates a structural presence within an existing, legally recognized electoral mechanism
Strategic Advantages
• Delegate races are typically low-competition outside major party structures
• The process is fully compliant with current New York Election Law
• The model is scalable across judicial districts once proven
• Provides influence—direct or indirect—within the judicial selection process
Mid-Hudson / 3rd Judicial District as Pilot
The Mid-Hudson / Capital Region presents a viable pilot environment due to its manageable scale and relative political independence. A focused effort here could establish proof of concept before broader statewide replication.
Operational Approach
• Recruit LPNY-aligned delegate candidates
• Coordinate filings through NYSBOE procedures
• Execute targeted petitioning efforts (substantially lighter than statewide races)
• Build a repeatable election-cycle infrastructure
Framing and Positioning
This effort can be publicly framed as:
• Expanding voter choice in an otherwise closed process
• Promoting transparency in judicial selection
• Challenging entrenched political machinery with lawful participation
Collaboration Opportunity
I propose we explore coordination on:
• Candidate identification and recruitment
• Petition strategy and execution
• Alignment with broader LPNY ballot access objectives
This is not a workaround—it is a lawful, existing pathway that has simply been underutilized. Properly executed, it offers a durable foothold within New York’s political structure.
I welcome your thoughts and would be glad to discuss further or help develop this into an actionable plan for the upcoming cycle.
Best regards,
/S/ Harold William Van Allen
@JoeNierman
JOHN JAY COMMITTEE
POSITION PAPER #1
Judicial Selection Integrity in New York State
⸻
I. Title
Structural Control of Judicial Selection in New York:
A Constitutional Analysis of the Judicial Nominating Convention System
⸻
II. Executive Summary
This paper advances the following core conclusion:
New York’s judicial nominating convention system concentrates effective control over judicial selection in party-controlled delegate processes, thereby limiting meaningful electoral participation and raising constitutional concerns under modern First Amendment, Equal Protection, and ballot access jurisprudence.
While upheld facially in New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, the system’s real-world operation reveals a structural gatekeeping mechanism that warrants renewed scrutiny.
⸻
III. Background: The Current System
A. Selection Process
• Supreme Court Justice candidates are not chosen via direct primary
• Instead:
1. Voters elect judicial convention delegates
2. Delegates attend judicial nominating conventions
3. Conventions select party nominees
⸻
B. Practical Reality
In practice, delegate elections are often:
• Low ...