Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Email Us
On Tuesday, August 17, voters in California’s State Senate District 15 went to the polls to select a candidate to replace former Senator Abel Maldonado, who has been appointed Lieutenant Governor.
The race was hotly contested and featured Republican Sam Blakeslee and Democrat John Laird along with independent Jim Fitzgerald and Libertarian nominee Mark Hinkle.
In the end, Blakeslee narrowly defeated Laird to keep the seat in Republican hands. The result was 48.8 for Blakeslee to 44.1% for Laird.
Fitzgerald, who retired from UPS and lists investing in health care and promoting renewable resources as two of his key priorities if elected, was running his second campaign for the seat.
Also running as an independent in 2008, Fitzgerald faced Maldonado in a one-on-one battle. In that race, Maldonado captured 63% or about 222,000 votes to Fitzgerald’s 37% or around 131,000 votes.
This time around, Fitzgerald’s showing fell to a still respectable 5.1% of the vote, well ahead of Libertarian Mark Hinkle.
If you think Hinkle’s name sounds familiar, that’s because he’s the newly elected Chairman of the Libertarian Party.
To put it bluntly, Hinkle’s distant fourth-place showing (winning just 2% of the vote) in this State Senate race is an embarrassment.
It’s a clear example why senior party leaders should avoid running for office while engaged in their duties.
The Libertarian Party has had a rocky history with high profile members running for lower level office.
In 2008, Hinkle’s predecessor Bill Redpath ran for the U.S. Senate from Virginia while also serving as Chairman of the Party. Redpath’s campaign failed to catch fire and he finished in fourth place with 0.55% of the vote, behind Independent Green nominee Gail Parker.
In 2006, former Presidential nominee Michael Badnarik burned up $400,000 of donor money to earn slightly more than 4% in a Texas Congressional race. Allegations that the campaign had wasted virtually all of the money given to it probably set the party’s progress back several years.
Minor party officials should not run for public office, because their poor showings reflect badly on the party as a whole and divert important resources.
Let’s face it, either Hinkle spent time running for State Senate that he should have used to focus on his role as Chairman of the LNC, or else he spent no time on his State Senate race and the resulting 2% should come as no surprise. Neither scenario is appealing.
For a party to be taken seriously, the senior leaders must not be running paper campaigns for local and state office.
Run to win or don’t run at all.
I don’t agree that Hinkle’s showing is embarrassing. This race was perceived as excruciatingly close. People said the entire direction of the California state government (the budget fight) would turn on the outcome in this race. For Hinkle to get 2% in that environment is good. Ralph Nader certainly didn’t get 2% in 2008, or 2004 either, in the same hyper-charged tension.
Furthermore, Hinkle was permitted to be in an inclusive debate, sponsored by the League of Women Voters. That is a good precedent for California, which is one of the worst states for debate inclusion generally in state and congressional races.