[Lnc-business] Top Two

[Norm Olsen]

With regard to "Top Two":

Oregon is not the only state where Top Two is a threat to existing ballot
access for Libertarians.

ARIZONA:
The Republicans repealed their midnight "pseudo Top Two" legislation only to
preserve their ability to introduce similar legislation in the future.  If
the recall of this bill by the general electorate had succeeded (as the
polls showed it would), the legislature would be prohibited from ever again
passing similar legislation in the future.  Thus the "repeal" was not so
much a gesture of futility, but more an act to keep their powder dry.  It
can be expected that similar legislation will be proposed in the future.

MONTANA:
The "Top Two" initiative in Montana was taken off the 2014 ballot only
because the initiative title exceeded the constitutional limit of 100 words.
The Republicans will likely try again and not make the same mistake twice.

Top Two in both cases above is more like that which exists in WA and CA,
which means that there would be an open primary and then a general election
where only R's and D's would appear on the general election ballot.

Top Two and "pseudo Top Two" is alive and well in many states.  I call it
ballot access in reverse.  That is losing ballot access in states where it
previous existed (to a reasonable degree anyway).

I support (and would appreciate like minded members of this committee to
identify themselves) making "confronting reverse ballot access" a core
function of the LNC.

Norm
--
Norman T Olsen
Regional Representative, Region I
Libertarian National Committee
7931 S Broadway, PMB 102
Littleton, Colorado  80122-2710
303-263-4995
Norman.Olsen at lp.org

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then
you win." -- Gandhi


-----Original Message-----
From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
Daniel Hayes
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 5:12 PM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Top Two

Members,

As to Top Two, Louisiana currently has a non partisan open blanket
primary.or as we call it..a jungle primary. All affiliations run at the same
time and if nobody gets over 50%, the top two go to a run off.  
We were the 4th fastest growing affiliate last year in states that have
party recognition.  Our Executive Director got nervous when a bill was
proposed last year that would have moved Federal Elections to closed
primaries.  One of the sticking points for a lot of people to switch is
because they are worried the Libertarian candidate will cause one of the big
two to lose the race.  What having a top two system allows us to do is
overcome one of the biggest sticking points people have by saying.vote your
conscience in the primary and then do what you feel you gotta do in the run
off.

I just related this all back to Wendy(our ED) about how you guys are all
worried about it.  She LOLed. She was freaked out because she was scared it
was going to mess up our recruitment when a Republican Rep put up a bill
about moving to closed Federal primaries in La. He never brought it to
committee .Myself..I can grow the party in any climate..its all about
altering and tailoring the message.  Though when its working.don't try and
fix it.wait a second.

HELP!!! Louisiana suffers from TOP TWO!! Send us money!! Send us MONEY!!!
HELP!!!!.

https://secure.piryx.com/donate/3rejnkrb/Libertarian-Party-of-Louisiana/

Did it work?

Daniel Hayes
LNC R7 Alternate



On Jul 17, 2014, at 4:32 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:

> The LNC can, I believe, spend money to oppose top-two in Oregon.  It 
> is simpler, if the Libertarian Party of Oregon is FEC filing to 
> transfer funds to them to spend in Oregon.  That's my read on it, 
> though I'll defer to our lawyer and/or FEC consultant if they believe 
> my interpretation is incorrect.
> 
> The Libertarian Party of Oregon has placed language in the voter guide 
> before to argue for or against initiatives, and can do so in this case 
> as well.  It costs $1200.  I believe we would also be able to place a 
> separate argument as the LNC, though if we choose to do so, we should 
> coordinate with the Libertarian Party of Oregon to ensure we're not 
> making the same arguments in both.
> 
> If top two passes, the Libertarian Party of Oregon would still be 
> recognized as a political party, it would just become much less likely 
> that their candidates would appear on the November ballot.  See, e.g.
> California.
> 
> -Nick
> 
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Joshua Katz <joshua.katz at lp.org> wrote:
>> Is it within the jurisdiction of the LNC to take action to oppose 
>> top-two in Oregon, perhaps by setting aside money for a legal 
>> challenge or advertising before the vote?  If so, I suggest someone 
>> with the ability move to do so, as I do not think our affiliate there 
>> is in a position to fight it, being somewhat busy with other things?
>> 
>> As a side note, does if top-two passes, does that impact the JC decision?
>> Will there still be such a thing as SOS recognition for a party?
>> 
>> Joshua A. Katz
>> 
>> Region 8 (Region of Badassdom) Alternate Libertarian National 
>> Committee
>> 
>> Chair, Libertarian Party of Connecticut
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org


_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org