[Lnc-business] Top Two

Wed Jul 30 18:19:07 EDT 2014

I think maybe there should be a budget item for this fight, which can be
used as appropriate through the year.

Joshua Katz
On Jul 30, 2014 4:13 PM, "Norm Olsen" <region1rep at donedad.com> wrote:

> 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 The Republicans repealed their midnight "pseudo Top Two" legislation only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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20140730/13066384/attachment-0002.html>