[Lnc-business] Lobbying legislators on ballot access

[Joshua Katz]

Good points all.  I am continuing my search in the state senate.  Since he
is free to introduce any or all, and they'd all be separate bills, the
consponsorship shouldn't be an issue, but it may be better to give him just
one or two things to ask him to consider bringing forward.

Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Norm Olsen <region1rep at donedad.com> wrote:

> It depends upon the nature of your relationship with the legislator, of
> course, but I wouldn’t ask for too much.  Item 1 is of the paramount
> importance.  Lock that one down as hard as you can.  Legislative politics
> can, of course, also have an effect:
>
>
>
> 1>     How would the legislature react if it is asked to deal with three
> things instead of just one?
>
> 2>     How much political capital would need to expended to get #1 to the
> floor of the legislature?
>
> 3>     Your legislative friend is a member of one of two(?) houses.  Who
> in the other house can you get to support any of these measures?  Would it
> not be more likely to find such a co-sponsor if there were only one issue?
>
> 4>     Would setting a goal of all three issues detract from the
> possibility of getting #1, the most important one?
>
>
>
> Just thinking out loud.
>
>
>
> Norm
>
> --
>
> Norman T Olsen
>
> Regional Representative, Region 1
>
> Libertarian National Committee
>
> 7931 South Broadway, PMB 102
>
> Littleton, CO  80122-2710
>
> 303-263-4995
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Joshua Katz
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 04, 2015 12:17 PM
> *To:* norman.olsen at lp.org; lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Lobbying legislators on ballot access
>
>
>
> Thanks!  I will get in touch with him.  For item 1, you are correct, and I
> wrote up a rather easy amendment to our state law that should do it (and a
> bit more because, why not?)
>
>
>
> I've also decided to throw in a third issue, which he may or may not care
> to move forward on - our blatantly discriminatory laws for registrar of
> voters.  A town elects two registrars - the two highest vote-getters from
> different parties.  However, if one of those is a small party, they then
> get three registrars so that both braindead parties get at least one
> registrar into office.  So, if the ballot were, from most to least:
>
> L
>
> G
>
> L
>
> G
>
> G
>
> D
>
> R
>
> The offices would go to the highest L, the D, and the R.
>
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Norm Olsen <region1rep at donedad.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Joshua . . .
>
>
>
> For item 1, there should be several examples in the statutes of many
> states.  I defer to others on that one.
>
>
>
> For item 2, contact Warren Severin of Arizona.  They have been lobbying
> this issue for years, and have litigated the issue recently (and lost, if I
> remember correctly).  Their experience could be very helpful.
>
>
>
> Norm
>
> --
>
> Norman T Olsen
>
> Regional Representative, Region 1
>
> Libertarian National Committee
>
> 7931 South Broadway, PMB 102
>
> Littleton, CO  80122-2710
>
> 303-263-4995
>
>
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Joshua Katz
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 04, 2015 9:44 AM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* [Lnc-business] Lobbying legislators on ballot access
>
>
>
> We have talked a lot about lobbying legislators for better ballot access
> laws.  I have a legislator in Connecticut who is willing to introduce two
> pieces of legislation:
>
>
>
> 1.  Meeting the vote test for one office on a ballot carries ballot access
> in the next round for all races on that ballot (at present, it carries only
> the specific office contested.)  This is a strict improvement on what I
> sought - one statewide race carrying all statewide races.  His cost for
> doing so is 2% as a vote test (up from 1%.)
>
> 2.  Inclusion of all registration-qualified parties on the registration
> form (at present, there are 3 registration-qualified minor parties, but to
> register in one, you check "other" and write in the name.)
>
>
>
> Does anyone have any model language for these?  I know many of you have
> been active in these lobbying efforts.  He has requested model language to
> introduce, and I have a rather close timeline on it.  Any help would be
> appreciated.
>
>
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150104/407f21d5/attachment-0002.html>