[Lnc-business] Lobbying legislators on ballot access

Mon Jan 5 20:10:25 EST 2015

It seems an excellent idea to have boiler-plate language for proposed legislation.

Guy

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Katz
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 4:20 PM
To: norman.olsen at lp.org; lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Lobbying legislators on ballot access

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/20150105/b22fc7d9/attachment-0002.html>