[Lnc-business] Lobbying legislators on ballot access

Mon Jan 5 20:26:37 EST 2015

It seemed like a good idea to me also, which is what I was thinking when
asking around for language yesterday.  When I sat down to work on it,
though, I found that the easiest way to word it was as an amendment, so it
may turn out that standardizing the language is trickier than it seems.  I
ended up just putting forward a bill that tweaks language that is already
in the CT law, so my language wouldn't work in other states.

We should probably design a boilerplate for use in places where there's no
clear way to amend an existing section to achieve the desired goal.

My takeaway - have something in mind before you start meeting with
legislators so you're not caught flat-footed when one agrees to put in a
bill and asks you for the bill.

Joshua Katz

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

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Guy McLendon <guy at mclendon.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150105/5e2d59ee/attachment-0002.html>