[Lnc-business] Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York

Thu Jan 15 14:55:59 EST 2015

If the LPNY had its own column (or row) on the ballot, and can use all 3 of
the offices Mr. Axinn lists, then 2%, or even 3%, is very achievable.

Look at past LP election results in other states on the LP web site.   Many,
many LP candidates for statewide office get over 3.0% of the vote, whether
for that office, or 3% of the vote for Governor.

And it is probably possible to make sure US Senate counts, as long as it
doesn't screw up the 4 years of ballot access for passing the vote test.

  Scott Lieberman

 bcc:  Mark Axinn

  _____  

From: mark axinn [mailto:markaxinn at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 11:31 AM
To: Scott Lieberman
Subject: RE: Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York

There were just under 4,000,000 votes cast for Governor/Lt. Gov.,
Comptroller and Attorney General in the last election.

2% would require us to get 80,000 votes. 3% is 120,000.

Much worse than the current situation. 

Mark 

  _____  

From: scott73 at earthlink.net
To: markaxinn at hotmail.com
Subject: FW: Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:33:16 -0800

You can see all of the lnc-business e-mails on the LP web site, but I will
make it easier for you by cc'ing you.

I forgot to do a blind cc on the original.

  Scott Lieberman

  _____  

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
Scott L.
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:21 AM
To: lnc-business at lp.org
Subject: [Lnc-business] FW: Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York

Since he wants you to see it, I am forwarding the LPNY Chair's e-mail to the
rest of you.

If the LP of NY was self-funding all of their ballot access drives, then I
would agree with the LPNY Chair's comment immediately below.

However, since most or all of their ballot access petitions have had
substantial financial support from the National LP, then IT IS the LNC's
business to make sure that our affiliates are taking the best possible
actions to minimize their need for financial support from the National LP
for future ballot access drives.

Even if the LPNY is successful in somehow stopping this new bill, that will
not get them any closer to not needing

tens of thousands of dollars of National LP money every 2 years for the
foreseeable future.

I hope that my fellow LNC members would like to save our National LP members
as much money as possible by helping LPNY lobby for a new ballot access bill
that requires the NY State election ballot to have separate columns for each
party that is on that ballot, and for their vote test to be a more typical
2% or 3% for any statewide office, and that passing the vote test gives 4
years of ballot access (currently passing the vote test does give 4 years of
ballot access in NY, but you have to make sure you don't mess that up when
you write a new bill).

As I have mentioned before, we have 3 LP members who have successfully
lobbied for better ballot access laws who have volunteered to give free
advice on lobbying to our affiliates for situations just like this one.

  Scott Lieberman

  _____  

From: mark axinn [mailto:markaxinn at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 9:48 AM
To: Scott Lieberman
Cc: LP-State Chairs; Arvin Vohra; Richard Tomasso; Vicki Kirkland; William
Redpath; Josh Katz; Dan Wiener; Alicia Mattson; Tim Hagen; Norm Olsen; Jim
Lark; Sam Goldstein; Evan McMahon; Guy McLendon
Subject: RE: Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York

Scott--

Obviously, I disagree with you, as does my membership. Please do not tell us
how to run things in New York and I promise not to meddle into the affairs
of the California LP.

Thank you. 

Mark Axinn

P.S. Since you sent your message to the LNC and I do not have access to that
list, I am cc'g those members for whom I do have email addresses. I am sure
I am leaving several others out, and of course do so merely because I don't
have their addresses. 

  _____  

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBB

From: scott73 at earthlink.net
To: lnc-business at lp.org
Subject: Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 06:39:27 -0800

"Ballot Access News
<http://www.ballot-access.org/2015/01/new-york-bill-to-make-definition-of-po
litical-party-more-restrictive/> :  (via IPR)
New York Assemblyman Gary Pretlow (D-Mt. Vernon) has introduced AB 838. It
would alter the definition of "political party" from a group that got 50,000
votes for Governor, to a group that got 100,000 votes for Governor. If
passed, it would take effect for elections starting in 2016. Thus, it would
remove the Independence, Women's Equality, and Stop Common Core Parties from
the ballot."

And the Chair of the LPNY commented on IPR:

"Mark Axinn
<http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/01/new-york-bill-to-make-def
inition-of-political-party-more-restrictive/#comment-1069415> January 13,
2015 at 7:34 am 

Obviously, if this bill were ever enacted, it would be a disaster for the
Libertarian Party of New York. I urge every New Yorker to contact his/her
local Assemblymember and urge him/her to oppose this Draconian restriction."

Dear fellow LNC members:

I disagree with the Chair of the LPNY.  Since the LPNY has failed the
current vote test 10 in a row since 1972,  this bill would be
psychologically annoying, but it would not in any way be a "disaster".  The
LPNY has never had semi-permanent ballot access, so they would not be losing
anything.
If I lived in New York, I would be heavily lobbying to add to that bill the
requirement  that the Elections Department change the ballot layout so that
each party on the ballot gets its own column (Row?), and that all statewide
offices count for the vote test.  And maybe change the vote test from 50,000
votes to 2% or 3% of the vote for Governor.  (1% would be nice, but would
probably  fall on deaf ears).

I suspect there are not enough minor party activists who care enough to
complain, so directly opposing the bill will, IMO, not work.
  Scott Lieberman

bcc:  Mark Axinn, Richard Winger  (bcc to protect their e-mail addresses
from spammers)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150115/745553d2/attachment-0002.html>