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

Thu Jan 15 17:09:28 EST 2015

I disagree here.  Yes, LPUS has provided money towards ballot access in NY,
as is true of many, many states.  The states make the requests, and the LNC
votes to spend the money.  We are free to vote no; we choose instead to
vote yes because, presumably, we believe it is in the interest of the LPUS
for those states which we fund to have ballot access in the races we fund
them for.  When a state makes a request for help with ballot access, the
state does not submit forevermore to have the LNC control its internal
operations.  When we vote to approve the money, we don't attach any strings
to it or attach an expectation that the state will forevermore agree to
pursue a legislative agenda and lobbying efforts put forth by the LNC.

The LNC's business is to decide what to do with our money, not to control
those who we agree, under no compulsion, to provide money to for pressing
needs - needs we clearly believed were pressing and related to the
interests of LPUS, else we would not have voted to fund in the first place.

I do not agree that it is the LNC's business to ensure that affiliates will
need the minimum possible amount of support in the future.  That's the
affiliate's business.  The relevant items for us would be to consider PAST
activities when a future request comes in, or else to consider attaching
specifics to ballot access funding.  I am not opposed to these, as a
general matter, so long as the latter is applied as broadly and generally
as possible - that is, not in a discriminatory way. In fact, I favor both,
because we as a board have a responsibility to use other people's money
appropriately.

But we as a board do not buy the right - with other people's money - to
decide what a state should pursue by voting to fund ballot access.

In this particular case, as the alternate of the region involved, I asked
Mr. Axinn when this first came out why he believed it to be a threat.  I
didn't ask so I could judge his answer - that's not my place; if he as
state chair believes it is a threat, he will and should take appropriate
actions - which we know less about than he does because it's his state, and
in which we have less stake because, again, he's the state chair.  I asked
him why he thought it was a threat so I could start thinking what, if
anything, LPUS might be able to do to assist in the actions NY will take.
If the board disagrees with those actions, it is free to not assist, but
not to direct other actions instead.  I also asked to see how I might help,
as chair of a neighboring state.

If members of this board personally want to offer assistance and advice,
that's their business - but if the advice is "you're doing it wrong" I
believe it should not be offered under color of office.  We have several
board members with expertise in legislative lobbying who can, I hope,
provide Mr. Axinn with advice on how to achieve HIS goals, or possibly
advice on a different direction to take.

I will favor helping NY to take the actions that NY's leadership believes
will best position them, not only to retain ballot access in the future,
but to win elections.  That doesn't mean I'll uncritically vote to always
give money whenever asked, but that is a different question from claiming
that the LNC has legitimate business deciding what a state should lobby for
absent, say, an affiliate agreement allowing for that, or a provision
attached to ballot access funding - two things I favor doing, but which we
have not done yet.

Joshua Katz

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

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Scott L. <scott73 at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
> 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 (as it currently does in NY).
>
>
>
> As I have mentioned before, we have 3 LP members 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.
>  ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
>
> 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-political-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* January 13, 2015 at 7:34 am
> <http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/01/new-york-bill-to-make-definition-of-political-party-more-restrictive/#comment-1069415>
>
> 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)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150115/93070165/attachment-0002.html>