[Lnc-business] Advisement of proposed lawsuit - Maine

Fri Dec 11 13:19:57 EST 2015

Nick, the validity rate seems like a critical question in determining
whether to proceed with a lawsuit.  Approximately how many registrations
were left unprocessed?  We need some way of estimating that.

The math is straightforward:  For example, if we turned in a total of 6,000
signatures (to use a round number) and 5,000 are required, then we need
5,000/6,000 = 83.3% to be valid.  If we can estimate how many were
processed, and divide 4,489 by that number, we'll get an rough validity
rate.  If it is less than 83.3%, then the remaining unprocessed ones are
probably insufficient to let us reach the 5,000 mark.

As much as we'd like to win a lawsuit based on principle, I am reluctant to
spend the money if winning the lawsuit won't actually achieve ballot status.

Dan Wiener

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:

> I have trouble imagining how a Judge would justify denying the timely
> validity of a voter registration due to a failure of a clerk to timely
> perform the ministerial function of processing it, though stranger
> things have happened.  I'm not sure we're at 80%, but I'm pretty sure
> we're at least at 70%.
>
> -Nick
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Scott L. <scott73 at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Mr. Chair:
> >
> >
> >
> > I did not look at the law, but I did look at the comments here:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> http://ballot-access.org/2015/12/09/maine-secretary-of-state-denies-libertarian-partys-ballot-access/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > My opinion is that the chance of this lawsuit winning on both the early
> > deadline issue AND the “you have to beat the deadline by a random number
> of
> > days that changes depending on which Statist occupies the Secretary of
> > State’s Office” is over 80%.
> >
> >
> > Do you concur with my assessment, or am I underestimating the prevalence
> of
> > rational judges?
> >
> >
> >
> >   Scott Lieberman
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
> > Joshua Katz
> > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 9:36 AM
> > To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Advisement of proposed lawsuit - Maine
> >
> >
> >
> > There's a rather outrageous claim being made her:  that a deadline is not
> > when you need to turn something in, but rather when the government has to
> > finish processing it.  By that logic, they can just refuse to process
> > petitions at all.  If Maine gets away with it, why wouldn't other states
> > follow suit - particularly when it counts the most?  This means, for
> > instance, that a very viable candidate, polling above 50% in every poll,
> > could be kept off the ballot simply by "not having time" to process their
> > paperwork.  This is an outrage, and an insult not just to democracy, but
> to
> > their very own laws.
> >
> >
> >
> > It is, in my opinion, in this party's interest, nationwide, to fight this
> > absurdity.  I strongly support entering litigation on this and nipping
> this
> > particular line of nonsense in the bud.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Joshua A. Katz
> >
> > Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Kevin Ludlow <ludlow at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Mr. Chair.
> >
> > Unless somebody can steer me in a different direction, it seems to me
> this
> > is precisely the sort of thing we allocate a legal budget for in the
> first
> > place.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Kevin Ludlow
> >
> > Region 7
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > To answer Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Ludlow's question, this expense would
> > be under the litigation line item that has $13,500 in the remaining
> > budget for the year.
> >
> > -Nick
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Kevin Ludlow <ludlow at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mr. Chair,
> >>
> >> Thank you for sending this out.  I would very likely support this kind
> of
> >> effort.
> >>
> >> I realize there would be an effort to have the legal fees refunded upon
> a
> >> favorable outcome, but ignoring that possibility, would the $4,000 come
> >> from
> >> our legal budgeting, would it borrow from a different category, or would
> >> it
> >> need to be raised separately altogether?
> >>
> >> Again, I would likely support the effort either way, but just want to
> >> clarify how we'd be allocating it.
> >>
> >> Thanks much.
> >>
> >> Kevin Ludlow
> >> Region 7
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Fellow LNC Members,
> >>>
> >>> Pursuant to Policy Manual provision Section 2.04(2), I am writing to
> >>> advise you of a proposed lawsuit to be filed in Maine.
> >>>
> >>> As you may be aware, the Libertarian Party of Maine undertook a voter
> >>> registration drive to obtain party status by obtaining over 5,000
> >>> Libertarian voter registrations by December 1, 2015.  The Libertarian
> >>> Party of Maine collected and turned in over 6,000 voter registrations.
> >>> However, many of those registrations were not processed by the local
> >>> officials who had them prior to the Secretary of State evaluating
> >>> whether the party had 5,000 registrations. Per the Secretary of
> >>> State's office, the Libertarian Party of Maine only had 4,489
> >>> registrations by the deadline.  More details here:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> http://ballot-access.org/2015/12/09/maine-secretary-of-state-denies-libertarian-partys-ballot-access/
> >>>
> >>> On hearing this news, I asked Oliver Hall to evaluate the cost of
> >>> filing suit to require the Secretary of State to count the
> >>> registrations that were turned in prior to the deadline but
> >>> unprocessed and/or challenge the early deadline (Dec. 1 in the year
> >>> before the election) as unconstitutionally early.  He has consulted
> >>> with a colleague of his in Maine  who he has worked with before and
> >>> would be willing to be co-counsel on the suit in Maine.  The retainer
> >>> for litigating the entire District Court case would be $4,000, and
> >>> would include: drafting and filing the complaint; drafting and filing
> >>> the motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction;
> >>> preparing supporting affidavits; arguing the motion; and converting
> >>> the (presumably successful) motion for preliminary relief into one for
> >>> summary judgment (i.e., permanent relief) and filing that motion.
> >>>
> >>> Per Mr. Hall, "The complaint would probably assert both facial and
> >>> as-applied challenges to the statute (and the Secretary’s failure to
> >>> process registrations pursuant thereto) under the First and Fourteenth
> >>> Amendments and Section 1983. It would request declaratory and
> >>> injunctive relief. It would also request attorney's fees under Section
> >>> 1988. Assuming we win, and attorney's fees are awarded, the amount of
> >>> the fees awarded would be paid to the LNC, as a refund of the retainer
> >>> fee...."
> >>>
> >>> The attorney in Maine is prepared to work on this case over the
> >>> weekend to get the case filed ASAP.  It is my intention to seek
> >>> approval from the Executive Committee today to go forward with this
> >>> litigation.
> >>>
> >>> I apologize for not giving more notice, but I am writing you as soon
> >>> as I received an estimate from Mr. Hall.  Please let me know if you
> >>> have questions or concerns.
> >>>
> >>> Yours truly,
> >>> Nick
> >>>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

-- 
*"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it
disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
-- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20151211/cad4f8e2/attachment-0002.html>