[Lnc-business] MOTION Re: Letter from member on AZ ballot issues

Starchild sfdreamer at earthlink.net
Sat Sep 10 15:44:28 EDT 2016


	Joshua's proposed spending of funds in the "legal offense" budget category, to which money is already dedicated, seems appropriate to me given that this is the kind of thing for which a state affiliate might most reasonably turn to the national party for support, so I'll support the proposal to allocate $5,000 as he has suggested.

	I'm not clear however whether he intended to drop the section about expressing support/solidarity and urging a court finding for the Arizona LP, since he writes of "trying to stay as close as possible the original proposal", and offered no explanation for dropping that language, which I believe is still appropriate and relevant even with the addition of financial support.

	Therefore I will revise my original motion, and propose an amended version including both that language and Joshua's proposed budget allocation to read as follows: 

Whereas the Arizona state government's new statute increasing the signature requirements for Libertarians and other alternative party candidates to appear on primary ballots in Arizona by as much as 20-fold or more is clearly unfair, burdensome, at odds with legal precedent, and unconstitutional; and

Whereas plaintiffs have limited resources and could use additional legal support in fighting to overturn this unjust statute, especially if the federal district court rules against them and an appeal is necessary, or the defendants appeal a favorable ruling; 

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee expresses our support for and solidarity with the Arizona Libertarian Party and Michael Kielsky in this matter, and urges the United States District Court for the district of Arizona to find for the plaintiffs in the case of Arizona Libertarian Party et al v. Reagan; and

Be it further resolved that the Libertarian National Committee allocates $5,000 from its "legal offense" budget to be used in the event of an appeal from the District Court's ruling, and directs its staff to reach out to groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice, and other alternative political parties, to invite them to file amicus curiae briefs with the court or otherwise provide support to the plaintiffs in the aforementioned case; and

	I've also slightly changed the language regarding an appeal, since it occurs to me that a District Court ruling in the AZLP's favor could prompt an appeal by the other side, in which case references to an appeal becoming necessary would not quite fit the facts. I presume we would not want to offer financial support only if the AZLP appeals but not if the other side does.

	For ease of reference, I'll call this "Version #3", and again ask for co-sponsors of this version of the resolution.

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                                (415) 625-FREE


On Sep 10, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

> So we have three on this.  David will you co-sponsor this one?  or Starchild will you?
> 
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com> wrote:
> My view of how the Party should proceed as a whole relative to promoting candidates is that we as the National Party have the duty to insure our Presidential Nominee is on the ballot in all 50 states as a Libertarian.  We managed to get out nominee on the ballot in all 50 states, but not as a Libertarian in all 50 states.  This is something we need to work on in the next cycle and some of which will take care of itself depending on how our nominee performs in the election.
> 
> From there I think our focus needs to be on insuring that our down ticket candidates can get the ballot in their respective states as a Libertarian, and start building our "bench" and our "farm team" for higher offices as well as getting Libertarians in position to scale back state and local laws restricting Liberty.   This recent legislation in Arizona seems to take things in the opposite direction of where I think things need to go relative to growing our "team".
> 
> 
> I agree with the points that Mr. Katz has made and like Ms. Harlos, I am more amenable to a motion or resolution that prepares to take action, letting our Arizona affiliate know "We got their back" beyond words.
> 
> 
> It is with that in mind that I will Co-Sponsor this motion by Mr. Katz regarding Arizona.
> 
> 
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 10, 2016, at 09:11 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Joshua I prefer your motion.  As I alluded to earlier, I was working behind the scenes on crafting something myself as this is my region, and one of my issues was "What is the purpose of this Resolution?  Just feel good? I would rather have some actual action rather than just 'thoughts and prayers.'"  This does that.
>> 
>> I co-sponsor this gladly.
>> 
>> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>> From the discussion here and information I've read elsewhere, I agree that this law is an attack on our ballot access in Arizona and presents a significant threat.  More importantly for our purposes, these sorts of things, left unanswered, have a tendency to spread.  From the "let national be national" perspective, we can prevent multiple fights by showing the first time that when laws target us, we fight back.  I oppose acting like a "super affiliate" but I do not think that's what's happening here - instead, we are identifying a national interest in this battle being won, particularly with the battle now in federal court.  Also, the national party brings some additional resources, such as access to national media and national organizations.
>> 
>> I do have to admit that some items here remain mysterious to me, such as the Greens needing one write-in vote to the thousands required for the LP.  I  haven't been able to find anything on this topic.  From what I've seen, though, it is clear to me that there are hooks for federal litigation.  As an example, independents under this law count against vote thresholds in multiple parties, but each independent can only vote in one primary, leaving aside the interest a party may have in a closed primary.  There is Supreme Court precedent, by the way, that states cannot dictate governance matters in parties as Arizona is, although that's not at issue in this suit from what I can see - it is relevant because, given what the state requires, attempting to force parties into open primaries is a further afront on that matter.
>> 
>> However, I'm having trouble joining this particular motion because it seems to say more than it does.  The record seems to show that when we pass such things, we end up later being pushed into things without full discussion.  I'd rather we say upfront what we intend to do so that it can be debated fully.  Here is my proposal, on which I seek cosponsors.  I don't generally write motions in resolution form, but I'm trying to stay as close as possible the original proposal.
>> 
>> Whereas, The Arizona state government's new statute increasing the signature requirements for Libertarians and other alternative party candidates to appear on primary ballots in Arizona by as much as 20-fold or more is clearly unfair, burdensome, at odds with legal precedent, and unconstitutional; and
>> 
>> Whereas, Plaintiffs have limited resources and could use additional legal support in fighting to overturn this unjust statute, especially if the federal district court ruling goes against them and an appeal is necessary; 
>> 
>> Resolved, That the Libertarian National Committee directs its staff and chair to reach out to groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice, and other alternative political parties, to invite them to file amicus curiae briefs with the court or otherwise provide support to the plaintiffs in the aforementioned case, and to publicize the matter on a national scope if feasible; and
>> 
>> Resolved, That the Libertarian National Committee allocates $5,000 from the "legal offense" line to be used in the event that an appeal become necessary from the District Court ruling.
>> 
>> 
>> Joshua A. Katz
>> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Thank you David.  For clarity of record, it is Starchild's well-written resolution with you and I now as co-sponsors.  We need one more.
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:02 PM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>> Caryn, I will co-sponsor your proposed LNC resolution regarding the Arizona’s unconstitutional exclusionary ballot access legislation.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The War on Majority Rule Cronyism Begins Now!
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE!
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>> 
>> Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee
>> 
>> Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>> 
>> Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus
>> 
>> Secretary at LPNE.org
>> 
>> David.Demarest at LP.org
>> 
>> DPDemarest at centurylink.net
>> 
>> David.Demarest at firstdata.com
>> 
>> http://www.LPNE.org
>> 
>> http://www.LP.org 
>> 
>> Cell:      402-981-6469
>> 
>> Home: 402-493-0873
>> 
>> Office: 402-222-7207
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos
>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 10:53 AM
>> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> Cc: Bkeaveney <Bkeaveney at cableone.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] MOTION Re: Letter from member on AZ ballot issues
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I hope those links helped.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Can we get some more co-sponsors on this?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> To correct one piece though of misinformation, one Libertarian candidate made it through the primary, Greg Kelly (Highlands Justice of the Peace) who did get the nominating signatures - two others did as well and were successfully challenged out prior to the primary.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Further Arizona does not have "Top Two"- that was defeated in 2012.  The only state in Region 1 that I am aware of with Top Two is Washington State.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Oliver is involved in his private legal capacity not as LNC counsel.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> This seems to me to be something we are going to have to be involved in at some point, but this Resolution is a great place to start.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> So far there is Starchild and myself.  You in?  :)
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> In Liberty,
>> 
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> 
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>> 
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> 
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Joshua, there are links too here that will help.  The Court case has a very good summary of the issues fact-specific numbers.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> https://amthirdpartyreport.com/2016/08/08/arizona-ballot-access-and-denial-of-preliminary-injunction/
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> In Liberty,
>> 
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> 
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>> 
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> 
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Joshua A. Katz
>> 
>> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Joshua, at this link is my regional report.  Please proceed to page 17 for a detailed explanation.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> http://www.lncregion1.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/070816Region1report.pdf
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> In Liberty,
>> 
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> 
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>> 
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> 
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Starchild I will of course co-sponsor any such motion and was in the process of working with Barry on language as this is my Region after all.  And I do detail out this situation in my last regional report.  It makes it more difficult for candidates to even get on the primary ballot (three made the petitioning threshold but two were thrown out and I am inquiring about the status of the last candidate in light of the statement that no candidates made it through) but it also makes it nearly impossible for them to be write in candidates since the threshold is the same... BUT with a smaller pool since the AZLP exercises its right to have a closed primary (yet the percentage pool includes independents, making a situation in which it is theoretically possible to have every Libertarian write in a candidate and STILL not meet the burden).
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Barry,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thank you for the additional details. I remain a bit confused by the inclusion in your explanation of the statement that, "not one single Libertarian candidate received enough votes to survive the Primary election" – isn't this an effect of the state government's previously enacted (and also unfair and exclusionary) "top two" law, and not of the unfair petitioning requirement? My understanding from what I read here and in the federal court brief at the link you supplied, is that the petitioning requirement currently being fought by the Arizona LP makes it much more difficult for Libertarians and other alternative party candidates to even appear on primary ballots, before even having an opportunity to receive enough votes to overcome the "top two" hurdle and make it to the general election. (I note in passing that this brief appears to have been filed by the LNC's counsel, Oliver Hall, although whether this was done under the aegis of his contract to provide legal assistance to the national LP, or independently at the Arizona LP's expense or as a pro bono donation of services by Mr. Hall, I do not know).
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Regardless however, it seems clear enough that this is indeed an onerous, unfair, and unconstitutional new requirement which we all have an interest in getting tossed out before it keeps more Libertarians and other non-cartel candidates off the ballot and risks spreading to other states. Certainly your request that the Libertarian Party provide a formal statement of support and solidarity and reach out to other possible sources of legal support to assist in fighting this travesty, seems entirely reasonable and timely, and one that we ought to be able to honor without undo difficulty.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Therefore I hereby offer the following motion in accord with your request, and seek co-sponsorship from my LNC colleagues:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Whereas the Arizona state government's new statute increasing the signature requirements for Libertarians and other alternative party candidates to appear on primary ballots in Arizona by as much as 20-fold or more is clearly unfair, burdensome, at odds with legal precedent, and unconstitutional; and
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Whereas plaintiffs have limited resources and could use additional legal support in fighting to overturn this unjust statute, especially if the federal district court ruling goes against them and an appeal is necessary; 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee expresses our support for and solidarity with the Arizona Libertarian Party and Michael Kielsky in this matter, and urges the United States District Court for the district of Arizona to find for the plaintiffs in the case of Arizona Libertarian Party et al v. Reagan; and
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Be it further resolved that the Libertarian National Committee directs its staff to reach out to groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice, and other alternative political parties, to invite them to file amicus curiae briefs with the court or otherwise provide support to the plaintiffs in the aforementioned case.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Please let me know ASAP if you see any issues with the above language, before it is approved for a vote.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Love & Liberty,
>> 
>>                                  ((( starchild )))
>> 
>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>> 
>>                                (415) 625-FREE
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Sep 8, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Bkeaveney wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> To: Starchild, At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Re:  Arizona Libertarian Party et al v. Reagan
>> 
>> Federal Civil Lawsuit Arizona District Court, Case No. 2:16-cv-01019
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Issue: The new Arizona election law rules that impose unequal, unfair, burdensome and unconstitutional requirements for Libertarian candidates to get on the ballot.
>> 
>> Details
>> Timeline
>> Types of Support Requested
>> A Clarification 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Hi, Starchild,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply. It’s much appreciated!
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> To answer your questions, the current Federal District Court  Case filed by the Arizona Libertarian Party focus on exactly the same issues as the recently defeated State Arizona Supreme Court case filed by an individual Libertarian candidate, Mr. Frank Tamburri, who was excluded from the ballot in his bid in the U.S. Senate race
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The details of that issue are: 
>> 
>> In 2015, the Arizona legislature approved H.B. 2608 which amended A.R.S. § 16-322 to increase the base from which signatures from candidates must be acquired, now including Independents as part of that base.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> With an extra cynical bit of math, the percentage of qualified signatures needed was reduced, from 0.50% to 0.25% the result of this being the number of signatures needed by Republicans and Democrats was approximately the same (since their base of registered voters about equal to the number of registered Independents — but now needing half the previous percentage)
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> But the number of signatures needed by Libertarians skyrocketed to 20x’s more, or more, since to now include the tens of thousands of Independents as part of the base of our tiny political party dramatically increased the number of signatures we needed ( 20x’s more, or more) — Yet the Democrats and Republicans could say this was ‘fair’ since the same rules applied to everyone.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> In the outstanding Federal Case of the Arizona Libertarian Party, The (denied) Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction sums this up quite well, at:
>> 
>> http://ballot-access.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Arizona-Libertarian-primary-injunctive.pdf
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> What’s at stake is whether these onerous, unfair, unconstitutional, new requirements for signatures remain the law or not.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Now we know, now we can see the fact that in our Arizona recent Primary election at the end of last month, not one single Libertarian candidate received enough votes to survived the Primary election.
>> 
>> Thus, not one single Libertarian candidate made it to the General Election*
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Timeline, 
>> 
>> From research, I read: Discovery due by 1/27/2017. Dispositive motions due by 2/10/2017. Motion Hearing set for 4/21/2017 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003
>> 
>> Unfortunately Courts quite easily change their dates and schedules. The Party Chairman of the Arizona Libertarian Party would be able to confirm the most up-to-date information in this regard. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> What type of support I am seeking.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The simplest action
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 1. Put an agenda item before the National Libertarian Party expressing support and solidarity with the Arizona Libertarian Party in this case.
>> 
>> 2. Passage of that agenda item. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> This could be very useful and let the Arizona Libertarian Party know it’s not fighting this battle all on it’s own.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> More significant action
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 3. The National Libertarian Party could use it’s status and position to  inform and seek involvement of such groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice,etc.
>> 
>> 4. Such groups — or the National Libertarian Party itself — could file an amicus curiae (a 'friend of the court’ brief) perhaps focusing on broader issues, like how this is a threat to all third parties (by including Independents as if part of their voter base). Perhaps, too, using it’s status and position the National Libertarian Party could seek the involvement and help from all other 3rd parties who would suffer under such new rules; or at least alert them to this threat.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Ultimate and maybe necessary action
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 5. If the Arizona Libertarian Party loses it’s Federal case there would be a need for an appeal. If it loses the appeal then efforts would be necessary to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
>> 
>>     To do any of that would require legal and financial resources way beyond what’s available in Arizona for such appeals. So, if appeals are necessary, for the National Libertarian Party, other 3rd Parties, or other legal action groups as mentioned above to consider such help if need be.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> If this Arizona law is allowed to stand it could be used to destroy the efforts of all third parties in all states. It would be replicated. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Any action the National Libertarian Party might come up with, itself, would also be good. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> A Clarification 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I am not speaking for the Arizona Libertarian Party; I am speaking for myself, as a Libertarian candidate who would have had enough votes to make it to the General Election this year, under the previous election laws — but came no where close and was defeated in our recent primary under these new election laws taking effect for the first time this year.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> In that way I’m like Mr. Frank Tamburri, the recently defeated Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate, who — as an individual — felt personal distress and harm as to what happened to them, and thus filed his State case.
>> 
>> I also feel personal distress and harm at my defeat under these new election rules so — as an individual — I’m stating my complaint... and seeking National Party involvement (because I feel it appropriate and necessary).
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> As in my initial and previous emails I make the point
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> More information is available from our Party Chairman.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Something needs to be done.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Our Party Chairman is: 
>> 
>> Michael Kielsky
>> 
>> Attorney At Law
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 480.461.5309 Direct  |  480.461.5300 Main  |  480.833.9392 Fax
>> 
>> 1138 North Alma School Road, Suite 101 |  Mesa, Arizona 85201
>> 
>> mk at udallshumway.com  |  www.udallshumway.com
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks again for your concern in this matter and for any action that may result.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Barry Keaveney
>> 
>> Former Libertarian write-in candidate for Arizona State Senate, District 7
>> 
>> 🗽
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 7:41 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Hi Barry,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thank you for letting the Libertarian National Committee know about this latest anti-democratic outrage from one of the cartel parties seeking to deny voters the ability to choose Libertarian candidates by imposing unequal, unfair, and burdensome requirements for our candidates to get on the ballot.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> According to the Ballot Access News link you include in your message, the Arizona Supreme Court has shamefully upheld this candidate suppression. Darryl Perry expresses surprise in the comments at BAN that Clint Bolick (recently of the libertarian Institute for Justice and now appointed as a member of that court, iirc) did not issue a dissenting opinion, and I wonder about that too. But I'm not quite clear from either your message or from BAN what's at stake in the District Court case that you mention, or what relation it has to the Arizona Supreme Court case. Can you provide more information on this, the status/timetable of the case, and what kind of support you are seeking?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Love & Liberty,
>> 
>>                                   ((( starchild )))
>> 
>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>> 
>>                                 (415) 625-FREE
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I present this letter sent to me with concerns about the difficulties in AZ
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Dear Folks, 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I’ve written to some of you before but feel the need to present this one last summary concerning
>> 
>> the crippling of all Libertarian candidates in Arizona, due to new election laws having now taken effect for the first time.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> THE PROBLEM FOR LIBERTARIANS IN ARIZONA: 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The Republicans successfully crippled the Libertarian Party in Arizona, with the passage of HB 2608 last year.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  Libertarian write-in candidates now, this year for the first time, now needing 10x’s to 20x’s more votes in the primaries to try to stay on the ballot for the general elections; 
>> 
>> (and if collecting signatures to become a candidate, the same increase applies).
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> This is due to Libertarians now needing to consider all registered Independents as part of their voter base.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> IN THE RECENT ELECTIONS, LAST WEEK, NO LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATES IN ARIZONA GOT PAST THIS NEW PRIMARY HURDLE, now needing 10x’s to 20x’s more votes. (Because Independents now counted as part of their voter base)
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Less than a week before our Primary on August 30th the Arizona Supreme Court upheld this new law, in a case similar to the court case filed by the Arizona Libertarian Party
>> 
>> See, information at: ballot-access.org/2016/08/28/arizona-supreme-court-upholds-2015-law-that-excludes-all-but-one-libertarian-from-2016-primary-ballot/
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> People get upset about voter suppression. This is even worse, this is suppression of what candidates can get on the ballot.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I don’t see how any Libertarian candidate can get elected if this court case, Arizona Libertarian Party et al v. Reagan
>> 
>> Federal Civil Lawsuit Arizona District Court, Case No. 2:16-cv-01019 is not successful, or appealed even to the Supreme Court if necessary. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I hope you could offer real support to this. After our recent Primary Election, there were no Libertarian candidates left.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> If this new election law requirement stands, it’s a death knell, not just for our State party, but for all 3rd parties when it is copied and done in other states as well.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> So I make this last effort to raise the alarm: Defeat this new election law requirements now, before it spreads.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> More information is available from our Party Chairman.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Something needs to be done.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Our Party Chairman is: 
>> 
>> Michael Kielsky
>> 
>> Attorney At Law
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 480.461.5309 Direct  |  480.461.5300 Main  |  480.833.9392 Fax
>> 
>> 1138 North Alma School Road, Suite 101 |  Mesa, Arizona 85201
>> 
>> mk at udallshumway.com  |  www.udallshumway.com
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Barry F. Keaveney (citizenbfk)
>> 
>> 150 N. 5th St., #21
>> 
>> Show Low, AZ 85901
>> 
>> (928) 207-3026
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> https://www.facebook.com/citizenbfk
>> 
>> https://citizenbfkblog.wordpress.com
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Note: I, personally, just lost my primary bid last week. But in previous years I would have had enough votes. 
>> 
>> The new election law, requiring 10x’s to 20x’s more votes in the Primary  crushed my primary bid, crushed the primary bid of all our candidates last week.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> In Liberty,
>> 
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> 
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>> 
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> 
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 Liberty,
>> 
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> 
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>> 
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> 
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> In Liberty,
>> 
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> 
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>> 
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> 
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 Liberty,
>> 
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> 
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>> 
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> 
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> In Liberty,
>> 
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> 
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>> 
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> 
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> In Liberty,
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 Liberty,
>> Caryn Ann Harlos
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 Liberty,
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160910/951728bb/attachment.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list