[Lnc-business] MOTION Re: Letter from member on AZ ballot issues
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Thu Sep 8 20:00:07 EDT 2016
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
> [image: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01D17DCD.0EB5FAF0]
> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>
> *480.461.5309 <//480.461.5309>* Direct | 480.461.5300 <//480.461.5300> Main
> | 480.833.9392 <//480.833.9392> Fax
> 1138 North Alma School Road, Suite 101 | Mesa, Arizona 85201
> *mk at udallshumway.com <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
> [image: Description: Description: cid:image001.png at 01D17DCD.0EB5FAF0]
> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>
> *480.461.5309 <//480.461.5309>* Direct | 480.461.5300 <//480.461.5300> Main
> | 480.833.9392 <//480.833.9392> Fax
> 1138 North Alma School Road, Suite 101 | Mesa, Arizona 85201
> *mk at udallshumway.com <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 <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.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
>
>
--
*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 <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160908/e5fc41d5/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list