[Lnc-business] MOTION Re: Letter from member on AZ ballot issues
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Thu Sep 8 20:01:50 EDT 2016
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 <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/>
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
>> [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>
>
>
>
>
>
--
*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/c651115e/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list