[Lnc-business] MOTION Re: Letter from member on AZ ballot issues
Joshua Katz
planning4liberty at gmail.com
Thu Sep 8 20:04:32 EDT 2016
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/2016/07/070816R
> egion1report.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>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160908/2330c8ea/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list