[Lnc-business] MOTION Re: Letter from member on AZ ballot issues
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Thu Sep 8 20:12:14 EDT 2016
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
<http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
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/2016/07/070816R
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160908/670cff1b/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list