[Lnc-business] MOTION Re: Letter from member on AZ ballot issues
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Sat Sep 10 12:12:54 EDT 2016
And yes I realize that there was action in the original... but I was hoping
to commit more actual resources (i.e. a financial commitment) and this does
that. AZ needs real help and that involves resources. As I have stated at
the past meeting and every opportunity I can, Region 1 has not had ballot
access issues that needed national help, and thus, often is not the
beneficiary of such funds. But we need that help now.
I also am pleased to see you used most of the substantive of Starchild's
motion as I admire Starchild's way to put things into words.
--
*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 Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:09 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.lpne.org/>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.LP.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
>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>>>>
>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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-acc
>>>> ess-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
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *480.461.5309 Direct | 480.461.5300 Main | 480.833.9392 Fax
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> 1138 North Alma School Road, Suite 101 | Mesa, Arizona 85201
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *mk at udallshumway.com | www.udallshumway.com
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again for your concern in this matter and for any action that
>>>> may result. <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely, <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Barry Keaveney <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Former Libertarian write-in candidate for Arizona State Senate,
>>>> District 7 <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> 🗽 <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 7:41 PM, Starchild <*sfdreamer at earthlink.net*>
>>>> wrote: <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Barry, <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> 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. <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> 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? <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Love & Liberty, <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> ((( starchild )))
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> (415) 625-FREE
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> I present this letter sent to me with concerns about the difficulties
>>>> in AZ <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Folks, <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> I’ve written to some of you before but feel the need to present this
>>>> one last summary concerning <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> the crippling of all Libertarian candidates in Arizona, due to new
>>>> election laws having now taken effect for the first time.
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *THE PROBLEM FOR LIBERTARIANS IN ARIZONA:
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> The Republicans successfully crippled the Libertarian Party in Arizona,
>>>> with the passage of HB 2608 last year. <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> 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*; <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> (and if collecting signatures to become a candidate, the same increase
>>>> applies). <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *This is due to Libertarians now needing to consider all registered
>>>> Independents as part of their voter base. <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *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)
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *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 <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> 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/*
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *People get upset about voter suppression. This is even worse, this is
>>>> suppression of what candidates can get on the ballot.
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> I don’t see how any Libertarian candidate can get elected if this court
>>>> case, Arizona Libertarian Party et al v. Reagan
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Federal Civil Lawsuit Arizona District Court, Case No. 2:16-cv-01019 is
>>>> not successful, or appealed even to the Supreme Court if necessary.
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *I hope you could offer real support to this. After our recent Primary
>>>> Election, there were no Libertarian candidates left.
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *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. <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *So I make this last effort to raise the alarm: Defeat this new
>>>> election law requirements now, before it spreads.
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *More information is available from our Party Chairman.
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *Something needs to be done. <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Our Party Chairman is: <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *Michael Kielsky <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> Attorney At Law <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *480.461.5309 Direct | 480.461.5300 Main | 480.833.9392 Fax
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> 1138 North Alma School Road, Suite 101 | Mesa, Arizona 85201
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *mk at udallshumway.com | www.udallshumway.com
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely, <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Barry F. Keaveney (citizenbfk) <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> 150 N. 5th St., #21 <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Show Low, AZ 85901 <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *(928) 207-3026* <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *https://www.facebook.com/citizenbfk* <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *https://citizenbfkblog.wordpress.com* <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Note: I, personally, just lost my primary bid last week. But in
>>>> previous years I would have had enough votes.
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> 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. <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> -- <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *In Liberty, <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - *Caryn.Ann.
>>>> Harlos at LP.org* <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Communications Director, *Libertarian Party of Colorado*
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, *Libertarian Party Radical Caucus*
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> *Lnc-business at hq.lp.org*
>>>> *http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org*
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> *Lnc-business at hq.lp.org*
>>>> *http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org*
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> -- <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *In Liberty, <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - *Caryn.Ann.
>>>> Harlos at LP.org* <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Communications Director, *Libertarian Party of Colorado*
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, *Libertarian Party Radical Caucus*
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> -- <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *In Liberty, <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - *Caryn.Ann.
>>>> Harlos at LP.org* <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Communications Director, *Libertarian Party of Colorado*
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, *Libertarian Party Radical Caucus*
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> *Lnc-business at hq.lp.org*
>>>> *http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org*
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> *Lnc-business at hq.lp.org*
>>>> *http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org*
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> -- <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *In Liberty, <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - *Caryn.Ann.
>>>> Harlos at LP.org* <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Communications Director, *Libertarian Party of Colorado*
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, *Libertarian Party Radical Caucus*
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> -- <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *In Liberty, <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos <http://www.udallshumway.com/>*
>>>>
>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - *Caryn.Ann.
>>>> Harlos at LP.org* <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Communications Director, *Libertarian Party of Colorado*
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, *Libertarian Party Radical Caucus*
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.udallshumway.com/>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *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/20160910/8de3edea/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list