[Lnc-business] MOTION Re: Letter from member on AZ ballot issues
Joshua Katz
planning4liberty at gmail.com
Sat Sep 10 15:50:46 EDT 2016
I agree with Starchild's point on the wording on appeal.
As to the dropped paragraph, perhaps I should have indicated why I dropped
it from my version. First, I don't see what it adds. Is our calling upon
the District Court to do something going to impact the outcome? If we
think it will, we can file a brief - which is referenced in the active
paragraphs. I think our position is clear without it. Second, while it's
a matter of interpretation, I think that my proposal, as written, can be
passed by a majority vote, but if that paragraph is included, it seems to
me it will take a 3/4 vote as it starts to look like it has elements of a
public policy resolution. I'd prefer that this board take power on things
within its jurisdiction rather than making announcements of our position.
If the paragraph is included, I will not be overly upset.
Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Joshua's proposed spending of funds in the "legal offense" budget
> category, to which money is already dedicated, seems appropriate to me
> given that this is the kind of thing for which a state affiliate might most
> reasonably turn to the national party for support, so I'll support the
> proposal to allocate $5,000 as he has suggested.
>
> I'm not clear however whether he intended to drop the section about
> expressing support/solidarity and urging a court finding for the Arizona
> LP, since he writes of "trying to stay as close as possible the original
> proposal", and offered no explanation for dropping that language, which I
> believe is still appropriate and relevant even with the addition of
> financial support.
>
> Therefore I will revise my original motion, and propose an amended version
> including both that language and Joshua's proposed budget allocation to
> read as follows:
>
> *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 rules against them and an appeal is necessary, or
> the defendants appeal a favorable ruling; *
>
> *Therefore b*
> *e 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 **allocates
> $5,000 from its "legal offense" budget to be used in the event of an appeal
> from the District Court's ruling, and **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; and*
>
>> I've also slightly changed the language regarding an appeal, since it
> occurs to me that a District Court ruling in the AZLP's favor could prompt
> an appeal by the other side, in which case references to an appeal becoming
> necessary would not quite fit the facts. I presume we would not want to
> offer financial support only if the AZLP appeals but not if the other side
> does.
>
> For ease of reference, I'll call this "*Version #3*", and again ask for
> co-sponsors of this version of the resolution.
>
> Love & Liberty,
> ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
> (415) 625-FREE
>
>
> On Sep 10, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> So we have three on this. David will you co-sponsor this one? or
> Starchild will you?
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
> wrote:
>
>> My view of how the Party should proceed as a whole relative to promoting
>> candidates is that we as the National Party have the duty to insure our
>> Presidential Nominee is on the ballot in all 50 states as a Libertarian.
>> We managed to get out nominee on the ballot in all 50 states, but not as a
>> Libertarian in all 50 states. This is something we need to work on in the
>> next cycle and some of which will take care of itself depending on how our
>> nominee performs in the election.
>>
>> From there I think our focus needs to be on insuring that our down ticket
>> candidates can get the ballot in their respective states as a Libertarian,
>> and start building our "bench" and our "farm team" for higher offices as
>> well as getting Libertarians in position to scale back state and local laws
>> restricting Liberty. This recent legislation in Arizona seems to take
>> things in the opposite direction of where I think things need to go
>> relative to growing our "team".
>>
>>
>> I agree with the points that Mr. Katz has made and like Ms. Harlos, I am
>> more amenable to a motion or resolution that prepares to take action,
>> letting our Arizona affiliate know "We got their back" beyond words.
>>
>>
>> It is with that in mind that I will Co-Sponsor this motion by Mr. Katz
>> regarding Arizona.
>>
>>
>> Daniel Hayes
>> LNC At Large Member
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 10, 2016, at 09:11 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/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160910/e14071db/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list