[Lnc-business] MOTION Re: Letter from member on AZ ballot issues
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Sat Sep 10 23:08:47 EDT 2016
I believe we have the requisite number of sponsors.
Katz, Harlos, Hayes, and Demarest.
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 7:31 PM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:
> Caryn, if you have not already counted me, I will co-sponsor the amended
> Katz motion.
>
>
>
> *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
>
> DPDemarest at centurylink.net
>
> David.Demarest at firstdata.com
>
> 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:* Saturday, September 10, 2016 4:08 PM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] MOTION Re: Letter from member on AZ ballot
> issues
>
>
>
> Need one more.
>
>
>
> --
>
> *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 2:59 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
> wrote:
>
> I am in. I withdraw my sponsorship of the original Katz motion. I will
> Co Sponsor the amended Katz motion.
>
> Daniel Hayes
> LNC At Large Member
>
>
> On Sep 10, 2016, at 01:14 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Daniel and David will you co-sponsor this amended language by Joshua? And
> I ask that Starchild do as well.
>
>
>
> I trust our Chair to come up with wonderful quotes for use by the media
> and Arizona which will not be as dry as a resolution necessarily is.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I co-sponsor Joshua's amended language.
>
>
>
> The quotable solidarity language can come from our Chair and press persons
> - which is must more quotable than an LNC resolution. Arizona needs
> substantive help not just solidarity. I would hope my opinion as their
> actual representative carries some weight here.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> *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 allocates $5,000 from
> its "legal offense" budget line to be used in the event of an appeal from
> the District Court's ruling in AZ Libertarian Party v. Reagan, (is this
> properly bluebooked Nick?) and 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.*
>
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes Joshua let's see your new language, and I believe you are right that
> the "solidarity" language approaches public policy.
>
>
>
> I will withdraw my prior co-sponsorship so as not to trigger a ballot on
> your prior proposal, and I will await your new wording.
>
>
>
> I would hope that David and Daniel and Starchild will co-sponsor your
> amended version once posted.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Could I ask that David, or any of the cosponsors, forget for a moment to
> cosponsor so that I can adjust the appeal language?
>
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:45 PM, David Demarest <
> dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>
> Yes, I will co-sponsor Joshua’s version of the Arizona motion.
>
>
>
> This issue also strikes me as excellent material for a formal LNC PR
> release by the chair given his Arizona background.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> *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:* Saturday, September 10, 2016 1:38 PM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] MOTION Re: Letter from member on AZ ballot
> issues
>
>
>
> 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-
> 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/
> 070816Region1report.pdf
>
>
>
> --
>
> *In Liberty,*
>
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Starchild I will of course co-sponsor any such motion and was in the
> process of working with Barry on language as this is my Region after all.
> And I do detail out this situation in my last regional report. It makes it
> more difficult for candidates to even get on the primary ballot (three made
> the petitioning threshold but two were thrown out and I am inquiring about
> the status of the last candidate in light of the statement that no
> candidates made it through) but it also makes it nearly impossible for them
> to be write in candidates since the threshold is the same... BUT with a
> smaller pool since the AZLP exercises its right to have a closed primary
> (yet the percentage pool includes independents, making a situation in which
> it is theoretically possible to have every Libertarian write in a candidate
> and STILL not meet the burden).
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Barry,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the additional details. I remain a bit confused by the
> inclusion in your explanation of the statement that, "not one single
> Libertarian candidate received enough votes to survive the Primary
> election" – isn't this an effect of the state government's previously
> enacted (and also unfair and exclusionary) "top two" law, and not of the
> unfair petitioning requirement? My understanding from what I read here and
> in the federal court brief at the link you supplied, is that the
> petitioning requirement currently being fought by the Arizona LP makes it
> much more difficult for Libertarians and other alternative party candidates
> to even appear on *primary* ballots, before even having an opportunity to
> receive enough votes to overcome the "top two" hurdle and make it to the
> general election. (I note in passing that this brief appears to have been
> filed by the LNC's counsel, Oliver Hall, although whether this was done
> under the aegis of his contract to provide legal assistance to the national
> LP, or independently at the Arizona LP's expense or as a pro bono donation
> of services by Mr. Hall, I do not know).
>
>
>
> Regardless however, it seems clear enough that this is indeed an onerous,
> unfair, and unconstitutional new requirement which we all have an interest
> in getting tossed out before it keeps more Libertarians and other
> non-cartel candidates off the ballot and risks spreading to other states.
> Certainly your request that the Libertarian Party provide a formal
> statement of support and solidarity and reach out to other possible sources
> of legal support to assist in fighting this travesty, seems entirely
> reasonable and timely, and one that we ought to be able to honor without
> undo difficulty.
>
>
>
> Therefore I hereby offer the following motion in accord with your request,
> and seek co-sponsorship from my LNC colleagues:
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------
>
>
>
> *Whereas the Arizona state government's new statute increasing the
> signature requirements for Libertarians and other alternative party
> candidates to appear on primary ballots in Arizona by as much as 20-fold or
> more is clearly unfair, burdensome, at odds with legal precedent, and
> unconstitutional; and*
>
>
>
> *Whereas plaintiffs have limited resources and could use additional legal
> support in fighting to overturn this unjust statute, especially if the
> federal district court ruling goes against them and an appeal is
> necessary; *
>
>
>
> *Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee
> expresses our support for and solidarity with the Arizona Libertarian Party
> and Michael Kielsky in this matter, and urges the United States District
> Court for the district of Arizona to find for the plaintiffs in the case of
> Arizona Libertarian Party et al v. Reagan; and*
>
>
>
> *Be it further resolved that the Libertarian National Committee directs
> its staff to reach out to groups such as the American Civil Liberties
> Union, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Pacific Legal Foundation, the
> Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice,
> and other alternative political parties, to invite them to file amicus
> curiae briefs with the court or otherwise provide support to the plaintiffs
> in the aforementioned case.*
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------
>
>
>
> Please let me know ASAP if you see any issues with the above language,
> before it is approved for a vote.
>
>
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
> ((( starchild )))
>
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
> (415) 625-FREE
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 8, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Bkeaveney wrote:
>
>
>
> To: Starchild, At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>
>
>
> Re: Arizona Libertarian Party et al v. Reagan
>
> Federal Civil Lawsuit Arizona District Court, Case No. 2:16-cv-01019
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Issue: The new Arizona election law rules that impose unequal, unfair,
> burdensome and unconstitutional requirements for Libertarian candidates to
> get on the ballot.*
>
> - Details
> - Timeline
> - Types of Support Requested
> - A Clarification
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi, Starchild,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply. It’s much appreciated!
>
>
>
> To answer your questions, the current* Federal District Court Case filed
> by the Arizona Libertarian Party* *focus on exactly the same issues* as
> the recently defeated *State Arizona Supreme Court case filed by an
> individual Libertarian candidate, *Mr. Frank Tamburri, who was excluded
> from the ballot in his bid in the U.S. Senate race
>
>
>
> *The details of that issue are*:
>
> In 2015, the Arizona legislature approved H.B. 2608 which amended A.R.S. §
> 16-322 to* increase the base from which signatures from candidates must
> be acquired*, now including Independents as part of that base.
>
>
>
> With an extra cynical bit of math, the percentage of qualified signatures
> needed was reduced, from 0.50% to 0.25% the result of this being *the
> number of signatures needed by Republicans and Democrats was approximately
> the same *(since their base of registered voters about equal to the
> number of registered Independents — but now needing half the previous
> percentage)
>
>
>
> But the number of signatures needed by Libertarians skyrocketed to 20x’s
> more, or more, since to now include the tens of thousands of Independents
> as part of the base of our tiny political party dramatically increased the
> number of signatures we needed ( 20x’s more, or more) — Yet the Democrats
> and Republicans could say this was ‘fair’ since the same rules applied to
> everyone.
>
>
>
> In the outstanding Federal Case of the Arizona Libertarian Party, The
> (denied) Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
> Injunction sums this up quite well, at:
>
> http://ballot-access.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/
> Arizona-Libertarian-primary-injunctive.pdf
>
>
>
> What’s at stake is whether these onerous, unfair, unconstitutional, new
> requirements for signatures remain the law or not.
>
>
>
> Now we know, now we can see the fact that in our Arizona recent Primary
> election at the end of last month, not one single Libertarian candidate
> received enough votes to survived the Primary election.
>
> Thus,* not one single Libertarian candidate made it to the General
> Election**
>
>
>
>
>
> *Timeline,*
>
> From research, I read: Discovery due by 1/27/2017. Dispositive motions due
> by 2/10/2017. Motion Hearing set for 4/21/2017 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom
> 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003
>
> Unfortunately Courts quite easily change their dates and schedules. The
> Party Chairman of the Arizona Libertarian Party would be able to confirm
> the most up-to-date information in this regard.
>
>
>
> *What type of support I am seeking.*
>
>
>
> *The simplest action*
>
>
>
> 1. Put an agenda item before the National Libertarian Party expressing
> support and solidarity with the Arizona Libertarian Party in this case.
>
> 2. Passage of that agenda item.
>
>
>
> This could be very useful and let the Arizona Libertarian Party know it’s
> not fighting this battle all on it’s own.
>
>
>
> *More significant action*
>
>
>
> 3. The National Libertarian Party could use it’s status and position to
> inform and seek involvement of such groups like the American Civil
> Liberties Union, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Pacific Legal
> Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Center for Law
> and Justice,etc.
>
> 4. Such groups — or the National Libertarian Party itself — could file an*
> amicus curiae* (a 'friend of the court’ brief) perhaps focusing on
> broader issues, like how this is a threat to all third parties (by
> including Independents as if part of their voter base). Perhaps, too, using
> it’s status and position the National Libertarian Party could seek the
> involvement and help from all other 3rd parties who would suffer under such
> new rules; or at least alert them to this threat.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Ultimate and maybe necessary action*
>
>
>
> 5. If the Arizona Libertarian Party loses it’s Federal case there would be
> a need for an appeal. If it loses the appeal then efforts would be
> necessary to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
>
> To do any of that would require legal and financial resources way
> beyond what’s available in Arizona for such appeals. So, if appeals are
> necessary, for the National Libertarian Party, other 3rd Parties, or other
> legal action groups as mentioned above to consider such help if need be.
>
>
>
> *If this Arizona law is allowed to stand it could be used to destroy the
> efforts of all third parties in all states. It would be replicated. *
>
>
>
> *Any action the National Libertarian Party might come up with, itself,
> would also be good. *
>
>
>
> *A **Clarification *
>
>
>
> I am not speaking for the Arizona Libertarian Party; I am speaking for
> myself, as a Libertarian candidate who would have had enough votes to make
> it to the General Election this year, under the previous election laws —
> but came no where close and was defeated in our recent primary under these
> new election laws taking effect for the first time this year.
>
>
>
> In that way I’m like Mr. Frank Tamburri, the recently defeated Libertarian
> candidate for U.S. Senate, who — as an individual — felt personal distress
> and harm as to what happened to them, and thus filed his State case.
>
> I also feel personal distress and harm at my defeat under these new
> election rules so — as an individual — I’m stating my complaint... and
> seeking National Party involvement (because I feel it appropriate and
> necessary).
>
>
>
> *As in my initial and previous emails I make the point*
>
>
>
> *More information is available from our Party Chairman.*
>
>
>
> *Something needs to be done.*
>
>
>
> Our Party Chairman is:
>
> *Michael Kielsky*
>
> Attorney At Law
>
>
>
>
>
> *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/>
>
>
>
> *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/>
>
> ...
>
> [Message clipped]
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
--
*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/20160910/4f64e0a1/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list