[Lnc-business] MOTION Re: Letter from member on AZ ballot issues
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Sun Sep 11 22:09:45 EDT 2016
I would co-sponsor also with the preamble removed. I want to get AZ help.
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On further consideration, I'm convinced that Starchild is correct and the
> preamble does, in fact, move this into 3/4 territory. I'm tempted to
> remove the preamble and see what my cosponsors do, but in the interest of
> expediency I'm going to just leave it as is since it has sufficient
> cosponsors and I'd like to get moving, pun intended.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I disagree on the first point (but it's up to the chair, not me) because
>> the preamble is not what is being adopted. On the second point, I see
>> where you're coming from, but I am also calling on staff to help publicize
>> this, and I think staff, the chair, and others can do a better job
>> answering a direct question about our stance than we can as a committee in
>> drafting a motion, simply because they can be responsive to the precise
>> question being asked.
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Joshua,
>>>
>>> As tempting as it might be to seek a lower vote threshold, think the
>>> first paragraph would still make it a resolution under the spirit of the
>>> rules even if we didn't include the statement of support and solidarity.
>>> One important benefit of using direct language is to provide a readily
>>> quotable statement for use by the AZLP, media outlets, or others, that
>>> clearly expresses our position without any need for paraphrasing.
>>>
>>> Love & Liberty,
>>> ((( starchild )))
>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>> (415) 625-FREE
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 10, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Joshua Katz wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160911/06f33721/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list