[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

Sat Oct 22 06:24:11 EDT 2016

I vote yes.

*I encourage anyone inclined to vote yes to do so* - if you change your
mind after hearing from Moore- you can change your vote. Yes David, that is
partially to you but also to members who have not yet voted.

As it stands right now, I support.  Being a Libertarian lawmaker should
mean something.  And there may be areas that we disagree but it doesn't
arise to censure.  One things people from alll points of view have agreed
on: it doesn't involve sweet heart deals to crony interests that is nothing
more than further robbing people to give to others.  It is coercion and a
massive initiation of force against property - and of course something that
is not proper role, if any, of government.

Party. Of. Principle.  That principle isn't just wearing a shiny L next to
your name rather than an R or a D.  It is much, much more.  It isn't
welcome to the new boss;  Same as the old boss.

Libertarians do not say that massive government works that violate rights
is okay if 60% of the people want it.  We are sounding more and more like
the justifications of the aggressionist policies of business as usual.

I have some real issues with a couple of things said in Alicia's post that
I may address later but one requires a response now.  As for me, I
categorically DO NOT get "my friends" to email on issues.  I maintain a
regional mailing list take contain all comers - friendly to my positions or
not- and lay issues before them and encourage them to maintain contact.  I
maintain a website and several FB groups for the same purpose.  It
distresses me greatly that contact from members is often referred to in a
way that connotes lack of value.  It should not be that way in a voluntary
membership organization that values bottom up dynamics.  So I hope it is
settled - that at least for me - I categorically do not do that.  ALL
region 1 members and elsewhere are encouraged to write.  And we are then to
take what they say in mind and to them I always make clear - the party
principles - which our Bylaws dictate as our purpose - is the ultimate
guide.  If we wish to argue the value of member communications or if the
ones that write are because "friends" are asked- let's start a separate
discussion.

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> DD>> In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with
> the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a
> private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty
> and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across
> the nation that support the death penalty. <<DD
>
> Not to change the subject or start a debate on the death penalty...just
> addressing a factual detail that came up in the example situation.  At the
> national convention there was a counted vote on the adoption of our death
> penalty plank, and there were 364 in favor and 105 opposed.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:44 AM, David Demarest <
> dpdemarest at centurylink.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dpdemarest at centurylink.net');>> wrote:
>
>> I will delay my vote until we hear from John Moore. It may be that merely
>> offering the motion to censure will achieve our intended purpose to express
>> our outrage. In the meantime, however, we need to consider Ken’s salient
>> point about taking into account an elected official’s duty to represent the
>> views of his constituents and the articulate responses by Caryn and Alicia.
>>
>>
>>
>> I must say I am bothered by the reference to the 60% of constituents
>> favoring the position that Assemblyman Moore voted for as justification for
>> his misguided votes. As Caryn has correctly pointed out, we have a duty to
>> reflect the principles of our party. More importantly, we have a duty to
>> reflect our personal principles of conscience that hopefully are reasonably
>> consistent with our party’s principles. Even allowing for the fact that no
>> two Libertarians are going to agree on all details of all principles,
>> Assemblyman Moore’s votes go beyond the pale. Here is a recent example from
>> my personal experience on the cronyism evils of basing political positions
>> and votes on the consensus of constituents regardless of any considerations
>> of principles and morals.
>>
>>
>>
>> Last week I testified against the Nebraska referendum to reinstate the
>> death penalty at a legally mandated District 2 hearing. The Unicameral,
>> with the support of Libertarian Senator Laura Ebke, narrowly overrode
>> Governor Ricketts’ veto of the bill that repealed the death penalty.
>> Governor Ricketts then used a “substantial” contribution from his personal
>> fortune to sponsor the ballot referendum to reinstate the death penalty
>> that was the subject of the hearing. In the introduction to my testimony, I
>> mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I
>> was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly
>> against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no
>> Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death
>> penalty.
>>
>>
>>
>> Republican State Senator Merv Riepe, a Ralston High School classmate of
>> mine, testified that his opinion poll showed that his constituents favored
>> the reinstatement of the death penalty *three to one* with the clear
>> inference that he intended to reflect his constituents’ views [regardless
>> of any moral considerations]. I looked Senator Riepe squarely in the eye
>> and responded with the following passionate testimony:
>>
>>
>>
>> “… the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political
>> football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical questions.
>> To those who might be tempted to advocate the death penalty for political
>> purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience and your political,
>> personal and moral priorities.”
>>
>>
>>
>> The point is that reflecting the “consensus of the constituents” for
>> obvious reelection purposes is not an acceptable or moral justification for
>> Assemblyman Moore’s two egregious votes. Let’s see what Moore has to say
>> but keep in mind that our duty is not only to our party’s principles but
>> also to our personal principles.
>>
>>
>>
>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org');>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:19 AM
>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lnc-business at hq.lp.org');>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore
>>
>>
>>
>> I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in question, but
>> that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this motion.
>>
>> Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the power of the
>> deciding vote.  Had he voted no, it would have failed instead of passing.
>> We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world difference, and
>> it didn't happen.  Facepalm.
>>
>> IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his constituency in hopes
>> of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel about the votes in
>> hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected.  What's the point of
>> being there if you can't vote your conscience?  That's why on the LNC I
>> also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage
>> organized email campaigns from their friends.  Should we be offended at a
>> public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as
>> party officials?
>>
>>
>>
>> I have several issues with this motion.  I particularly appreciate Mr.
>> Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have had a
>> conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind.  I
>> don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his
>> position to us.  We should get it straight from him.
>>
>> I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution.  "...convey a
>> strong message to all and sundry..." ?  Who talks like that?  We're
>> discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely agree
>> with us?  With which of us?  Because we don't all agree, either.  I
>> probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote.
>> Etc.
>>
>> Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that same
>> group.  Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC.  Have we even confirmed that
>> he's a member of the national party?  As of the national convention in May,
>> our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership
>> certification.  We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that
>> doesn't make him a member of the national party.  We wouldn't censure
>> Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or
>> even the LP.
>>
>> The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured him, so what
>> does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on?  We can't make him return the
>> money.  Is it just to make ourselves feel better?  Is the LNC going to
>> become the purity police that monitors every local/state/federal elected
>> official and passes resolutions about them?  I am concerned about starting
>> such a trend.
>>
>> If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind that
>> decision.  That ship has sailed.  I wouldn't vote to donate to him again.
>> I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive.
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','agmattson at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>
>> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm
>> Pacific time.*
>> *Co-Sponsors:*  Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein,
>> Redpath
>>
>> *Motion:*
>>
>> Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January
>> 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past
>> month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes
>> on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which
>> the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully
>> opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a
>> billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent
>> persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and
>>
>> Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have
>> rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and
>>
>> Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while
>> we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who
>> decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do
>> not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue
>> voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;
>>
>> Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby
>> censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax
>> increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which
>> the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward
>> be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party
>> with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20161022/648aab90/attachment-0002.html>