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

Sat Oct 22 08:13:00 EDT 2016

Thank you Alicia. I agree that the death penalty deserves a separate email thread of its own. I also was not aware of the numbers on the death penalty plank vote. Nevertheless, I would consider 364 to 105 overwhelming but disappointingly not high enough considering the moral implications as spelled in the full text of my testimony as follows, which, by the way, turned out to be an extraordinary opportunity to publicize the LP in Nebraska:

“Mr. Secretary,

David Pratt Demarest, 10812 Park Meadow Plaza #133, Omaha, NE 68142

I am Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Nebraska and Regional Representative on the Libertarian National Committee.

I am here today as a private Nebraska citizen to support the retention of LB268 that repealed the Nebraska death penalty as confirmed by the override of the Governor’s veto. However, I can tell you that Libertarians overwhelmingly support the repeal of the death penalty not only for practical reasons but more importantly for moral reasons. I am personally aware of NO Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty.

Much evidence has been presented today demonstrates the indisputable failure of the death penalty as a deterrent compounded by the financial burden it imposes on taxpayers and the extended pain and suffering it visits on victims. To add insult to injury, victims lose twice and end up revisiting the pain, anguish and suffering with no closure because of the undue focus on deterrence, punishment and vengeance on the perpetrators instead of seeking restitution for the victims. The immoral use of the death penalty to obtain false confessions was dramatically illustrated by the infamous Nebraska Beatrice 6 case.

I am here, however, to speak to the overriding moral issue. In addition to the barbaric nature of state-sponsored killing, the risk of predictable executions of some innocents is beyond morally unacceptable, it is unconscionable! Further, 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.

To voters in the audience, I urge you vote your conscience, vote to “Retain” LB268 and vote to uphold the death penalty ban in Nebraska. It is not just practical. It is the only moral choice!

I have been selected for poll worker duty. I have to vote early and have already voted. I am proud to tell you that I voted to retain LB268 to ban the death penalty from Nebraska. I hope you will too!”

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Alicia Mattson
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 3:15 AM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

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> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161022/334ee9ac/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Untitled attachment 00617.txt
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161022/334ee9ac/attachment-0002.txt>