[Lnc-business] Proposed amicus brief: Husted v. APRI

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Starchild, I agree largely with your sentiments.  However, I also see
making the state have to fight and justify their every move is a good
motivation.  I wouldn't call it revenge.  But I would call it belligerent
disruption.  And that is how things change.

-Caryn Ann

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> Dan,
>
> Thanks for writing and sharing your concerns. While I agree there isn't a
> clear (philosophical) libertarian angle in this case, I tend to think that
> giving the authorities more tools and discretion in when to purge voters
> from the rolls *increases*, rather than decreases, the likelihood of
> fraud.
>
> I can give a personal example from a few years ago when I was volunteering
> as a vote counting observer during a runoff election in San Francisco
> which, although I don't know that it was a deliberate attempt at fraud,
> certainly raised questions in my mind about the integrity of the
> process. My goal as an observer consisted largely of trying to ensure that
> votes for him via provisional ballot were properly counted when possible
> and not improperly disqualified on technicalities, and while observing I
> noticed a case in which one of his voters, upon finding that his name
> missing from the rolls at his polling place, had apparently asked for a
> provisional ballot and voted. Upon consulting the registered voter data, an
> Elections Department staffer found that the individual had been purged from
> the rolls after not voting in the past three elections and a postcard
> mailed to him being returned undelivered.
>
> It seemed clear that one of two things had occurred: Either the voter was
> legitimately attempting to vote after several cycles of not voting for
> whatever reason – perhaps he had been on an extended vacation, or in jail,
> or there was simply a postal error, etc., or someone else was attempting to
> fraudulently vote in his name. It seemed to me that in either case the
> matter called for further investigation, but that in the meantime, the vote
> should be accepted (innocent until proven guilty). However the staffer
> processing the votes was planning to simply discard the ballot! When I
> brought the matter to the attention of a supervisor, I was told that this
> was the standard and proper procedure. There would not be any investigation
> or even any notification of the voter! I found this quite disturbing and
> along with other things I observed, it deepened my doubts about the
> integrity of the process. In hindsight I wondered whether staff really were
> following proper procedure, and probably should have tried to make more of
> an issue of it, but being there by myself at the time it didn't feel like
> there was much I could do.
>
> The main danger of electoral fraud, it seems to me, is not random people
> casting illegitimate votes on a scatter-shot basis, but malfeasance on the
> part of insiders with access to the vote-counting process. As Josef Stalin
> infamously observed, who votes matters very little, but who counts the
> votes matters a great deal. I'm therefore inclined to feel that as a
> practical if not an ideological libertarian matter, it is in the
> Libertarian Party's interest to oppose anything that gives those counting
> the votes more opportunity to disqualify some of those votes.
>
> I do agree that revenge against the bad actor(s) in the Ohio Secretary of
> State's Office would not, in itself, be a good reason to get involved.
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
>                                     ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                          RealReform at earthlink.net
>                                  (415) 625-FREE
>                                    @StarchildSF
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Daniel Wiener wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Regaring Nick's email below, is this really an issue that the LP should
> involve itself in, much less support impediments to cleaning up the voter
> rolls?  Nick's description of the case as "challenging Ohio's practice of
> purging voters from the rolls when they don't vote in two successive
> election cycles" is very incomplete, according to the legal briefs he links
> to.  The process ALSO requires that notices be mailed out to voters at
> their last known voting addresses, and only allows voters to be purged if
> BOTH criteria are met (i.e., lack of voting and failure to respond to
> confirmation notices).
>
> The legal dispute appears to turn on whether the failure to vote in recent
> elections can trigger the confirmation notices, or whether confirmation
> notices must first be sent out and then be supported by past failures to
> vote.  While that may be an interesting controversy based on conflicting
> interpretations of several federal laws, it hardly seems like any kind of
> fundamental Libertarian issue.  I personally don't see why it should matter
> which comes first, as long as both criteria must still be met.
>
> From a practical standpoint, the Libertarian Party should generally favor
> an honest and well-run system for registering voters and holding
> elections.  We should generally be in favor of processes which minimize the
> potential for voter fraud, in that such fraud (besides the ethical
> considerations) is likely to favor the major political parties at our
> expense (i.e., the big parties are much more likely to commit voter fraud
> than the LP is).  Purging registration rolls of people who are dead or have
> moved away or are otherwise ineligible to vote is one important factor in
> closing off the avenues to such fraud.
>
> Emotionally, we'd like to take on the Ohio Secretary of State because of
> the way they've screwed us in the past.  But the desire for revenge may not
> be a good enough reason to join an amicus brief in this particular case.
>
> Dan Wiener
>
>
> Nicholas Sarwark chair at lp.org
>> Wed Aug 2 11:42:55 CDT 2017
>>
>
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>
>
>> The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Husted v. APRI,
>> challenging Ohio's practice of purging voters from the rolls when they
>> don't vote in two successive election cycles, allegedly in violation
>> of HAVA, the Help America Vote Act.  Background on the case can be
>> found at: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/husted-v-
>> philip-randolph-institute/
>>
>
>
>> We have an opportunity to be an amicus in support of not purging
>> voters from the rolls, noting especially that it has a negative effect
>> on political parties that may have been prevented from fielding
>> candidates for an election cycle or two.
>>
>
>
>> Our financial obligation would be limited to printing costs or less,
>> as we've already lined up an attorney willing to draft the brief
>> without cost to the LNC.
>>
>
>
>> I intend to ask the Executive Committee to approve joining as an
>> amicus in this case, but wanted to answer any questions any LNC
>> members have about the case first.  Mr. Hall is also on the list and
>> may be able to answer questions that I cannot.
>>
>
>
>> Yours truly,
>> Nick
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170803/c23795c6/attachment-0002.html>