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

Fri Aug 4 06:40:50 EDT 2017

That is an excellent example of an unintended consequence Alicia.

-Caryn Ann

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:41 AM Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree that there is no clear libertarian philosophical issue here.
> There may be times that a voter purge makes things harder for us, but there
> are times it cuts the other way as well.
>
> Without periodic purges of people who have disappeared, when the number of
> petition signatures we have to collect is based on a certain percentage of
> the registered voters in a district, the purges keep the total
> registrations from perpetually growing to numbers which make our petition
> goals essentially unattainable.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:56 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170804/a4161000/attachment-0002.html>