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

[Tim Hagan]

I checked with the LP of Ohio's Political Director on this lawsuit. Purging voter rolls decreases their petition signature validity. People who believe they are registered may have been purged. She's pleased we may join. From my quick check, Ohio ballot access is based on a certain percentage of votes for Governor or President.

Tim Hagan

      From: Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
 To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org 
 Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:41 AM
 Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Proposed amicus brief: Husted v. APRI
   
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
                         RealR eform 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


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170808/da066af6/attachment-0002.html>