[Lnc-business] EC meeting tonight, Thursday, Sept 21, 9:30pm Eastern regarding Husted Amicus Brief

[Alicia Mattson]

I must take issue with what just happened at the end of the EC call.  The
vote was tied 2-2 with Mr. Redpath abstaining.  After giving him time to
ponder, he still wanted to abstain.  Then we gave great allowance for him
to drop off the call, phone Richard Winger to ask about a particular fact
pattern, and then he called back in - before we called the vote closed.

When he called back in, he indicated that his understanding was that if a
person:
1)  votes in the Presidential election in Ohio, and
2)  does not vote in the odd-numbered year, and
3)  does not vote in the mid-term, and
4)  is sent the mailing, but does not respond, and
5)  goes back to the polls in the following Presidential election,
THEN, he will not be able to vote in the Presidential election in item 5).

On the basis of that understanding, he changed his vote to yes, making the
motion pass rather than fail.

I expressed that I did not think that fact pattern was correct, but we were
in the middle of a vote when we're not supposed to be debating, and nobody
on the call could say for sure whether it was correct, and I can't really
go research past case filings while I play Secretary.

As soon as I got off the phone, I went back to the links previously
provided to us.

In the petition for writ of certiorari, which can be found here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/16-980-Cert-Reply.pdf

the first page of text explains the process as follows:

"This process sends confirmation notices to voters who lack voter activity
over two years, and removes individuals from the rolls if they both fail to
respond to the notice and fail to engage in voter activity for four more
years."

In the situation Mr. Redpath presented above, even after failing to respond
to the mailing, the person would not be removed from the rolls before the
next election cycle.  They would be removed only after failing to vote in
TWO election cycles following the mailing, but if they showed up to vote in
the first Presidential election following the mailing, he would be able to
vote.

So what just happened seems to be that during the vote, the person who held
the deciding vote was given time to gather facts, the facts he got seem to
me to be incorrect, and there was no opportunity for us during debate to
really disavow him of that stated understanding in the middle of the vote.

Then the vote was closed, and this amicus has to be filed by noon Eastern
tomorrow, when there is no more chance for us to examine the "facts" that
determined the outcome.

-Alicia









On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> wrote:

> The Secretary may send another more formal notice later, but the chair
> asked me to rush this out since notice is short.
>
> BEFORE CALLING IN, CHECK EMAIL IN CASE SOME DETAIL CHANGES.
>
> Date:  Thursday, September 21, 2017
> Time:  9:30 p.m. Eastern / 6:30 p.m. Pacific
>
> Dial-in: 712-770-8044
>
> Guest Pin Code: 396415
>
> The meeting is being called to discuss whether to sign on as an amicus in
> Husted v. APRI.
>
> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
> (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.org
> facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170921/c638e73a/attachment-0002.html>