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

Alicia Mattson agmattson at gmail.com
Thu Sep 21 22:56:38 EDT 2017


Okay, in my rush read, I saw "for OR more years", but it's just "four more
years", which is what I thought was the case.

-Alicia


On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> I read these case filings before, and haven't had time to do it all again,
> but I was under the impression that the four years of inactivity was AFTER
> the mailing.
>
> As I'm staring at the language I quoted from the petition for writ, it
> says "fail to engage in voter activity for four more years".  It is not
> clear if that four years is after the mailing, or if it includes the
> non-voting time prior to the mailing, though I thought from my prior reads
> that it was post-mailing.
>
> Even if it is the more restrictive option, still in Mr. Redpath's example,
> because the person voted in the prior presidential election, it wouldn't be
> until after the next presidential election that he could be purged, right?
>
> I just have to object to the way this decision was made, with us being
> pushed at the last minute and making a decision when we can't even
> establish the facts, and the oddity of still gathering information during
> the vote with no opportunity to challenge those new details being asserted.
>
> It's not like we are going to call another EC meeting even tonight to sort
> this out before 9 a.m. tomorrow, and by now Dr. Lark is likely on a plane
> and unable to chime in at all.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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/20170921/7daa57e5/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list