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

Fri Sep 22 02:45:33 EDT 2017

Yes Alicia I am aware of that policy. Do you happen to know the rationale?
I am just curious, particularly in light of the proposal to substantially
re-work the LNC due to my expressed concern that this would just create
more decisions that would be decided by a smaller executive committee.
With the 17 or so which is manageable, I am curious as to the rationale to
keep it to the EC?  I am guessing because things often have to be done
quickly and it is easier to get an e-meeting done and it has less notice
requirements.

-Caryn Ann

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Starchild,
>
> As was pointed out not that long ago on this list, Policy Manual Section
> 2.04.2 requires that the Executive Committee be the body to approve joining
> lawsuits.  That would still have been the policy even if we had received
> the draft brief earlier.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree with Alicia about this taking place at the last minute. The issue
>> was first raised more than 10 days ago, meaning there would have been time
>> for the full LNC to vote prior to the deadline tomorrow. I see no
>> legitimate reason for most of the committee to be disenfranchised in this
>> manner.
>>
>> Love & Liberty,
>>
>>                                  ((( starchild )))
>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>                       RealReform at earthlink.net
>>                                (415) 625-FREE
>>                                  @StarchildSF
>>
>>
>> On Sep 21, 2017, at 6:54 PM, Alicia Mattson 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
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/20170922/59001a14/attachment-0002.html>