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

Fri Sep 22 03:09:01 EDT 2017

I suspect your guess is correct, but the provision pre-dates me, so I can't
say for sure whether that was the primary argument.

-Alicia

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> wrote:

> 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*
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170922/8be3f6eb/attachment-0002.html>