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

Starchild sfdreamer at earthlink.net
Fri Sep 22 04:25:50 EDT 2017 

	That is an argument which supports having EC authorization of approving lawsuits be an option. It is not an argument which supports it being a requirement.

	Who thinks it's fine for the LNC as a whole to be disenfranchised in this manner?

	Who agrees it's an unnecessary requirement that should be removed and would be willing to co-sponsor a motion to that effect?

	Who's just going to remain silent rather than risk any political capital or involvement in controversy by weighing in one way or the other?   :-)

Love & Liberty,

                                    ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                         RealReform at earthlink.net
                                  (415) 625-FREE
                                    @StarchildSF


On Sep 21, 2017, at 11:09 PM, Alicia Mattson wrote:

> 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
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ca1f4c68/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list