[Lnc-business] EC meeting tonight, Thursday, Sept 21, 9:30pm Eastern regarding Husted Amicus Brief
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Fri Sep 22 17:42:19 EDT 2017
That was my feeling when I attended the last EC. Really bummed I couldn't
go to this one.
-Caryn Ann
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:02 PM Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Good point, Ken. Any approach that has only a 2% response rate also seems
> inherently dubious, because in order to reach that 2% it is effectively
> wasting the time of the 98%, which is arguably an unacceptably high ratio.
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
> ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
> RealReform at earthlink.net
> (415) 625-FREE
> @StarchildSF
>
>
> On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Ken Moellman wrote:
>
> All -
>
> As one who, in addition to Mr Redpath, is very interested in ballot
> access, and as someone who has studied a number of the
> pertinent metrics/conditions in the purging of the voter rolls being
> challenged in this lawsuit, I just want to note that unsolicited mail has a
> notoriously bad response rate. 2% is considered "good". LPO and LPKY
> have recent experiences regarding unsolicited mail action rates being a
> (not worth the cost) 0.2%. So using unsolicited mail as any sort of
> measurement is faulty. Using with "Address correction service" could be a
> partial metric, but simply failing to respond to an unsolicited piece of
> mail should not be a checkpoint for getting purged.
>
> ken
> ---
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LPKY State Party Treasurer
> LNC Alternate Representative - Region 3
>
>
> On 2017-09-22 04:25, Starchild wrote:
>
>
> 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 <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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170922/1ff150e2/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list