[Lnc-business] Husted v. APRI: Amicus Brief Final Draft

Tue Sep 26 17:46:13 EDT 2017

Oliver I see the language taking that middle ground and I think your
reasoning is correct.  Focusing on the more narrow in this particular
factual instance does not exclude the broader nor give any hint of
excluding the broader.  Sometimes focusing on the narrow does (for instance
people who are convinced that only income taxation is unjust force because
that is what we focus on in our Platform though since day one we have put
out material against all taxation), in  this particular situation, I don't
think it has that unfortunate result.

However, there is a blatant incorrect fact in the opening paragraphs.  The
Libertarian Party was not founded to promote the principles of liberty set
forth in the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution.
Our bylaws address this specifically that we exist to promote the
principles in our Statement of Principles which mentions neither document.
Yes there is a lot of overlap, particularly with the Declaration of
Independence, but there is disjunction- particularly in some views of the
Constitution.  I would say that representing us in that manner violates
what our bylaws say about our purpose to wit:

==ARTICLE 2: PURPOSES

The Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles
embodied in the Statement of Principles by: functioning as a libertarian
political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or
movements; moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a
political party that elects Libertarians to public office; chartering
affiliate parties throughout the United States and promoting their growth
and activities; nominating candidates for President and Vice-President of
the United States, and supporting Party and affiliate party candidates for
political office; and, entering into public information activities.==

And

==ARTICLE 3: STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES AND PLATFORM

   1.

   The Statement of Principles affirms that philosophy upon which the
   Libertarian Party is founded, by which it shall be sustained, and through
   which liberty shall prevail. ==

I *object strenuously *that characterization.

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I will read but am immediately alarmed by that distinction.  Many
> anarchists do consider themselves principled non-voters - yet highly
> political.  The immediate past Chair of the Libertarian
> Party of Colorado - Jay R North - is an example.  He is not alone.  I will
> read to see if it is accurate but let's not misrepresent a group that we
> are in a position to know about.  (I'm an anarchist - though I vote -
> myself so kinda know the community and the nuances - it's not a blanket
> thing)
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:18 PM Oliver Hall <oliverbhall at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Please find attached a PDF of the amicus brief as filed on behalf of the
>> Libertarian National Committee in *Husted v. A. Philip Randolph
>> Institute*, No. 16-980.
>>
>> After the executive committee meeting addressing this matter, I reviewed
>> the draft brief and sent a lengthy list of comments and corrections,
>> including those I received from committee members, to our counsel from
>> Wilmer Hale. I also discussed these concerns with counsel by telephone. I
>> believe the changes the firm made to address committee members' concerns
>> are acceptable, although in some cases I would have preferred different
>> wording. I have included detailed notes on several of those changes below,
>> to provide a sense of how the concerns raised were addressed in the final
>> draft.
>>
>> I wanted to address one point in particular: the Wilmer team thought it
>> important to indicate that principled non-voting is not the same as an
>> anarchist's complete abstention from the process. Therefore, although I had
>> suggested replacing any mention of not voting in "a single election cycle"
>> with more general language referencing "abstaining from the electoral
>> process," the Wilmer team tried to chart a middle path between those two
>> options. I agreed that was an appropriate strategy, since we are only
>> arguing for a constitutional right not to vote based upon the choices, or
>> lack thereof, in particular election cycles, and not necessarily the
>> constitutional right not to vote under any and all circumstances.
>>
>> I know that committee members were not pleased with how little time the
>> committee had to review and approve this brief. That is understandable. It
>> should not have happened. In the future, I will make sure it doesn't.
>>
>> Thank you and I hope this final draft meets your approval.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> --
>> Oliver B. Hall
>> Special Counsel
>> Libertarian National Committee617-953-0161 <(617)%20953-0161>
>>
>>
>> *Comments on Changes to Final Draft of Amicus Brief*
>>
>> Page 3, second sentence: "But the Ohio policy at issue—a “use-it-or-lose it”
>> rule whereby a registered voter is deemed “inactive,” commencing a
>> process that can result in the voter being purged from the voter rolls,
>> because he or she did not vote during a single election cycle—also raises
>> serious constitutional concerns."
>>
>>    - In the draft form, this sentence stated that a voter could be purged
>>    "merely for not voting in a single election cycle"; the addition of
>>    "commencing a process that can result..." makes the sentence
>>    accurate, even though it still contains the "single election cycle"
>>    language
>>
>> Page 3, last paragraph: reference to "a particular election cycle" was
>> changed to plural, "particular election cycles"
>>
>> Page 3, last full sentence: "Commencing a process to remove voters from
>> the rolls because they did not vote in a single election cycle undermines voters’
>> ability to take this type of political action, penalizes them for their
>> acts of political expression, and is akin to forced political activity."
>>
>>    - In the draft form, this sentence simply began, "Removing voters
>>    from the rolls because..."; again, as revised, this sentence is accurate,
>>    despite containing the "single election cycle" language
>>
>> Page 4, first paragraph: the reference to "particular election cycle"
>> has been changed to the plural, "particular election cycles"
>>
>> Page 4, first paragraph: contains a complete and accurate statement of how
>> the statutory scheme works as applied, including the steps of mailing a
>> notice, and then failing to vote in two subsequent election cycles
>>
>> Page 13, first full paragraph: the sentence beginning, "Coercing them to
>> vote," now includes the language "if they choose to abstain from the
>> electoral process"
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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*
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
*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/20170926/08470e1e/attachment-0002.html>