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

Tue Sep 26 21:33:19 EDT 2017

Before I think about this question, can I ask - is there a point?  As in,
is this a done deal, already submitted, etc., or is there an opportunity to
address any issues?  For the latter, I just mean, for now, in "reality,"
not considering parliamentary possibility, desirability, etc.

Joshua A. Katz

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:31 PM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I am comfortable with the reworded portions of the brief shown in Mr.
> Hall's email. However, I would be interested to see if the descriptions of
> the LP have been cleaned up a bit.
>
> I would guess that most Anarchists and Voluntaryists do vote albiet with
> the recognition that the bottom-up collaborative leadership by example is
> at least as effective as the top-down electoral process in achieving
> freedom despite the top-down regulatory relief benefit.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> On Sep 26, 2017 4:33 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*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170926/946ddd07/attachment-0002.html>