[Lnc-business] EC meeting tonight, Thursday, Sept 21, 9:30pm Eastern regarding Husted Amicus Brief
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Tue Sep 26 21:53:09 EDT 2017
Let me take a read and consider it.
-Caryn Ann
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:50 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Sorry to be so late in responding on this matter, but I think it is still
> worthy of consideration, and have some points to raise.
>
> First, it isn't clear to me that the LNC can, in fact, fully delegate its
> authority in the manner of 2.04.2. That is to say, sure, we can write
> that, and it can work - but I do not think it precludes the LNC from acting
> in place of the EC in the final step. The EC is formed by the LNC, exists
> by virtue of motions adopted by the LNC, and is appointed by the LNC. It
> can be directed by the LNC except in matters where it is given exclusive
> authority. Is it given exclusive authority here? Maybe if this term is
> read in isolation, but the Policy Manual also says that the LNC "reserves
> its right to exercise its authority through electronic mail ballots." Now,
> it can be argued that 2.04.2 is the more specific provision, but I'm not
> sure it must be read that way.
>
> Consider: a standing rule is nothing more or less, in parliamentary
> procedure, than an original main motion which remains in effect. We (over
> my objection) regularly adopt a proviso on the budget that the EC must
> approve expenditures for ballot access. When I asked last year about the
> effect of this motion, I was assured that it did not prevent the LNC from
> encumbering funds on its own. If that is true, it isn't clear to me why
> this Policy Manual provision is any more powerful. Or, to put it another
> way, if we read the Policy Manual that way, then we should read the proviso
> that way.
>
> More generally, while I am comfortable with the EC having general
> authority, as it does under 1.01.3, I am extremely uncomfortable with the
> suggestion of exclusive authority.
>
> However, I think that this general authorization is quite sufficient to
> authorize the EC to join lawsuits, etc. As a result, I can either read
> 2.04.2 as being redundant, or as giving exclusive authority, so I suppose
> I'm stuck reading it as giving such authority. I don't like it, though.
> As a result, I would propose that 2.04.2 be struck, and seek cosponsors.
> If there is some reason to believe that, absent 2.04.2, the LNC would be
> unable to act, then I would instead propose amending it to make clear that
> the LNC may act on this matter as well.
>
> I do not think every such question needs to come to the LNC, particularly
> when it comes to amicus briefs, but I think to deny ourselves the option is
> wrong. As Starchild said, the arguments offered that support doing so
> actually support just making sure that the EC has the authority, but I
> haven't seen a good reason to make the authority exclusive.
>
> As a compromise, if for some reason it is felt that this power should be
> limited in this way, I would also consider a motion to strike out amicus
> briefs.
>
> Anyway, who would cosponsor any or all of the proposed motions?
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170927/e56811bd/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list