[Lnc-business] EC meeting tonight, Thursday, Sept 21, 9:30pm Eastern regarding Husted Amicus Brief
Daniel Hayes
danielehayes at icloud.com
Tue Sep 26 22:23:38 EDT 2017
The LNC has plenary control of Party affairs according the bylaws, does it not?
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 26, 2017, at 8:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>
> --
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170926/763b813e/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list