[Lnc-business] EC meeting tonight, Thursday, Sept 21, 9:30pm Eastern regarding Husted Amicus Brief

[Joshua Katz]

The bylaws also give the LNC the power to freely delegate its authority.
That would include the power to delegate exclusive power to another body on
a particular topic.  While I have some doubts, it seems likely that 2.04.2
does so regarding the power to initiate and join lawsuits, as well as to
submit amicus briefs.  I don't think we should, but it seems likely we did.

Joshua A. Katz


On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
wrote:

> 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 <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*
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a844a599/attachment-0002.html>