[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 23:23:06 EDT 2017
How about approving a statement of Party purpose that contradicts our
Bylaws?!?
There is a Constitution Party. We aren't it. Our members signed on to
give voice to and implement the Statement of Principles.
This is not a minor detail.
-Caryn Ann
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:28 PM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a8e4b394/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list