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

Wed Sep 27 14:39:59 EDT 2017

I was on that call. The entire call felt rushed and uncomfortable. I found
it hard to follow/ask questions tho I did ask some, without the brief in
front of me. I feel that had it been better "organized" I.E. the brief had
been attached to the email announcing the call, had that email gone out
even an hour earlier, more people might have been able to not only attend
but also be better prepared to discuss the issue/s at hand.

I understand that the matter was time sensitive, I do. I do not think that
removes any level of responsibility that the EC had to be diligent in its
actions. This was handled in a way that I think we should look closely at.
This is not something that proceduraly should ever be repeated again.

We fell short. Owning that allows for that to be avoided moving forward. We
owe the body much more diligent behavior.

In Liberty,
Erin Adams
Director of Fundraising and Events
The Feldman Foundation
(405) 780-2791

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I appreciate what you have to say Wes and the issue isn't giving great
> respect or focus on those documents and I understand the extreme relevance
> of citing them in a case about Constitutional law but it creates a
> misleading (wrong) impression about what holds primacy of place.  Slightly
> different emphasis could still have granted respect to the libertarian
> portions (which most certainly there are) but not make it the reason we
> were founded (the DoI) can more arguably be a more direct parallel.
>
> I pass out copies of both documents.
>
> I think our world would be of magnitude better if we strictly kept to the
> Constiution. But that is not why we were formed.  We love it where it
> supports individualism and individual liberty - I view it the same way Nick
> does state's rights.  I'm for them when liberty is increased / focus is
> actual libertarian liberty.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:28 AM Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> The Libertarian Party including its candidates for President have a long
>> history of embracing the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
>>
>> Go to LP.org and search for either term. Here are a few examples:
>>
>> https://www.lp.org/blogs-mary-ruwart-us-constitution-day-resolution-2011/
>>
>> https://www.lp.org/blogs-staff-constitution-day-links/
>>
>> Libertarian Candidates, and other organizations like the libertarian Cato
>> Institute are known for their activism handing out pocket copies of the
>> Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
>>
>> I have plenty of disagreements with the Constitution and Declaration of
>> Independence.
>>
>> While what Caryn Ann has written below about the bylaws is correct, I
>> don't think it's a big surprise or a huge mistake that someone would
>> describe the Libertarian Party in the terms used in this brief.
>>
>> I would not have described the party the way it was described in that
>> brief, but I think it's probably okay the way it is for this particular
>> instance.
>>
>> There's hardly any brochure, press release, platform plank, bylaw, or
>> legal contract, where we all agree on the acceptable wording.
>>
>> If we spend too much time perfecting wording in certain areas, or holding
>> meetings to get consensus on what still will probably be less than perfect
>> wording, that could cause us to get a smaller amount of overall work done.
>>
>> I realize there's a balance between getting things right, and getting
>> more done. We don't want a lot of sloppy work getting produced by the
>> party. But, we also want to coordinate with others where we can and do it
>> efficiently. This brief is an example of where we have an opportunity to
>> make a small difference and it's worth a small effort, but probably not
>> worth laboring over too much.
>>
>> The more time our Counsel and Chair spend wordsmithing something like
>> this, and having multiple meetings about it, the less time they have to
>> work on the next opportunity (or the long list of "to do's" that already
>> exists).
>>
>> I think we'll all pay more attention to the first paragraph of these
>> types of briefs in the future.
>>
>>
>> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314(202) 333-0008 ext. 232 <(202)%20333-0008>, wes.benedict at lp.orgfacebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>>
>> On 9/26/2017 5:46 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>
>> Oliver I see the language taking that middle ground and I think your
>> reasoning is correct.  Focusing on the more narrow in this particular
>> factual instance does not exclude the broader nor give any hint of
>> excluding the broader.  Sometimes focusing on the narrow does (for instance
>> people who are convinced that only income taxation is unjust force because
>> that is what we focus on in our Platform though since day one we have put
>> out material against all taxation), in  this particular situation, I don't
>> think it has that unfortunate result.
>>
>> However, there is a blatant incorrect fact in the opening paragraphs.
>> The Libertarian Party was not founded to promote the principles of liberty
>> set forth in the Declaration of Independence and United States
>> Constitution.  Our bylaws address this specifically that we exist to
>> promote the principles in our Statement of Principles which mentions
>> neither document.  Yes there is a lot of overlap, particularly with the
>> Declaration of Independence, but there is disjunction- particularly in some
>> views of the Constitution.  I would say that representing us in that manner
>> violates what our bylaws say about our purpose to wit:
>>
>> ==ARTICLE 2: PURPOSES
>>
>> The Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles
>> embodied in the Statement of Principles by: functioning as a libertarian
>> political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or
>> movements; moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a
>> political party that elects Libertarians to public office; chartering
>> affiliate parties throughout the United States and promoting their growth
>> and activities; nominating candidates for President and Vice-President of
>> the United States, and supporting Party and affiliate party candidates for
>> political office; and, entering into public information activities.==
>>
>>
>> And
>>
>> ==ARTICLE 3: STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES AND PLATFORM
>>
>>    1.
>>
>>    The Statement of Principles affirms that philosophy upon which the
>>    Libertarian Party is founded, by which it shall be sustained, and through
>>    which liberty shall prevail. ==
>>
>> I *object strenuously *that characterization.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:32 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 <%28617%29%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*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *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 listLnc-business at hq.lp.orghttp://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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170927/9269bdf9/attachment-0002.html>