[Lnc-business] Husted v. APRI: Amicus Brief Final Draft
Oliver Hall
oliverbhall at gmail.com
Thu Sep 28 12:48:40 EDT 2017
I would like to provide further information in response tothe comments
about this brief and the process of filing it.
I received the draft brief some weeks after we expected to receive it
from the law firm. That is the primary reason this process was rushed. I
also contributed to the rush because,when I received the draft brief, I
didn't realize how close the filing deadline was, and therefore it satin
my inboxfor a day before I sent it to the Chair. At that point the brief
was due the next day, and so the Chair called a meeting of the executive
committee for that evening.
I had previously informed the executive committee that it would have the
opportunity to review a draft brief, provide comments, and vote to
approve or reject it. That was our expectation, which I clearly
communicated tothe law firm. I don't believe the fact that this happened
in a rushed fashion is any reflection on the executive committee or its
procedures. It was my responsibility.That is why I wrote in my original
email that it should not have happened, and thatI will make sure it
doesn't in the future.
To that end, when the LNC next works with an outside law firm on a
project like this, I will establish firm deadlines by which draft
materials must be submittedfor reviewand approval. If those deadlines
aren't met, I will advise the Chair, so that a decision can be made
whether to proceedunder the circumstances, or not.
In this case, my priority was to review the draft brief that was
submitted and advise whether it made sound legal argumentsand
wasconsistent with Libertarian Party principles. In my view, it did and
it was. I think the draft brief was also improved significantly by the
executive committee members' comments. I also thought thatthe brief
presented arare opportunity for the LNC to make an original argument
that advances libertarian principles in a case that the Supreme Court is
considering on the merits. That is why, despite the shortness of time, I
thought it was worth presenting for the executive committee's review.
I hope that helps clarify this matter and I look forward to improving
the process next time.
Thank you,
Oliver B. Hall
Special Counsel
Libertarian National Committee
617-953-0161
On 9/27/2017 5:18 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> I agree with Erin - and there was no reason that the non-decision
> makers on the LNC should not have at least seen it. Particularly -
> hello - a paralegal (myself). A lot people just don't read legal
> documents easily - the language, the format etc. I do. I didn't
> read this ten times and notice this. I noticed it in the first ten
> seconds. We have an APRC so that people are looking out for
> contradictions to the Bylaws and Platform or public image of the
> Party. I think factual statements about the Party should have that
> same review or there should be something - even if it is on this list
> - that can be referred to in the future that says "oops."
>
> That is pretty much all I am asking- an acknowledgement that this was
> incorrect. It may not be serious to some. And I get it. That's why
> there are multiple people on this committee with different focuses. I
> think it is no secret that accurate representation of our ideology and
> principles is mine.
>
> Is this a big deal? In isolation know. Very few people will ever
> read this. However, the history buff in me says "don't be so sure."
> I'm reading things today and making observations and reconstructing
> facts from things that the authors thought might not be read again.
> And I make those observations without judgment of whether I "like"
> what they say or mean or not. e The "me" of the future most certainly
> could read this and boom, an error just crept into our history. And
> it touches upon the Dallas Accord - at the heart of it actually - and
> this should not be taken lightly. Yes i know it can be lawyered up
> and explained away. We shouldn't have to do that.
>
> So a lot of my digital scribbling here is "for the record" to show
> that this was not some shift or new understanding but a rushed
> decision that made a mistake for which a complaint was promptly
> raised. So that the future "me" trying to find a factual recounting
> of our history knows the facts. History is what we leave behind. I
> do not want to leave this behind unchallenged.
>
> I am not looking for a pound of flesh for a mistake. I am looking for
> an acknowledgment that this was missed and in the future we will try
> not to do. We are human. We have a lot to do in a volunteer position
> with other lives. More mistakes will happen. Acknowledge and move on.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Erin Adams
> <erinadams at thefeldmanfoundation.org
> <mailto:erinadams at thefeldmanfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> 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 <tel:%28405%29%20780-2791>
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <carynannharlos at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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-mary-ruwart-us-constitution-day-resolution-2011/>
>
> https://www.lp.org/blogs-staff-constitution-day-links/
> <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 <tel:%28202%29%20333-0008>,wes.benedict at lp.org <mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org>
> facebook.com/libertarians <http://facebook.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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 Committee
>> 617-953-0161 <tel:%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-loseit” rule whereby a
>> registered voter is deemed “inactive,”commencing
>> a process that can result in thevoter being
>> purged from the voter rolls, because he orshe did
>> not vote during a single election
>> cycle—alsoraises serious constitutional concerns."
>>
>> * Inthe 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 thesentence accurate, even thoughit
>> still contains the "single election cycle"
>> language
>>
>> Page 3, last paragraph: reference to "a
>> particular election cycle" waschanged to plural,
>> "particular election cycles"
>>
>> Page 3, last full sentence: "Commencing a process
>> to remove voters from the rollsbecause they did
>> not vote in a single election cycle
>> underminesvoters’ 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 acomplete 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
>> <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>> <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
> <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_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 <mailto: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/20170928/644b7fa9/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list