[Lnc-business] Two Requests for LNC Legal Action

[Oliver Hall]

Dear LNC Members,

I have received two requests for the LNC to participate in two different 
legal matters. I think there are reasons why it will be difficult or 
unwise for the LNC to participate in either one, but I am forwarding 
these requests so that the LNC can make that determination.

The first request is for the LNC to file an amicus brief in support of a 
petition forcertiorari filed by the Libertarian Party of Colorado and a 
candidate, Ryan Frazier, in /Frazier v. Williams/.

The cert petition arises from ballot access litigation that wasfiled in 
Colorado state court, asserting claims under both state law and the 
federal Constitution. The plaintiffs prevailed, and the candidate was 
placed on the ballot. But while theplaintiffs won on the merits, the 
state courts declined to award them attorney's fees pursuant to 42 
U.S.C. Sec. 1988, the federal statute authorizingsuch fees, because the 
cases were decided on state law grounds, and the courts didn't reach the 
federal claims. The plaintiffs argue that they were entitled to an award 
of attorney's fees, even thoughthe case was decided on state law 
grounds. Their cert petition urges the Supreme Court to accept the case 
because otherwise, it provides states with a template for denying 
prevailing plaintiffs attorney's fees in these types of cases, by ruling 
on state law grounds and "mooting" the federal claims. That would 
dissuade attorneys from bringing such cases in the future.

I have reviewed the cert petition (attached) and I think this case has 
merit. However, the LNC would need to find an attorney to author the 
amicus brief, and the filing deadlineis March 28. The LNC would also 
need to pay printing costs of approximately $1,000.

The second case is /Lavergne v. U.S. House/(complaint attached). In that 
case, the plaintiffs assert that the Billof Rights originally included 
an additional two amendments, and that the original first amendment, or 
"Article the First", required that U.S. House members represent no more 
than 45,000 people. The plaintiffs contend that Article the First was 
ratified by the states and that it should have been made part of the 
Constitution. If that were the case, the U.S. House would greatly 
increase in size. For example, California would be entitled to 747 
members, andFlorida would have 379 members. Based on this theory, the 
plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that Article the First is in fact 
part of the Constitution, and that the current Congressis void, for 
failure to reach a quorum.

The plaintiffs may be right about the history behind their complaint. 
Assuming they are, however, I think this lawsuit has little chance of 
success. The plaintiffs likely have serious standing problems, as well 
as other justiciability problems, such as the political question 
doctrine. Notably, their claims do not focus on any alleged violations 
of their constitutional rights, but rather on violations of the 
"Federalism structure" and "Separation of Powers structure" of the 
Constitution. For those reasons, not to mention the near certainty that 
a Court will decline to hold that there is a new First Amendment to the 
Constitution, and that the current Congress is invalid and all its acts 
a nullity (a holding that presumably would apply to each previous 
Congress that lacked a quorum under Article the First), I don't think 
the LNC should get involved.

I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you,

-- 
Oliver B. Hall
Special Counsel
Libertarian National Committee
617-953-0161

-------------- next part --------------
   Dear LNC Members,

   I have received two requests for the LNC to participate in two
   different legal matters. I think there are reasons why it will be
   difficult or unwise for the LNC to participate in either one, but I am
   forwarding these requests so that the LNC can make that determination.

   The first request is for the LNC to file an amicus brief in support of
   a petition for certiorari filed by the Libertarian Party of Colorado
   and a candidate, Ryan Frazier, in Frazier v. Williams.

   The cert petition arises from ballot access litigation that was filed
   in Colorado state court, asserting claims under both state law and the
   federal Constitution. The plaintiffs prevailed, and the candidate was
   placed on the ballot. But while the plaintiffs won on the merits, the
   state courts declined to award them attorney's fees pursuant to 42
   U.S.C. Sec. 1988, the federal statute authorizing such fees, because
   the cases were decided on state law grounds, and the courts didn't
   reach the federal claims. The plaintiffs argue that they were entitled
   to an award of attorney's fees, even though the case was decided on
   state law grounds. Their cert petition urges the Supreme Court to
   accept the case because otherwise, it provides states with a template
   for denying prevailing plaintiffs attorney's fees in these types of
   cases, by ruling on state law grounds and "mooting" the federal claims.
   That would dissuade attorneys from bringing such cases in the future.

   I have reviewed the cert petition (attached) and I think this case has
   merit. However, the LNC would need to find an attorney to author the
   amicus brief, and the filing deadline is March 28. The LNC would also
   need to pay printing costs of approximately $1,000.

   The second case is Lavergne v. U.S. House (complaint attached). In that
   case, the plaintiffs assert that the Bill of Rights originally included
   an additional two amendments, and that the original first amendment, or
   "Article the First", required that U.S. House members represent no more
   than 45,000 people. The plaintiffs contend that Article the First was
   ratified by the states and that it should have been made part of the
   Constitution. If that were the case, the U.S. House would greatly
   increase in size. For example, California would be entitled to 747
   members, and Florida would have 379 members. Based on this theory, the
   plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that Article the First is in fact
   part of the Constitution, and that the current Congress is void, for
   failure to reach a quorum.

   The plaintiffs may be right about the history behind their complaint.
   Assuming they are, however, I think this lawsuit has little chance of
   success. The plaintiffs likely have serious standing problems, as well
   as other justiciability problems, such as the political question
   doctrine. Notably, their claims do not focus on any alleged violations
   of their constitutional rights, but rather on violations of the
   "Federalism structure" and "Separation of Powers structure" of the
   Constitution. For those reasons, not to mention the near certainty that
   a Court will decline to hold that there is a new First Amendment to the
   Constitution, and that the current Congress is invalid and all its acts
   a nullity (a holding that presumably would apply to each previous
   Congress that lacked a quorum under Article the First), I don't think
   the LNC should get involved.

   I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

   Thank you,
--
Oliver B. Hall
Special Counsel
Libertarian National Committee
617-953-0161
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 180203 for printing.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 425766 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180313/5eafce26/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: LaVergne Intervenor Complaint.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1241282 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180313/5eafce26/attachment-0003.pdf>