[Lnc-business] Two Requests for LNC Legal Action

[Justin O'Donnell]

Mr Hall,

With Regards to the Lavergne v US House case, there have already been 
previous suits regarding Connecticut's ratification of the amendment if 
I recall correctly, but regardless, the issue is a widely misunderstood 
one regardless. The actual text of the article, if read, does not limit 
the size of the congressional districts and increase the size of the 
house. The unratified article sets 4 milestones for the growth of the 
house to schedule redistricting in line with a growing population to 
ensure the house would achieve at least 200 representative districts. 
However, the final clause of the Article states that once population had 
increased to the point of at least 200 Representatives representing 
Districts of at least 50,000 citizens each, then 50,000 would become the 
new MINIMUM of a district size, not it's maximum.

This argument has already been litigated extensively, and I would agree 
that it does not merit the cost or commitment for involvement from the 
LNC.

Justin O'Donnell
LNC Region 8 Representative

---
Yours in Liberty,

Justin O'Donnell
LNC Region 8 Representative
LPNH Alternate- LNC Platform Committee
Chair- LPNH Platform Committee
Candidate for US Congress, NH-2
www.odonnell2018.org

On 2018-03-13 10:45, Oliver Hall wrote:
> 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