[Lnc-business] Two Requests for LNC Legal Action
Whitney Bilyeu
whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
Tue Mar 13 12:43:41 EDT 2018
With regard to the amicus brief with LPCO...Oliver, is your reluctance in
this case based solely on the cost to the Party itself? You stated that it
has merit. So, I would like to know if there is any potential benefit to
the LP, even if our side loses and we suffer the expense.
Thanks for providing the information!
Whitney Bilyeu
Region 7 Representative
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Justin O'Donnell <justin.odonnell at lp.org>
wrote:
> 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
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
With regard to the amicus brief with LPCO...Oliver, is your reluctance
in this case based solely on the cost to the Party itself? You stated
that it has merit. So, I would like to know if there is any potential
benefit to the LP, even if our side loses and we suffer the expense.
Thanks for providing the information!
Whitney Bilyeu
Region 7 Representative
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Justin O'Donnell
<[1]justin.odonnell at lp.org> wrote:
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
[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
[3]617-953-0161
References
1. mailto:justin.odonnell at lp.org
2. http://www.odonnell2018.org/
3. tel:617-953-0161
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list