<p dir="ltr">I think maybe there should be a budget item for this fight, which can be used as appropriate through the year. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Joshua Katz </p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jul 30, 2014 4:13 PM, "Norm Olsen" <<a href="mailto:region1rep@donedad.com">region1rep@donedad.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
With regard to "Top Two":<br>
<br>
Oregon is not the only state where Top Two is a threat to existing ballot<br>
access for Libertarians.<br>
<br>
ARIZONA:<br>
The Republicans repealed their midnight "pseudo Top Two" legislation only to<br>
preserve their ability to introduce similar legislation in the future. If<br>
the recall of this bill by the general electorate had succeeded (as the<br>
polls showed it would), the legislature would be prohibited from ever again<br>
passing similar legislation in the future. Thus the "repeal" was not so<br>
much a gesture of futility, but more an act to keep their powder dry. It<br>
can be expected that similar legislation will be proposed in the future.<br>
<br>
MONTANA:<br>
The "Top Two" initiative in Montana was taken off the 2014 ballot only<br>
because the initiative title exceeded the constitutional limit of 100 words.<br>
The Republicans will likely try again and not make the same mistake twice.<br>
<br>
Top Two in both cases above is more like that which exists in WA and CA,<br>
which means that there would be an open primary and then a general election<br>
where only R's and D's would appear on the general election ballot.<br>
<br>
Top Two and "pseudo Top Two" is alive and well in many states. I call it<br>
ballot access in reverse. That is losing ballot access in states where it<br>
previous existed (to a reasonable degree anyway).<br>
<br>
I support (and would appreciate like minded members of this committee to<br>
identify themselves) making "confronting reverse ballot access" a core<br>
function of the LNC.<br>
<br>
Norm<br>
--<br>
Norman T Olsen<br>
Regional Representative, Region I<br>
Libertarian National Committee<br>
7931 S Broadway, PMB 102<br>
Littleton, Colorado 80122-2710<br>
<a href="tel:303-263-4995" value="+13032634995">303-263-4995</a><br>
<a href="mailto:Norman.Olsen@lp.org">Norman.Olsen@lp.org</a><br>
<br>
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then<br>
you win." -- Gandhi<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Lnc-business [mailto:<a href="mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org">lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org</a>] On Behalf Of<br>
Daniel Hayes<br>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 5:12 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org">lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Top Two<br>
<br>
Members,<br>
<br>
As to Top Two, Louisiana currently has a non partisan open blanket<br>
primary.or as we call it..a jungle primary. All affiliations run at the same<br>
time and if nobody gets over 50%, the top two go to a run off.<br>
We were the 4th fastest growing affiliate last year in states that have<br>
party recognition. Our Executive Director got nervous when a bill was<br>
proposed last year that would have moved Federal Elections to closed<br>
primaries. One of the sticking points for a lot of people to switch is<br>
because they are worried the Libertarian candidate will cause one of the big<br>
two to lose the race. What having a top two system allows us to do is<br>
overcome one of the biggest sticking points people have by saying.vote your<br>
conscience in the primary and then do what you feel you gotta do in the run<br>
off.<br>
<br>
I just related this all back to Wendy(our ED) about how you guys are all<br>
worried about it. She LOLed. She was freaked out because she was scared it<br>
was going to mess up our recruitment when a Republican Rep put up a bill<br>
about moving to closed Federal primaries in La. He never brought it to<br>
committee .Myself..I can grow the party in any climate..its all about<br>
altering and tailoring the message. Though when its working.don't try and<br>
fix it.wait a second.<br>
<br>
HELP!!! Louisiana suffers from TOP TWO!! Send us money!! Send us MONEY!!!<br>
HELP!!!!.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://secure.piryx.com/donate/3rejnkrb/Libertarian-Party-of-Louisiana/" target="_blank">https://secure.piryx.com/donate/3rejnkrb/Libertarian-Party-of-Louisiana/</a><br>
<br>
Did it work?<br>
<br>
Daniel Hayes<br>
LNC R7 Alternate<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Jul 17, 2014, at 4:32 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <<a href="mailto:chair@lp.org">chair@lp.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> The LNC can, I believe, spend money to oppose top-two in Oregon. It<br>
> is simpler, if the Libertarian Party of Oregon is FEC filing to<br>
> transfer funds to them to spend in Oregon. That's my read on it,<br>
> though I'll defer to our lawyer and/or FEC consultant if they believe<br>
> my interpretation is incorrect.<br>
><br>
> The Libertarian Party of Oregon has placed language in the voter guide<br>
> before to argue for or against initiatives, and can do so in this case<br>
> as well. It costs $1200. I believe we would also be able to place a<br>
> separate argument as the LNC, though if we choose to do so, we should<br>
> coordinate with the Libertarian Party of Oregon to ensure we're not<br>
> making the same arguments in both.<br>
><br>
> If top two passes, the Libertarian Party of Oregon would still be<br>
> recognized as a political party, it would just become much less likely<br>
> that their candidates would appear on the November ballot. See, e.g.<br>
> California.<br>
><br>
> -Nick<br>
><br>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Joshua Katz <<a href="mailto:joshua.katz@lp.org">joshua.katz@lp.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Is it within the jurisdiction of the LNC to take action to oppose<br>
>> top-two in Oregon, perhaps by setting aside money for a legal<br>
>> challenge or advertising before the vote? If so, I suggest someone<br>
>> with the ability move to do so, as I do not think our affiliate there<br>
>> is in a position to fight it, being somewhat busy with other things?<br>
>><br>
>> As a side note, does if top-two passes, does that impact the JC decision?<br>
>> Will there still be such a thing as SOS recognition for a party?<br>
>><br>
>> Joshua A. Katz<br>
>><br>
>> Region 8 (Region of Badassdom) Alternate Libertarian National<br>
>> Committee<br>
>><br>
>> Chair, Libertarian Party of Connecticut<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Lnc-business mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Lnc-business mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>