Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:43:22 -0700
From: ernesthancock@home.com ("Ernest Hancock")
Subject: Re: [lpaz-discuss] The Ruling from the PDF file
To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com


> IMHO, leaning on this nit is a waste of time.  George


I don't know.

If you read the ruling it is very clear that if it says, "shall" in election
law, you better be doing it. Remember, it was the Republicans that were on
our side of the suit that offered the out for the judges to rule that the
language menat that, "you really really should if you really really want
to". This was one of the _very_ points that I brought up in my federal
lawsuit filed 10 years ago this last July 3rd.

My argument was that the parties (I was arguing as an independent) that the
parties didn't have the right to my tax dollars to fund their internal
structure (electing of internal offices with taxpayer funded elections - so
to moot that they now have all non-affiliated voters able to vote in ay
primary) and that they didn't even meet the minimum requirements to be a
continueing political party anyway because they haven't complied with the
law that requires all precinct committeemen positions to be be filled by
election or appointment. The courts disagreed with me :)

One of the best arguments that was overlooked in the ruling by the Court of
Appeals was the fact that their are some precincts that don't even have a
Libertarian registered. And even if there are it doesn't mean that they wish
to be a party officer (in fact, being a libertarian is mostly about wanting
to be left alone anyway). This point has been argued by the ALPink by saying
that this is a motivation structured by the great and wise government to
help the political parties grow. What they fail to point out is that unless
they can field a complete, active and current list of many _thousands_ of
PCs across the state then they _never_ can attain ballot status.

Ohhhh, there is a special session coming alright, or there is going to be
some interesting  shuffling.

there is far more to this issue than most could possibly understand in a
mere series of e-mails. Many of us have been at this for many years nad know
that the whole thing is a double (triple when required :) standard that
sooner or later can't hold up to the light of day.

It is possible that the court of Appeals has done us a favor,... and maybe
intentionally. The closer you look at it the more it looks like a scream for
them (the legislative branch) to fix this party institutinalization crap.

Don't dismiss this just yet as unimportant.

Giggles and Grins,

Ernie


Community email addresses:
  Post message: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com
     Subscribe: lpaz-discuss-subscribe@onelist.com
   Unsubscribe: lpaz-discuss-unsubscribe@onelist.com
    List owner: lpaz-discuss-owner@onelist.com
      Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org

Shortcut URL to this page:
  http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-discuss 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/