Results from the Libertarian Party’s Vote for the Judicial Committee Announced-Updated

[gview file=”https://secureservercdn.net/104.238.69.231/qkc.c33.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016-LP-Judicial-Committee-Election-Results.pdf”]

Only three people received enough votes to be on the committee. They are: Alicia Dearn 216 votes – 59.178 %, Gary Johnson of Texas 193 votes – 5/2.877 %, and Chuck Moulton 184 votes – 50.411 %.

From secretary Alicia Mattson:

To LNC (cc: JC candidates),
National conventions create a special kind of exhaustion for those working the whole time. My Tuesday morning started early, and I fell asleep last night before I could finish the Judicial Committee election results. I just completed them a short while ago.

The attached PDF contains the Judicial Committee election results. There are seven Judicial Committee seats. Three candidates received a majority to be elected.
Please note that LP Bylaws Article 9.1 includes the sentence, “The remaining members of the Judicial Committee shall appoint new members if vacancies occur, such appointees to serve until the final adjournment of the next Regular Convention.”

There were three nominated JC candidates for whom I could not find email addresses: Chris Wiest, Chris Robinson, Rich Piotrowski. The other nominated candidates are cc’d on this message. If you have contact info for the other three candidates, I’m sure they would appreciate you forwarding this to them.

UPDATE:

Dear Alicia Mattson,

Please post this message online on the LNC Business list:

The Judicial Committee is supposed to have seven members. Only three received a majority in the approval voting process at the 2016 national convention.
The three members of the Judicial Committee elected by the delegates, Alicia Dearn, Gary Johnson of Texas, and Chuck Moulton, have communicated by email.
We have ruled unanimously that, as the “remaining members” of the committee, we have the authority to fill vacancies, although we are less than the quorum of five specified in the bylaws.

We have decided informally to reject, by 1 to 2, the idea of filling the vacancies with the next four vote getters.
We have decided unanimously to fill the vacancies with four individuals who were not nominated at the convention and therefore were not “disapproved” of by a majority of the delegates in the approval voting process.

We have voted unanimously by email ballot to fill the vacancies with Michael Badnarik, John Buttrick, Bill Hall, and Rob Latham.

Alicia Dearn
Gary Johnson
Chuck Moulton

30 thoughts on “Results from the Libertarian Party’s Vote for the Judicial Committee Announced-Updated

  1. Wes Wagner

    The bylaws also state that quorum is 5.. which means they can make no decision on appointments. Again selective parliamentarianism by manipulative and conniving Mattson.

  2. Steve Scheetz

    so according to the Bylaws, it is impossible to have a functioning JC for this session.. Well, at least M Carling won’t be able to work up any more silliness….

    Good Riddance.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  3. Scott Lieberman

    Despite what Mr. Wagner wrote in the very first comment on this article, one of the few things a Committee or Board can do in the absence of a quorum is to take the actions necessary to achieve a quorum. That includes appointing members to fill vacant seats, IMNSHO.

    It will be interesting to see if the elected Judicial Committee members choose to follow the wishes of the delegates in appointing the remaining members of the Committee.

  4. Wes Wagner

    Scott

    Go read parliamentary law and research this. You are dead to rights wrong. Especially because the bylaws define quorum as 5 and appointing replacements is an action.

    Yes when you have no quorum you can run around trying to round people up, but it does not allow you to make or pass substantive motions such as filling vacancies.

    I have seen county governments shut down because of this issue until an election could be called.

  5. Scott Lieberman

    Mr. Wagner:

    This is not authoritative, but it certainly suggests that a board that does not have enough members to ever meet the quorum requirement can appoint people to fill vacant seats to obtain a quorum.

    http://www.parli.com/ read the summary at the very bottom of the page.

  6. Wes Wagner

    Scott

    We saw this during our legal research. It was rebutted by Parliamentary Law and the footnotes associated with it as well as bodies of corporate law.

  7. Wes Wagner

    Your options for filling vacancies:

    Hold a special convention
    Go before a judge and request judicial relief

    Anything else would be technically illegal, but of course no court would ever grant a complainant relief on such matter.

  8. José C

    If Scott is correct hopefuly the current members will not appoint M Carling.

  9. Wes Wagner

    It would be silly to appoint him. He is well known and 70% Of the delegates specifically did not want him.

  10. Jim F

    Read OUR bylaws. It specifically says that members of the committee who are less than a quaorum can appoint, and its expected that they will appoint the next 4.

    ARTICLE 9: JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
    1. The Judicial Committee shall be composed of seven Party members elected at each Regular Convention, and any five members shall constitute a quorum. No member of the National Committee may be a member of the Judicial Committee. The members of the Judicial Committee shall select the Chair of the Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee shall take office immediately upon the close of the Regular Convention at which elected and shall serve until the final adjournment of the next Regular Convention. All Judicial Committee members shall have been Party members at least four years at the time of their selection. The remaining members of the Judicial Committee shall appoint new members if vacancies occur, such appointees to serve until the final adjournment of the next Regular Convention.

    Someone should check and make sure they have all been Party members for 4 years. Johnson, Moulton, Carling, Sink-Burris sure, but I don’t know about the rest.

  11. Wes Wagner

    Jim F.. yes the bylaws answer who appoints but it does not specifically change quorum for conducting business.

    You need quorum to appoint vacancies in the absences of specific language reducing that quroum requirement.

    This is a natural protection from say 1 person appointing an entire committee by themselves amongst many other reasons.

  12. Jim F

    The change to add “remaining members” was made specifically to cover this case.

  13. Wes Wagner

    It fails to do that per roberts, parliamentary law and corporate law. At issue is “remaining members” is an unspecific quantity and does not overide the both explicit and implicit requirement of 5 for quorum.

    You can wish it said what you want and you can argue intent when it was adopted, but only black letter interpretation counts

  14. Wes Wagner

    (To change the quorum requirement it would need to say something like “a majority of remaining members…”)

  15. Wes Wagner

    Jim f

    If you need more help understandin this.. imagine a meeting were called to appoint members.. and only Chuck Moulton showed up. Could he make the 4 additional appointments by himself ?

    You probably would say no.. because the quorum is 2… but it isn’t the quorum requirement is 5 per the bylaws, and no language changes that.

  16. Weld my Johnson

    Some questions:

    Why does everyone hate M. Carling?

    Who wrote-in Weld?

    Who wrote-in the fat stripper?

    If I ran and changed my name to Ron Paul, would I be elected?

  17. Chuck Moulton

    Email from Gary Johnson (TX) to LNC secretary Alicia Mattson:

    Dear Alicia Mattson,

    Please post this message online on the LNC Business list:

    The Judicial Committee is supposed to have seven members. Only three received a majority in the approval voting process at the 2016 national convention.

    The three members of the Judicial Committee elected by the delegates, Alicia Dearn, Gary Johnson of Texas, and Chuck Moulton, have communicated by email.

    We have ruled unanimously that, as the “remaining members” of the committee, we have the authority to fill vacancies, although we are less than the quorum of five specified in the bylaws.

    We have decided informally to reject, by 1 to 2, the idea of filling the vacancies with the next four vote getters.

    We have decided unanimously to fill the vacancies with four individuals who were not nominated at the convention and therefore were not “disapproved” of by a majority of the delegates in the approval voting process.

    We have voted unanimously by email ballot to fill the vacancies with Michael Badnarik, John Buttrick, Bill Hall, and Rob Latham.

    Alicia Dearn
    Gary Johnson
    Chuck Moulton

  18. George Phillies

    That’s an excellent list of people. The Bylaws statement that the remaining members of the Judicial Committee get to fill vacancies is unambiguous, overrides Roberts, and has given us a superb list of new JC members.

  19. From Der Sidelines

    Sorry, but Wagner is correct. The Bylaws override Roberts, and business cannot be conducted to appoint to vacancies without a quorum. As such, thd appointments are invalid. The JC itself cannot rule on it either because A) it’s an obvious conflict of interest requiring recusal if they had a quorum, and B) they don’t have a quorum in the first pkace to hear an appeal. Scott Gadfly Lie-berman and the rest of the Starr Chamber are simply unwilling to follow proper procedure.

  20. Wes Wagner

    It is not ambiguous this is true… the remaining members have the power to fill vacancies provided they can make quorum.

    The new judicial committee has already engaged in overreach like the last one by declaring themselves able to ignore the bylaws to do what they want.

  21. Jim F

    Wes, they were not acting as the JC, but as individual members who happened to have been on the JC. Yes its bullshit, yes that’s why Carling wrote the bylaws the way he did.

    In elections with multiple winners plurality really is the most fair way to get equal representation. We need to return to that.

    P.S. Does Badnarik, really want to get involved in the minutia of the JC?

  22. Wes Wagner

    Well now that you say Carling wrote it that is prima facie that it is bullshit 🙂

  23. Be Rational

    ” The remaining members of the Judicial Committee shall appoint new members if vacancies occur, such appointees to serve until the final adjournment of the next Regular Convention. ”

    No mention of a quorum requirement in appointing members to vacancies. Clearly the three current members acted properly in making four appointments.

    Nice choices by the way and good reasoning not to choose among the losers from the convention. Well done.

  24. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I am glad Moulton made it. Who voted against the idea of choosing from the remaining and why?

    In any event, this is interesting… I think Wes is right and there is a Bylaws issue.

    “Remaining members” seems to indicate a prior full body – but one that still has quorum.

  25. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I don’t think arguing intent is improper per se and if that was the intent of the bylaws … Okay. I don’t think it was though.

    I think this is unforeseen by the bylaws, and Wes’ solutions are the only “legal” ones.

    However what the 3 members did was the pragmatic solution (though not choosing the next four adds a wrinkle)

  26. William WAUGH

    You should amend your bylaws to use reweighted range voting to fill the committee.

    By the way, I am not a Libertarian.

  27. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Interesting selections, and I applaud the decision to appoint four completely new people.

    It is possible, of course, that they won’t be needed during their term.

    Since the appointing was already done, I won’t worry about the quorum issue. I’ve got too many other things going on right now to worry about something that doesn’t seem to be broken.

  28. Wes Wagner

    Appointing the correct people the judicial committee is a goodmway to ensure it is less likey to be needed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *