From an opinion by Libertarian National Committee counsel Gary Sinawski:
It seems clear to me that the LP can safely charge registration fees for its conventions and
that such fees will not run afoul of the Morse case. Unlike the state of Virginia, the
Libertarian Party is not a “covered jurisdiction” within the meaning of the Voting Rights
Act, and the LNC’s decision to charge registration fees is not subject to preclearance
under the Act. Therefore, the private right of action created by Section 5 cannot be used
by LP members to challenge the registration fee. Nor, in my opinion, could the LP
registration fee be successfully challenged on constitutional grounds, because there is no
“state action” involved at LP conventions. In contrast to the national LP, the Republican
Party of Virginia is a qualified party under applicable state law; the convention at issue in
the Morse case involved state action because it was authorized by state law and was held
for the purpose of selecting a candidate for federal office who would be listed on the
general election ballot as the Republican nominee.
Counsel’s remarks are, above all, irrelevant.
The important issue here is that we have an organization that is sinking like the Titanic, with membership down more than 50% and income in real dollars down more than 70%. Our National Committee has *willfully* engaged in a *recklessly divisive* course of action that will probably lose money for our National Party.
The possibility that other states will follow the thus far-tabled New Hampshire Resolution and boycott the convention — which is the same thing as denying the validity of the convention and its acts — threatens our party with terminal catastrophe.
@12
I’m not against that.
But my understanding is that Palestinian Arab leaders are.
cp, yes, of course Redpath sought the LNC counsel’s take in response to criticism from LNC and party members. What’s your point? It’s not a suit as yet, which is the model that George was pointing to.
Aaron Starr attempted to assure me, alas not with witnesses present, that there is no such a people as ‘the Palestinians’,
Yet there are millions of Arabs who live in Israeli controlled “occupied territories”. If they’re not Palestinians, they must be Israelis.
So give these Israeli Arabs the right to vote.
The U.S. annexed Indian and Mexican territories, and gave the people living there citizenship and the vote.
You take the land, you take the people, and you take whatever problems come with the people.
RC @9: it seems as if the practical function of seeking counsel’s opinion at this point, though, is to provide a basis for an LNC response to member criticisms.
Please don’t let Dr Phillies hijack this thread into yet another “Arabs vs. Israelis” shouting match.
There are plenty of other blogs on the Internet that are specifically designed for the discussion of Middle East politics.
gp, counsel serves in a variety of capacities, not just as a zealous defender of a client. Corporate counsel’s job is to advise a corporation — in this case — the LNC of the legality of a fact set.
If an actual SUIT is filed, then it could be that corporate counsel would assume the role of advocate for a “side.”
“at the 2008 LPCA State Convention Aaron Starr attempted to assure me, alas not with witnesses present, that there is no such a people as ‘the Palestinians’, from which I conclude that Starr’s ability to swallow camels for the good of his cause is truly impressive.”
Well, there are indeed such people as “the Palestinians.”
Israel’s 7.5 million citizens live in the region known as Palestine, and are therefore “Palestinians.”
So are some unknown number of stateless Arabs living in, or with recent connections to, the region.
Most modern usages of the word attempt to write the aforementioned 7.5 million Israelis out of the definition for political reasons, which is why it’s tempting to push back with an assertion that the term no longer has meaning at all.
The duty of a counsel is to represent his client’s case as effectively as possible — this often means ‘as aggressively as possible’ — consistent with legal limits and standards of ethical conduct.
The notion that you should agree with the opposing side’s counsel because he advanced a claim requires a great ability to strain at gnats and swallow camels, or at least a great ability to swallow camels. I am however reminded that at the 2008 LPCA State Convention Aaron Starr attempted to assure me, alas not with witnesses present, that there is no such a people as ‘the Palestinians’, from which I conclude that Starr’s ability to swallow camels for the good of his cause is truly impressive.
sorry, voluntary organizations can’t “tax.”
Mr. Starr,
If I had written “after seeing the quality of the LNC’s counsel,” your point would be relevant.
That’s not what I wrote. I criticized the opinion, not the author.
I am quite willing to stipulate that in the normal course of things Mr. Sinawski may be a veritable Perry Mason, and that this opinion may be anomalous from the standpoint of quality.
When I see a bird that walks like a Poll Tax and swims like a Poll Tax and quacks like a Poll Tax, I call that bird a Poll Tax.
Gary Sinawski was selected as LNC Counsel in part because of his history of success in numerous ballot access lawsuits on behalf of third parties.
I’m certain Richard Winger would happily attest to Mr. Sinawski’s abilities and expertise.
On the matter of “covered jurisdictions” —
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is law for the entirety of the United States.
The “covered jurisdictions” language in the Act as referred to in Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia is specific to Section 5 of the Act and is applicable to a few states with such egregrious records that they have to get “pre-clearance” from the Justice Department for substantial changes in their election processes.
The existence of these “covered jurisdictions” in no way reduces the applicability of the law nationwide. It merely creates a special class of states in which political activities are more tightly regulate.
The existence of Section 5 does not in any way obviate the restriction on poll taxes.
Nor, per Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, is the right of private action (i.e. suit versus poll taxes) limited to Section 5 or its “covered jurisdictions” — the ruling specifically refers to a right of private action pursuant to section 10, for example.
The Morse ruling also cites precedent (Whitley v. Williams) for treating conventions which feature internal party office elections as covered by the Act because they produce the organizations which subsequently nominate presidential candidates.
I have tried to be careful to point out that there’s no such thing as an airtight case: It is possible that a court challenge to the LP’s convention poll tax would lose.
On the other hand, after seeing the quality of the LNC’s counsel’s opinion, I wouldn’t bet on it.
Spacing is off on this – at least on this computer