• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Libertarian Party of Oregon Monday, June 30, 2019 Ms. Beverly Clarno, Oregon Secretary of State Mr. Stephen Trout, Director of Elections Dear Secretary Clarno and Mr. Trout, SUMMARY. Your office is aware that there has been an ongoing dispute within the Libertarian Party of Oregon (LPO) regarding which set of organizational documents properly govern the organization. Because a political party’s organizational documents determine how candidates are properly nominated to partisan public offices, who is authorized to sign certificates of nomination on behalf of a political party, and because the two sets of organizational documents contain different and mutually exclusive processes for nominating candidates to general election ballots, this dispute is relevant to ORS 248.009, ORS 249.720 and other statutes within Oregon election law. Our opponents in this dispute contend that the LPO’s legitimate organizational documents (hereinafter referred to as the “StateComm Documents”) are those which were purportedly adopted in a monthly March 31st, 2011 LPO State Committee meeting without prior notice to the membership and purportedly “ratified” through a boycotted vote-by-mail election held in 2012 with only 5.7% of ballots returned. This meeting took place nineteen days after a March 12th, 2011 session of the 2011 LPO Annual Business Convention failed to achieve quorum and voted to Adjourn to a Meeting to be held on May 21st, 2011 on the premise that quorum could be reached at that time. The March 31st, 2011 meeting was raucous, featuring a walkout of two members of the LPO State Committee, two abstentions, and at least one physical altercation. Several other LPO State Committee members were not present. Our side of this dispute contends that the LPO’s legitimate organizational documents (hereinafter referred to as the “Convention Documents”) are those which have been adopted and amended by LPO members in properly noticed conventions from the 1970s through 2019 (Robert’s Rules of Order as Newly Revised is cited in the Convention Documents as the LPO’s parliamentary authority). We further contend that the LPO’s organizational documents only provide for their amendment in properly noticed conventions, not through LPO State Committee action or through vote-by-mail elections. Given the Convention Documents cannot amended through LPO State Committee action, we have contended that such actions cannot be “ratified” by any means. Repeatedly, explicitly, and consistently, your office has refused to adjudicate any dispute over organizational documents for fear of violating ORS 248.011 which precludes your office from enforcing political party rules except as required by law. In an April 2nd, 2013 legal declaration, your office reiterated this position by saying that, “We have told the parties that they have to go to court to adjudicate this matter if there is to be any change because we do not adjudicate this kind of dispute.” Your office reiterated this position again on April 7th, 2017, citing ORS 248.011 in a memo from the late Secretary of State Dennis Richardson. 7100 SW Hampton, Suite 201, Tigard, Oregon 97223 www.lporegon.net In lieu of adjudicating our dispute, your office adopted an “Unwritten Policy” of accepting as valid, without challenge, question, or adjudication, any organizational documents or list of officers provided to you by whomever your office lists as the current “Chair of Record.” This Unwritten Policy, which will be referred to as such throughout this document, proved to be more than problematic as it confers onto a political party’s “Chair of Record” the ability to unilaterally revise a party’s organizational documents and/or officer lists at will regardless of any previously existing organizational documents, processes, or checks on authority contained within. This policy can be used to co-opt the legal authority of your office and transmit false legitimacy to other entities and unwitting activists who come into organizations over time. All of this is, in fact, what has happened within the LPO. On December 12th, 2018, your office became aware of a ruling from the Oregon Court of Appeals (COA) in the case of Reeves v. Wagner, addressing this dispute. While the COA upheld the dismissal for a different reason than the lower court, which erroneously dismissed on the grounds it was “nonjusticiable,” the COA made a series of findings relating to the merits of our dispute which make it clear that, despite what any of us previously thought, your office has the responsibility and authority to deal with disputes such as ours, that your office is obliged to consider a political party’s organizational documents when doing so, and that doing so does not constitute a violation of ORS 248.011. Specifically, the COA found that it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to enforce election laws (p.306), that doing so may “...depend on the construction of organizational documents” (p. 307), and that considering organizational documents to enforce Oregon law does not constitute a violation of 248.011 (p. 307-308). These findings effectively invalidate your office’s Unwritten Policy and require your office to deal directly with this dispute, which is what we are asking you to do now. The COA made this job easy for your office as it also found that “There is no provision in either the 2007 constitution or the 2009 bylaws for the State Committee to amend or replace the bylaws” (p. 304). In discussions with our colleagues on the other side of this dispute, we find that they are hanging their hat on the fact that we did not appeal, through the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), an order issued on September 29th, 2011 by your office within the allotted sixty days. This order, grounded in your office’s Unwritten Policy, was issued so “...the voters affiliated with the Libertarian Party of Oregon will be able to have a candidate for the Special Election in the 1st Congressional District.” The order said that, “We currently recognize, and will continue to recognize Wagner as Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. We will accept the Libertarian nominee for the 1st Congressional District Special Election from Mr. Wagner.” On April 7th, 2017, your office stood by that order in a memo by saying, “...this office has continued to follow the September 2011 decision and allowed the same group to nominate candidates for three election cycles.” This order is not applicable any longer for the following reasons: 1. The September 29th, 2011 Order Does Not Deal With Organizational Documents. As mentioned above, your office has repeatedly, explicitly, and consistently refused to adjudicate the question of which organizational documents properly govern the LPO for fear of violating ORS 248.011. Such is the central question to be addressed now and, subsequent to the COA ruling, your office is obliged to answer this question for the purpose of ensuring compliance with ORS 248.009, ORS 249.720 and other statutes. 2. The September 29th, 2011 Order is No Longer Operative. The “same group” referred to in your office’s April 7th, 2017 memo no longer exists. Leadership changes have taken place among 7100 SW Hampton, Suite 201, Tigard, Oregon 97223 www.lporegon.net both groups of Libertarians. More specifically, nobody on either side of this dispute contends that Wes Wagner, whom your office ordered that it would “continue to recognize” as Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, chairs either group any longer. It is also clear that your office’s order of September 29th, 2011 was issued to apply specifically to the 1st District Congressional Election, referring to that election as the reason for your order and making it clear that your office would accept the Libertarian nominee for that race from Mr. Wagner. No other races or elections were mentioned in the order. 3. The Determination of Leadership Should be Derived from the Organizational Documents. Your office’s September 29th, 2011 order recognizing Wes Wagner as Chair of the LPO was derived from your office’s Unwritten Policy. Subsequent to the COA ruling, with fresh groups of leaders and a fresh election, your office is now obliged to consider organizational documents when determining who may lawfully sign Certificates of Nomination for a political party. The COA found that, “In receiving a list of officers from a political party so as to determine who may sign a candidate’s certificate of nomination, the Secretary is in a position to determine whether the person signing the certificate became an officer in accordance with procedures set forth in a party’s organizational documents” (p.306-307). As the COA found that there is no way the LPO State Committee could have amended or replaced the Convention Documents, the only leaders your office should recognize are those which were elected to their positions through processes outlined in the Convention Documents. 4. Outside Entities Can Now Sue to Strike Libertarian Candidates from the Ballot. Given the COA’s unambiguous finding that “There is no provision in either the 2007 constitution or the 2009 bylaws for the State Committee to amend or replace the bylaws” (p. 304), candidates nominated by other parties feeling disadvantaged by the presence of a Libertarian candidate now have sufficient grounds to sue for the removal of Libertarian candidates nominated in accordance with the StateComm Documents from general election ballots for violating ORS 248.009, ORS 249.720, and possibly other statutes. To ensure this does not happen, it is imperative that your office accept only those Certificates of Nominations which are the product of processes and leaders associated with the Convention Documents. We have waited until now to file this complaint in hopes that the two sides could unite behind a lawful solution that could be jointly presented to your office.

Load more

  31

Copy Link