Seeking Co-Sponsors: Allow provisional county chair extension

Anastasia Wilford said:
This misunderstands the relationship between our governing documents and the state of Texas.

This is a policy issue, not a bylaws issue. The state of Texas cares nothing about our policies beyond what they require us to have according to election code.

And if it's your concern that the counties wouldn't hold their conventions correctly, we can't be sued for their mistakes. That would be a them problem.

I have no expectation that this will sway you, but I do hope this clears up the misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
Like I said I'm erring on the side of absolute caution because even if we're in the right I can picture the state coming after us for something like this.
 
Kenneth Feagins said:
Was our policy manual the one that caused injury to the candidate in CD-28, thus in good faith, we are obligated to to make an exception to the rules?
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, I am not contending that this policy "caused injury" to the candidate. He knew when he filed that the Congressional borders were set to change, and rolled the dice on the chance that the Supreme Court would suspend the change or strike it down. He lost that bet.

Regardless, I am on the side of having one more Libertarian on the ballot, assuming he wins the nomination.
 
Joe Roberts said:
Just to clarify, I am not contending that this policy "caused injury" to the candidate. He knew when he filed that the Congressional borders were set to change, and rolled the dice on the chance that the Supreme Court would suspend the change or strike it down. He lost that bet.

Regardless, I am on the side of having one more Libertarian on the ballot, assuming he wins the nomination.
Click to expand...
I understand your perspective. I'm not necessarily against it. My concern is opening the window for a month to offer relief and the other risks that may come. Is there a lower risk path? Or will it take a month to process the provisional county affiliates? Assuming their applications are already in, could we not snap the line right after their filing?
 
They have already filed, interviews are pending approval of this motion. It will be conducted as quickly as possible which is usually 1.5-2 weeks depending on schedules. Just wanted to give a little wiggle room just in case.
 
Jessi Cowart said:
When this was approved by SLEC in 2024, it was due to a technical issue with our EmailMe form.

Specifically, a couple of county chair applications had been submitted but had not been received by the Affiliate Support department so that the vetting/interviews could commence.

This request is different in that there is no such extenuating circumstance.

Not trying to push people one direction or the other— just want to clarify that there was legitimate reason last time.
Click to expand...
Also not trying to push people one way or the other, but since this was submitted in response to something I said (and apparently could've said better), I want to come back and clarify my original intent (clarify the clarification?...).

I'm aware that the '24 issue was technical and this is different, and I did not mean to suggest that I think they cannot be distinguished. But I was also of the understanding that Credentials had already indicated that this would not work a hardship on the committee, and that working these new counties in was do-able if that's the way SLEC went.

I did not mean to minimize the differences between these two fact situations and whatever kinds of distinctions might be made between them. But I'm not comfortable with the framing that last time's reason was 'legitimate', implying that this time's is not. That's the question that's going to get answered over the next couple of days.

My suggestion was simply that the policy be re-examined at some point. Definitely after convention.... ;)
 
Request for information
Per the policy:
Applications for temporary county affiliates may be received up to 10 days before the deadline to file an application for nomination to become a candidate for the party.

That deadline was Dec. 8th, so any applications after Nov. 28th are not valid?
 
I don't think it's fair to call them invalid. The last sentence provides that applications submitted after that deadline resume after convention and provides that SLEC can authorize exception to the deadline. Another reason that the threat of lawsuit is non-existent since the passing of this motion is explicitly authorized by our policy manual.

3.3.1 Provisional Appointment Cutoff
Applications for temporary county affiliates may be received up to 10 days before the deadline to file an application for nomination to become a candidate for the party. Temporary county affiliates may be established up to 10 days before the Credentials Committee deadline to send notice to county affiliates per our governing documents. After the deadlines are passed the processes will not resume until after the adjournment of the state convention unless authorized by a motion of SLEC.
 
From John Foddrill House District 28 Candidate:

Mr. Bradley.

I pray that you can help me get on the ballot so I may run as a Libertarian in House District 28.

I understand that efforts are underway to extend deadlines and allow Hidalgo among others to become a county affiliate. I applaud these efforts and would appreciate any assistance you can provide to make this a reality. With Hidalgo a county affiliate I can run in District 28 and help our citizens.

I have planned for some time to run in District 28 and suddenly state officials removed Bexar County where I reside from the district. I prayed that the politically motivated law would be overturned but it never occurred. My application was received by the state and I have prayed every night that something would happen to allow me to move forward. This may be that miracle that I have prayed for.

I lived and worked in Cameron County for over twenty-five years. I raised a family in the Valley. I graduated college in the Valley. As an employee of Southwestern Bell, I worked in Hidalgo County and all the other counties in the Valley serving our citizens during good times and during hurricanes was well. I still have family and many friends in the Valley.

I have seen with my own eyes how republicans and democrats conspire to defraud our citizens while pretending to be separate entities. Men, women and children suffered and died over the years while elected officials played games and made big speeches. As the new Telecommunications Manager for the City of San Antonio, I discovered that the 911 System was failing ONE of FOUR calls. Citizens heard ringing that never ended. They were put on hold. They heard “dead air”. They got busy signals. When I asked for funds to repair the system I was told that all the money was gone ( via decades of fraud that was covered up ) and I was denied funds to repair the crippled system. Democrats lied when media reports disclosed the years of failures that I reported saying that they did not know. Republicans played along not wanting to take any of the blame. As a Libertarian Representative for District 28 I can expose these deadly games harming our citizens.

I pray that others in the Party will listen and allow me, the citizens of Hidalgo County and the citizens of District 28 make our State and our Nation a better place. Thank you.



In Liberty , God Bless



John E Foddrill Sr.
 
Point of Order

This motion is out of order as it only extends the time of establishment which had a deadline of Jan 13th meaning the deadline day was Jan 3rd. The applications were filed after the Nov 28th deadline this motion does not extend that deadline.

3.3.1 Provisional Appointment Cutoff
Applications for temporary county affiliates may be received up to 10 days before the deadline to file an application for nomination to become a candidate for the party. Temporary county affiliates may be established up to 10 days before the Credentials Committee deadline to send notice to county affiliates per our governing documents. After the deadlines are passed the processes will not resume until after the adjournment of the state convention unless authorized by a motion of SLEC.
 
Are you contending that, since the form was not taken down from our website each term, and applications were received after that deadline and subsequently processed after convention (as best as they can be since the up to 5 month wait tends to leave a sour taste in people's mouths about affiliating their county), that we've been in violation of this policy every term since it was put into place?

Are you further contending that we should revoke the affiliation of those two counties?

I would also question when we are permitted to start accepting applications again, or if we've not been permitted to accept applications since the deadline after the implementation of this policy? Perhaps every county affiliated since then should be disaffiliated?
 
Kyle Russell said:
Point of Order

This motion is out of order as it only extends the time of establishment which had a deadline of Jan 13th meaning the deadline day was Jan 3rd. The applications were filed after the Nov 28th deadline this motion does not extend that deadline.

3.3.1 Provisional Appointment Cutoff
Applications for temporary county affiliates may be received up to 10 days before the deadline to file an application for nomination to become a candidate for the party. Temporary county affiliates may be established up to 10 days before the Credentials Committee deadline to send notice to county affiliates per our governing documents. After the deadlines are passed the processes will not resume until after the adjournment of the state convention unless authorized by a motion of SLEC.
Click to expand...
I'm ruling this motion in order. I'll explain later as needed, but right now I've got two donor calls and a candidate call to process before it gets much later, so I'll be back when I can.
 
For what it's worth, for anyone who is against this motion because they're afraid that "the other side" is trying to stack the convention, since this motion is open ended, you'd be free to wrangle up county affiliates for "your side". Maybe use this to grow us instead of holding us back.
 
To clarify my objection the motion only extends the 2nd deadline date. Since the applications were sent in after Nov 28th they can't be acted on till after the close of the State Convention. So the motion is I guess in order but since the applications were sent in after the first deadline the affiliate team has nothing to process.
 
Andrew Amelang said:
Also not trying to push people one way or the other, but since this was submitted in response to something I said (and apparently could've said better), I want to come back and clarify my original intent (clarify the clarification?...).

I'm aware that the '24 issue was technical and this is different, and I did not mean to suggest that I think they cannot be distinguished. But I was also of the understanding that Credentials had already indicated that this would not work a hardship on the committee, and that working these new counties in was do-able if that's the way SLEC went.

I did not mean to minimize the differences between these two fact situations and whatever kinds of distinctions might be made between them. But I'm not comfortable with the framing that last time's reason was 'legitimate', implying that this time's is not. That's the question that's going to get answered over the next couple of days.

My suggestion was simply that the policy be re-examined at some point. Definitely after convention.... ;)
Click to expand...
Oh no, I was mostly wanting to point out that it isn’t apple to apples from a historical perspective. That being said, you are absolutely correct that this doesn’t place any undue hardship on Cred Comm.

We (Cred Comm) would need to lean on the Affiliate Support team to communicate new affiliations (so we can update delegate apportionment and our credentialing workbook) and to send emails we’ve already sent, but this doesn’t materially affect our workload.

The policy deadline was originally put in place for a couple of reasons:

1) to allow adequate time for research/vetting and interviews, and

2) because we didn’t want to scare off new county chairs by throwing them into the “convention gauntlet” right out the gate

It sounds like the process in #1 goes much quicker than it used to (panel interviewing has helped!), and I know Jacob has said he’s talked to the prospective chairs about #2 so they know what they’re getting into.

Ultimately, it’s up to the body. But I agree that if we’re gonna have a deadline in the policy (and I believe we should), it needs to be both reasonable and only be brought to SLEC for a vote in extenuating circumstances. To clarify, while I’m not “unsupportive” of this motion, I think I’d be a lot less ho-hum about it if was specific to the county affecting CD 28 rather than just a blanket approval of everyone who missed the deadline.
 
Last edited:
As much as I don't want to take the action, I will be changing my vote to abstain.

I know this will upset many, but my reason is kind of complicated. I will explain by trying my absolute best to be as neutral as I can as I don't want to pick sides or point fingers. I hope everyone can understand my decision to do so.

Reading everything, checking the policy manual, and having several conversations with fellow SLEC members, I see conflict with barely any middle ground to stand on.

I do want this party to grow. I do want more affiliated counties in Texas. I do want more candidates on the ballot this November who represent our party. I do believe the motion that Jacob brought up is in good faith on party growth and helping candidates which is important for our party, especially in an election year.

What I fully believe is that if there is one county that does need to get affiliated, that's Hidalgo County.

I will say that (while stating the obvious) the GOP really fucked up the matter here with the gerrymandering shit they pulled off last year, and it's become the major conflict at this point as we now have a candidate who is in county that is not affiliated.

I know changing my vote will not change the outcome of the current vote at this point, but I would like to see Hidalgo County get affiliated in any means necessary that we can all agree upon so we can have a candidate be able to receive an official nomination.
 
Last edited:
Andrew Amelang said:
I'm ruling this motion in order. I'll explain later as needed, but right now I've got two donor calls and a candidate call to process before it gets much later, so I'll be back when I can.
Click to expand...
I would really appreciate clarification on this motion.
The way it's worded it only effects the 2nd part of policy 3.3.1 Provisional Appointment Cutoff. The word establish being the key part.

I suggest we let this poorly worded motion fail and then pass a motion only allowing Hidalgo County to be provisionally affiliated in order to assist the CD 29 candidate who filed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top