Seeking co-sponsors: Amend the deadline for county affiliation

Kyle is contending that the motion currently up on the forum would extend the deadline for counties to be affiliated, but that because it doesn't extend the deadline to receive applications, that we can't actually affiliate any of the people who have submitted applications even if we pass the motion that we are currently voting on.

This motion would fix the problem today and in the future.
 
I'm voting "no" on this one. A motion to suspend the original rule in the policy manual under extenuating circumstances is one thing, A permanent change to a very sensible deadline is another.
 
The deadline isn't sensible as it stands right now. The deadline for us to receive applications was November 28 of this year meaning anything we got after that would be held in limbo for up 5 months.

That's almost 1/4 of an entire term.
 
Joe Roberts said:
I'm voting "no" on this one. A motion to suspend the original rule in the policy manual under extenuating circumstances is one thing, A permanent change to a very sensible deadline is another.
Click to expand...
There’s no reason to impose a fixed deadline beyond what the Credentials Committee determines they can reasonably manage. Since circumstances vary from one election cycle to the next, I believe the most effective approach would be to defer to the Credentials Committee’s judgment each convention season. Clearly, the current policy hasn’t been delivering the results we need.
 
Scott Talley said:
I would also like to add that our goal is to grow the party, and any policy that is counterproductive to that should be eliminated.
Click to expand...
Understood, but to put all of the cards on the table, there is also a history of LP affiliation for the sole goal of being made a delegate to our National Convention, with said folks disappearing into the ether once the conventions are over. This may be more prevalent in other states, but I am firmly against any non-organic, temporary "delegate packing." That's not growing the party.

I understand that it does keep sincere latecomers.unaffiliated for a few months, but nothing is stopping them from applying and showing genuine support of the party in the meantime. I also get that there is nothing stopping individuals from affiliating with LPTexas in established affiliates at the last minute, with the same temporary mindset that I described above. However, in those cases, there is already a party apparatus in place with members who can vote them up or down as delegates, rather than them just "hopping the bus" at the last minute and by default having a vote equal to mine or yours.

I respect any principled disagreement to my P.O.V., but I hope you all know me well enough by now that I am not someone who opposes party growth. I just believe that the means of growth matter as that end.
 
Joe Roberts said:
Understood, but to put all of the cards on the table, there is also a history of LP affiliation for the sole goal of being made a delegate to our National Convention, with said folks disappearing into the ether once the conventions are over. This may be more prevalent in other states, but I am firmly against any non-organic, temporary "delegate packing." That's not growing the party.

I understand that it does keep sincere latecomers.unaffiliated for a few months, but nothing is stopping them from applying and showing genuine support of the party in the meantime. I also get that there is nothing stopping individuals from affiliating with LPTexas in established affiliates at the last minute, with the same temporary mindset that I described above. However, in those cases, there is already a party apparatus in place with members who can vote them up or down as delegates, rather than them just "hopping the bus" at the last minute and by default having a vote equal to mine or yours.

I respect any principled disagreement to my P.O.V., but I hope you all know me well enough by now that I am not someone who opposes party growth. I just believe that the means of growth matter as that end.
Click to expand...

I understand your concern and, while my reasoning differs, I arrive at the same conclusion, with the exception of providing a limited remedy to a candidate who has already made a substantial investment in their campaign. I do not see a reasonable alternative that preserves fair and equal treatment while offering a narrowly tailored remedy. As noted in the prior motion, we have no obligation to provide a remedy, as the harm originated with the state; however, providing one is in the organization’s interest.

I would suggest we develop a more robust framework to address this scenario going forward. Mid-cycle redistricting is itself unprecedented, and we should take the opportunity to ensure we are better prepared should it occur again. Assuming I receive the delegation’s support for another term, I would be willing to help advance that solution.
 
Kenneth Feagins said:
I do not see a reasonable alternative that preserves fair and equal treatment while offering a narrowly tailored remedy
Click to expand...
It's in the final few words of Rule 3.3.2 itself: "unless authorized by a motion of SLEC." If we need to make an exception to the rule as it now stands, we can do that as we did through Jacob's motion this time. It doesn't require an entire re-working of the standing rule (which was established with a particular rationale itself four years ago) to treat these three counties equally in 2026.

 
Joe Roberts said:
It's in the final few words of Rule 3.3.2 itself: "unless authorized by a motion of SLEC." If we need to make an exception to the rule as it now stands, we can do that as we did through Jacob's motion this time. It doesn't require an entire re-working of the standing rule (which was established with a particular rationale itself four years ago) to treat these three counties equally in 2026.

Click to expand...
Valid call out. My eyes have been more focused on the dates themselves, with this one having a more narrow application.

@Anastasia Wilford since you brought forward the motion on behalf of the group, is there a reason this was determined to be a rule change, as opposed to an exception, as we saw under Jacob's motion? This inquiry ignores what I considered a valid concern raised by Mr. Russell on the two dates. I saw Mr. Talley's remarks, but did not want to assume they explained the group's rationale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top