>
>From: "Jason Auvenshine" <auvenj@mailcity.com>
>
>For those who don't know, there were two aspects to the court case:
> 1) Who is the "real" Arizona LP?
> 2) Are the party organization laws constitutional?
>
its not
1) Who is the "real" Arizona LP?
but
did the vote taken at the last arizona libertarian party convention in tucson in april have the required 2/3 marjority to change the arizona libertarian partys bylaws as the people in tucson wanted to change them (along with a few people in phoenix like kat gallant)?
the vote was 1 vote short of the 2/3's needed.
and i think thats what the judge ruled on. it was 1 vote short and thus the partys bylaws could not be changed as the people from tucson wanted to change them.
and last its not
2) Are the [libertarian] party organization laws constitutional?
but
are the state of ARIZONA election laws defined in TITLE 16 of the ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES UNCONSTITIONAL?
these laws micro manage the party by 1) demanding that the party convention be held in phoenix (which the libertarians never do. last year it was in tucson, the year before in tempe). 2) that the convention be held in january (both prior libertarian conventions were held in april). 3) demand that party officers be elected in tax payer funded elections by certain rules that only the people in tucson follow.
the republic newspaper article didnt say if the judge ruled on the constitional issues of the law suit.
for useless information i beleive both the REPUBLICANS, and DEMOCRATS joined the suit on the side of the PHOENIX fraction of the arizona libertarian party. (ok it sounds bad, just like when the arizona republic endorsed john buttrick a libertaraian canidate for the house)