Motion: Motion to amend Constitution Art II, Section 5

There are five new motions from the Rules Committee at the 2018 Annual Convention.  I’m planning on reviewing and posting on these motions as part of my review of the 2018 Annual Convention Agenda. All of these blog posts will be tagged LPF2018, so if you want to look at my thoughts on the other motions, just click on the LPF2018 tag on the right side of the page or the bottom of this post.

Type: Constitution
Title: Motion to amend Constitution Art II, Section 5
Text: Motion to amend LPF Constitution Article II, Section 5, adding new language.

Certain rights and privileges of membership, including delegate status, committee appointments and observation of committee meetings, holding LPF state or affiliate party office, exercise of voting rights in the conduct of any Libertarian Party of Florida business, and the right to bring business before the Annual Business Meeting, shall be reserved to LPF members who are LPF registered voters and shall be unavailable to members and officers of any other political party registered in the state of Florida. Members and officers of other political parties registered in the state of Florida may participate in discussion on items of business brought before the membership, subject to the discretion of the Chair or majority vote of the body.

A minor complaint:  This motion, like all the new motions from the Rules Committee, have crap titles.  Couldn’t the motion be titled with some sort of explanation of what they’re trying to do?

Now for the actual meat of the motion.  If you look at the additions to the Constitution, what’s being changed is that two loopholes are being filled.  It appears that when the Constitution was drafted, it was assumed that every registered voter would be a member of a political party.  So if you excluded members of a different political party, then everyone else would be a libertarian.  However, the biggest group of new voters are those with No Party Affiliation (NPA).  Those voters may, or may not, agree with libertarian policy proposals.  Under the existing wording, they could do anything that registered libertarians could do.  I agree that this loophole needed filling.

The other loophole was the question of whether an individual who is not registered to vote could take part in the party roles.  Under the existing text, it wasn’t explicitly stated, although there have been decisions made by the Rules Committee.  The change in the text explicitly requires that party business is limited to registered voters.  I agree that this loophole also needed filling.

So this is an easy “yes” for me.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s