Membership eligibility issue

[Annabelle Backman]

Hello Bylaws Committee,

We need to come to a decision on what to do regarding the membership eligibility question. As it currently stands, the committee recommendation removes the "registered voter" membership requirement, which in theory could allow foreign nationals to try to join, however we legally cannot accept membership dues from them.

We have several options, and I'd like committee members to share how they feel about them.

A. Do Nothing

The simplest thing would be for us to make no further changes and stick with the current recommendation. This is also the default course we will go if we do not vote to adopt any other amendment. Bear in mind that "do nothing" does not mean "stick with current bylaws," it means "stick with current recommendation" as described above.

B. Revert to Current Bylaws

Arguably the "safest" option, we could return 2.1(a) and 2.2(b) to what they are in the currently adopted bylaws. This would mean voting members would again have to be registered voters (or 16-18 years old).

C. Revert but Allow All "Soon to be Eligible"

The current bylaws limit the "eligible within two years" provision to those under voting age. So they allow a 16 year-old US citizen to join, but not a felon who has six months left on their parole sentence. We could revert 2.1(a) and 2.2(b) but strike "is under voting age" from 2.1(a) so that the "eligible within two years" provision covers more cases. The upside is this is a small step in opening up membership. The downside is it may not be easy to tell if someone is eligible within two years.

D. Add "Not a Foreign National" Clause

We could add to the current recommendation a clause that explicitly prohibits foreign nationals from becoming members. This is basically my proposal from yesterday, minus the addition to Article 11. This keeps us closest to the intent behind the current recommendation, without introducing the risk of accidentally accepting membership dues from foreign nationals. The downside is the definition of "foreign national" is nontrivial.

E. Add "Is a US Citizen" Clause

This is the same as D, but explicitly require US Citizenship instead of explicitly prohibiting foreign nationals. This excludes some people that I think we legally could accept dues from, but it draws that line at a place that people are more familiar with and more likely to understand.

I am not calling for a vote at this time, but please respond with your thoughts on each of these. Which do you prefer, which could you live with, which ones are non-starters, etc.

–

Annabelle Backman

Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats

https://www.43rddemocrats.org/

[Tara Gallagher]

I would like C. I don’t recall the language changing to include only those too young, and this seems to open the furthest while acknowledging that we are a party organization dedicated to registering, educating and activating voters.

Tara

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "43rd District Democrats Rules and Bylaws Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 43rd-bylaws...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 43rd-...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CABRLSOtJXA_CAN6yKVq52qcEUqDKwMEA6d-CA6RU2mp1WB%3Dyfg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Scott Alspach]

I'd be most in favor of option F:

F. Add "Is a United States citizen or permanent resident" clause

This includes everyone who could legally become a member of our organization and provides clear guidance that foreign nationals are not allowed.

We have not been checking to see if people are registered to vote when they become members.  It seems the best way to protect us legally in these cases is to have people check a box on the membership signup.  I believe the "US Citizen or Permanent Resident" box is already there for many political donations, and it seems like it'd be pretty simple to add to our signup page.

We are going to be quite time limited Tuesday night, so I hope we can either come up with a proposal that works for all of us to take to PCOs or present the PCOs with a couple of defined options to choose from.  

I would be ok with:
F - I think it both expands membership as much as possible and protects us legally
E - I prefer F, but E would be acceptable to me
C - It seems strictly better than B. My least favorite because I don't think it is feasible to implement and makes for a weird question: "Are you a registered voter or will you be eligible to vote within 2 years?"

I would not support:
A - I think the current proposal lays a trap for the organization to fall into as discussed.
B - Let's just do C instead.
D - I think defining Foreign National is difficult, would rather go with explicitly allowing citizens and permanent residents.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/9B05544F-A552-40C6-84EB-AC23006AED94%40tara-jamie.net.

[Annabelle Backman]

I believe permanent residents are still foreign nationals, so we would not be able to accept dues from them. This is why I stopped at US Citizen in E. It's a nice, clear line that is easy to understand.

–

Annabelle Backman

Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats

https://www.43rddemocrats.org/

[Scott Alspach]

According to the FEC Green Card Holders (permanent residents) are exempted from the act.  (I am not a lawyer)

https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

[Annabelle Backman]

Okay. Re-reading 52 U.S.C. § 30121 I think I understand how that works out. In any case if the FEC is saying they're not foreign nationals then I'm less worried about it.

–

Annabelle Backman

Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats

https://www.43rddemocrats.org/