The opinion of the Court posted by Mike Dugger would seem to support the following assessment of Jason Auvenshine:
"As you say, ALP has been ordered by the court to obey the election laws. Every indication I have seen coming from the ALP leadership is that as a result of the judge's ruling they are now going to comply with the law. If that is indeed the case, then in regards to getting the party to obey the law, you have won. _We_ have won. The party is going to obey the law. This is a major change in the ALP position and negates ALP, Inc.'s original reason for forming.
"On the other hand, ALP has clearly been named "the official body recognized to act on behalf of the Libertarian Party in Arizona." Yet rather than recognize this, claim a policy victory, merge ALP, Inc. with ALP under condition that ALP obeys the law and thus end the dispute, you have chosen to send the above message proclaiming ALP, Inc.'s officers as the "true and correct" officers of the Libertarian Party in Arizona. This appears to be an attempt to deny the side of the case that ALP won. You have often chided the ALP leadership for their unwillingness to make reasonable compromises. Yet in this matter ALP has made significant movement and ALP, Inc. has made none. ALP appears to be moving in the direction of compliance with the judge's ruling, and ALP, Inc. appears to be moving away from compliance with the judge's ruling."
What I still find puzzling, however, is that Ernie has always claimed that the point of these lawsuits, from his point of view, was to obtain a judicial determination that the ALP did not have to follow the election laws. Now, at least according to Mr. Aversive, the ALP has done an 180 degree about face and is more than willing to follow those laws. Anyone know what the explanation is for this?
CJB