I too am not a member of the LAA, so just an observer of this saga. It seems like the membership has spoken, and within their right, and duty to do. In light of those who opine that Tracey should no longer be a member of the LAA, I ask myself, does her recent conduct put her in "good standing" as a member? Sure, she's untitled to hold a differing and perhaps unpopular viewpoint, but does there come a point where asserting that differing viewpoint, and allowing a fear of legal action against the association over it, go beyond "good standing"? It is an association, and membership does impose the expectation that each member acts as in the common interest of the association as a whole - to maintain their "good standing".
Edit to add, I'm pleased that the motions were repeated here, I was uncertain of their wording too.