[candidate-development] [adcom] Report of CDLC to State Committee

[Owen Broadhurst]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:55 AM, John Walsh <john.walsh at umassmed.edu>
wrote:

> Well it calls a spade a spade without even naming the principal offender.


Incorrect.

It misrepresents the situation, as you should be well aware.

The one legal opinion received by party members regarding this matter would
be correct.

Only legitimate and declared candidates for party nomination qualify for
placement on any party primary ballot, and a withdrawn candidate is not
entitled to have delegates at the party nominating convention. We cannot
with any credibility contend that commanding ostensible Nader delegates to
cast their ballots for him is in fact representative of what the party's
registrants demand as they were not informed of his not being a candidate,
and were not informed that he shall in no way marshall the votes of
delegates at the convention.

I am informed that the one major factor compelling an assignment of
delegates to the non-existing Nader campaign for party nomination were
concerns that a failure to do so would have been illegal. In point of fact,
elementary research in this area would have revealed how political parties
throughout the Commonwealth reassign delegates of non-candidates.

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Merelice <merelice at gmail.com> wrote:

> Owen,
>
> Since this is the second time you have stated your interpretation, I
> will clarify.


I stand by my contention that a failure to pass a motion rejects the motion.

OB