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

[Owen Broadhurst]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Merelice <merelice at gmail.com> wrote:

> Owen,
>
> Once again you are speaking without the knowledge of having been
> there. The legal opinion to which you refer was NOT sought on behalf
> of the party but on behalf of two individuals who asked questions that
> did not, in fact, include the very questions that Michelle Tassinari,
> legal counsel and Director of the Elections Division, said her Office
> could not address. Further, one opinion rendered by that lawyer was a
> direct contradiction of what Michelle Tassinari did say on a question
> that she could address.


I do not recall ever having said that it was solicited on behalf of the
party. What I do recall is that it was solicited by several officers of the
party, that it does not in fact contradict Tassinari's replies (it helps
clarify them), and that it reflects what I have understood well of election
laws. Ask Michelle about the legality of the Democratic Party plan.


>
>
> Regarding Nader, that lawyer also was not given the GRP's election
> newsletter which announced that two candidates had withdrawn and one
> candidate (Nader) was a draft candidate. GRP-registered voters were,
> in fact, informed of candidates' statuses.



Regardless of how his name came to be placed on our ballot or why -  and
regardless of what voters were or were not told about the failed and futile
draft effort - what now matters are those events that transpired since:
Ralph Nader reiterated his declination of any Green Party nomination, and
his refusal to participate in the nominating convention. The will of his
voters for him to secure the nomination was thwarted therefore by the
non-candidate himself, and his delegates are therefore not in any way
legally bound to vote for him.

>
>
> Regarding what is legal and what is not: Until the GRP changes its own
> Delegate Selection Plan, what is legal for other parties to do is
> irrelevant. Looking to the future, the GRP certainly plans to correct
> the gaps in its plan. But for now, we need to live with what we have.


Laws are not irrelevant.

OB