[candidate-development] It's OUR issue, too! Re: GRACE'S ISSUE?-------- DON'T YOU WISH!!!

[Merelice]

On 5/8/08, Jim Hammerman <jim_hammerman at terc.edu> wrote:
>
> .....At
> the same time, I don't understand how the "majority" can continue to insist
> that Nader and Ball and Brown can possibly be considered candidates who
> should be assigned delegates to receive the Green Party nomination for
> President this year given that they've dropped out, announced they are
> running independently, and/ or have left the party.

May I respectfully point out that the majority, in fact, accepted an
initial calculation that interpreted a candidate's withdrawal as being
akin to "releasing" their delegates. In that proposed calculation, the
"released" delegates were made uncommitted (which in itself was
considered controversial by a small few). That calculation was
"conditionally" approved by AdCom, the condition being that we
expected to hear from the Elections Division of the Office of the
Secretary of the Commonwealth regarding what would or would not be a
legal way to proceed in a circumstance that our Delegate Selection
Plan had not anticipated.

We had specifically asked Michelle Tassinari, head of the Elections
Division, whether we were still compelled to assign delegates to
candidates who had left the race. Her answer, after quoting relevant
Mass. General Laws and our delegate selection plan was: "Accordingly,
it appears that the answer is yes." So the "insisting" is not coming
from the majority.

We also asked whether those delegates were still required to vote for
the candidate on the first ballot or whether the candidate's own
public withdrawal constituted release. Again quoting from the Mass.
General Laws, she said the delegates had to vote for the candidates on
the first ballot unless released by such candidates.

We further asked whether we could tell the candidates that their
delegates were conditional on their seeking the Green Party
presidential nomination. She said, "This is seeking legal advice that
this Office cannot provide."

Bottom line: The Elections Division made it clear and not subject to
interpretation that delegates have to be assigned to the candidates
per the results of the primary vote and that said delegates belong to
their candidates and have to vote on the first ballot for those
candidates unless released by the candidates. That is our ONLY
recourse -- getting the candidates to formally release their
delegates. The candidates are in charge of their delegates.

As a consequence, AdCom asked CDLC to re-do the initial calculation,
based on Tassinari's letter. In fact, I explained this at the State
Committee meeting. I realize this is a complex issue that is hard to
absorb even after repetition. So I trust you can understand how
frustrating it can be to have people say things about the majority
that are simply not true but have to be denied over and over again
because the untruths keep getting spread and repeated. It is so
tiresome!

>
> I've been speaking with folks in the Nader campaign about this to try to
> clarify things and they, too, insist that Nader is "not seeking the Green
> Party nomination" and that his press releases make that very clear.

If you know anyone who can get Nader to directly release his delegates
when he is notified by the GRP that he has them, that would be an
enormous help.

Perhaps you could also help spread the facts as stated above. The fact
is, there is not a "minority" and a "majority" on the subject of the
delegate allocation. Most GRP members I know would prefer NOT to
require delegates to vote for a candidate who is no longer seeking the
Green Party nomination. At this point, however, the simple choice is
to proceed legally or illegally. If the facts were understood, I trust
most members would favor proceeding legally. And that is exactly what
the StateCom consensus was about.

Merelice