[External Relations] Re: [statecom] CC Position statement on
attempts byNader/Camejocampaign's supporters to usurp
David Rolde
davidrolde at comcast.net
Tue Oct 5 17:09:40 EDT 2004
I don't know how possible it would be for the GPUS to successfully
put Cobb/LaMarche on the ballot in Utah and Vermont. But I support
the attempt. I believe that the affront to the autonomy of state
parties is tempered by two factors.
First, and most important, is the fact that there is no presidential
candidate on the Vermont and Utah GP ballot lines at this time. It is
not a case of there being another ticket on these ballot lines who
would be kicked off the ballot if Cobb/LaMarche were added. Adding
Cobb/LaMarche would only give voters in these states an additional
choice. It would not take away a choice. And the state GPs there and
their members could continue to support and endorse any candidate
they like. The electoral system in the USA of having candidates for
national office placed on ballots on a state-by-state basis is a
fucked-up system. It would be one thing if a state party used their
ballot line to give ballot access to a different candidate that they
prefer. But to use their ballot line simply to deny ballot access to
a candidate is a less defensible act that could be seen as an
irresponsible use of this legal resource.
Second, the processes by which the GP ballot lines in Vermont and
Utah were left empty are not considered to be legitimate by some
members of the Vermont and Utah GPs. (Aimee described the Utah
process in her email quoted below. Regarding Vermont, I have read
allegations that there was a vote at a meeting to put Cobb/LaMarche
on the ballot, but then after the Cobb supporters left, there was a
second vote to deny the ballot line to Cobb/LaMarche.) Legal help by
the GPUS to try to put Cobb/LaMarche on the ballot in these states
could be seen as an attempt by the GPUS to help these state parties,
or members therein, rectify an unjust situation, i.e., legal help by
the GPUS to obtain ballot access for Cobb/LaMarche would not
necessarily be viewed negatively by the state parties in question.
Given these two factors, I believe the GPUS should attempt this
maneuver and let the state parties complain afterwards if they want,
and sort out the propriety after the election. Again there would be
no real harm of another candidate kicked off the ballot. And we don't
know for sure that this GPUS action would be unwelcome by the state
parties.
On the other question, I am opposed to forcibly disaffiliating the
Utah and/or Vermont GPs. This party operates by consensus not by
democratic centralism. There will rarely be a candidate who will
please everyone in the party. Party members and local and state
chapters should be free to oppose candidates whom they can't abide.
One of the basic characteristics of the Green Party is that GP
members tend to be here because we don't want to support bad
candidates, we don't want to be always trying to choose the least
awful candidate from among the choices handed to us, we are looking
for alternatives. It is un-Green to expect all GP members to always
support every nominated candidate. David Cobb or any other Green
candidate should appeal to GP members on his merits not through a
centralized command process and threats of disafilliation. The
Vermont and Utah GPs did not make any explicit formal decision to
disafilliate from the GPUS. It is not right to view their failure to
place Cobb/LaMarche on the ballot as a declaration of intent to
disafilliate.
- David
At 11:21 PM -0400 10/3/04, Aimee Smith wrote:
>I am very tired out by the process that got us to this resolution
>on the national list, but I will try to recap.
>
>CA almost didn't agree to put Cobb on the ballot, but fortunately did.
>
>UT had a renegade officer put Nader on the ballot, resulting in an
>emergency state convention, getting Nader's name withdrawn and
>resulting in no name on the UT ballot. It seems the UT case was
>partly a lack of understanding of consensus process and partly
>a few bad actors. If that is the case, should the rest of the state
>party be seperated from the GPUS? I thought not, but curious
>what folks think. In any case, the national cc email list had people
>expressing the sentiment that UT should not be dissafiliated.
>
>VT reps to the cc used this as a way to say, "seeUT, we to can choose
>to NOT put Cobb on our ballot line and not risk losing our GPUS
>affiliation."
>
>This was percieved by some as bad-faith, lack of adherence to the spirit
>of the "support national candidates" part of the affilitation agreement, and
>actually a way of undermining the decision of the convention. I personally
>wrote that they should be responsible and either put Cobb on the ballot
>or self-disaffiliate and do their own thing if they couldn't abide Cobb on
>their ballot. They did not have the decency to take one of these options.
>Instead, they insist on their "right" to not put Cobb and remain in the GPUS
>because the term "support" is "legally" vague, "support" could simply mean
>vote to "endorse" the candidate, which VT did in their meeting. (They voted
>to endorse both Cobb and Nader tickets.)
>
>So, then the legal scholars went back and forth. I tried to point out the
>"spirit" part of agreement and that we don't want to be a party of laws
>and lawyers, but one of mutual respect, etc. But that fell on deaf ears
>in the VT delegation.
>
>So, in light of all this, people feel the term "support" in "support
>national
>candidates" needs to be spelled out clearly to close the "loophole"
>as it were, thus taking us down the legalism path, but to at least see that
>it can't be repeated by state parties who lack good faith in 2008. And
>put national candidates on ballot where legally possible means where
>states have ballot lines - i.e. to not penalize states who have no
>ballot line to give.
>
>Anyhow, so that is some background. If anyone has input, let those
>of us on the national know.
>
>Sincerely,
>Aimee
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Owen Broadhurst" <thersites2467 at hotmail.com>
>To: <statecom at green-rainbow.org>; <outreach at green-rainbow.org>;
><mikeh.massed at rcn.com>
>Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 1:20 PM
>Subject: Re: [statecom] CC Position statement on attempts
>byNader/Camejocampaign's supporters to usurp
>
>
>> I thank Mike Heichman for his post, and actually find that I concur with
>> quite frankly most of what Mike has to say here. Where state parties have
> > declined to be supportive of the Cobb campaign, in allowing David Cobb to
>> fielded by their state party, support for that position was often won on
>the
>> basis of a misinformation campaign- a campaign that distorted, amplified
>and
>> abused central issues that I, Mike and others raised about the convention
>> while adding in fabrications, omissions and bile all for good measure. The
>> word "steal" is not an inappropriate depiction of the fruits of this
>> campaign.
>>
>> I do not object to the motion's language urging the Nader/ Camejo campaign
>> to please keep its hands off Green Party ballot lines. I believe it is
>> appropriate for the GPUS to vociferously protest a competing candidate's
>> interference in internal party matters. What I found objectionable is the
>> following obliquely formulated policy- never ratified by the GPUS CC- that
>I
>> believe lays a foundation for centralized national control over state
>party
>> ballot lines:
>>
>> "We therefore call on Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo to publicly support the
>> right of the Green Party of the United States to place the Cobb/LaMarche
>> ticket on state Green Party ballots wherever that is legally possible."
>>
>> This one sentence contains language that, if ratified, effectively would
>> implement new policy that no national Green organization of state parties
>> ever had attempted implementation of before. While the language is
>contained
>> within, and is borne of, a legitimate protest of Nader/ Camejo campaign
>> tactics- this particular sentence asserts a newly created national party
>> right to compel within any state placement of the national nominating
>> convention candidate through legal means. I see the phrase "legally
> > possible" (and my own phrase, "through legal means") as a reference to
>> possible lobbying of any state's Secretary of State or Board of Elections-
>> or, more frighteningly, possible litigation- to literally remove control
>> over state ballot lines from state parties where national candidates are
>> concerned, regardless of how state party membership might actually feel.
>>
>> Such a hijacking of what I construe to be state party property seems, at
>> least to me, to be direct contravention of party Decentralization and an
>> affront to Grassroots Democracy. While I should certainly hope that a
>state
>> party would indeed adhere to that party's affiliation agreement, I do
>> believe that continued adherance is a decision for that state party's
>> grassroots rank and file to make.
>>
>> This is actually not a motion that could impact internal state party
>> decisions within the GRP. State election laws in Massachusetts are clear
>> having assigned responsibility for who may be fielded on our presidential
>> ballot line squarely with the one state recognized state party co-chair.
>> However, this state party routinely directs its one state recognized state
>> party co-chair- via state committee meeting or state convention- with
>> regards to this. It was OUR decision to field David Cobb, and it was an
>> internal decision arrived at democratically. This was, is, and must remain
>> our prerogative in accordance with relevant GRP bylaws that ensure GRP
>> structural autonomy.
>>
>> Within those few states where state election laws might well permit a
>> national organization whose decision making authorities tend to be both
>very
>> far removed from, and rarely beholden to, state party membership, however,
>> the new policy's implementation actually threatens autonomy.
>>
>> My belief that the motion, with noted sentence included, would threaten
>> autonomy has its foundation in my fears over how the phrase "right of the
>> Green Party of the United States to place the Cobb/LaMarche ticket on
>state
>> Green Party ballots wherever that is legally possible" may by the national
>> Steering Committee be construed in future years. Were the motion passed
>with
>> this language included, it is my belief that a new policy would then be in
>> force allowing the GPUS as a national body power to contest state party
>> ballot decisions even through litigation.
>>
>> I percieve the GPUS as I percieved its ASGP predecessor, the national
> > confederation of autonomous state parties acting cooperatively however
>> decentralized in its decision making. The GRP has itself long been
>steadfast
>> in the defense of its own autonomy. We can see this in our party bylaws:
>>
>> 1.1 The Green-Rainbow Party is an autonomous independent political party
>> sharing kinship
>> with other Green Parties and Green organizations in the USA, through our
>> common
>> adherence to the Ten Key Values (See Articles 2 and 16). The Green-Rainbow
>> Party also
>> shares common goals and values with other Green Parties and Green
>> organizations
>> around the world.
>>
>> 12.1 The Green-Rainbow Party may nominate or endorse candidates for local,
>> regional, state,
>> and national offices.
>>
>> 12.5 No candidate will be nominated or endorsed by the Green-Rainbow Party
>> if the
>> nomination or endorsement is opposed by any affiliated Green-Rainbow Local
>> in that
>> candidate's electoral district and that engages in electoral activity.
>>
>> 12.9 State conventions or an affiliated Green-Rainbow Local may endorse
>> independent
>> candidates who support the Ten Key Values and who generally endorse the
>> state
>> platform.
>>
>> 13.2 The Green-Rainbow Party will seek and maintain statewide ballot
>access
>> as allowed by
>> state law. This will include, but is not limited to, running candidates
>for
>> local, regional,
>> state, and federal offices in order to gain and retain ballot access. The
>> Green-Rainbow
>> Party will also reserve the right to exercise legal action (i.e. lawsuits,
>> amica curiae, etc.)
>> as necessary where ballot access or electoral laws are determined to be
>> unduly restrictive
>> or not in accordance with democratic principles.
> >
>> 14.3 Decisions and rules of the USGP, other Green state parties, or any
>> other Green
>> organizations will in no way be considered binding upon the Green-Rainbow
>> Party.
>>
>> ==========
>>
>> With Mike's discomfort over the prospect of dis-affiliating recalcitrant
>> parties in dissent regarding the national nominating convention candidate,
>I
>> can certainly sympathise. I certainly do believe that the GPUS and its
>> affiliates cannot afford to be vengeful, and I certainly do believe that
>> Nader/ Camejo campaign supporters should continue to be welcomed and
>valued
>> within our parties. I do not view disaffiliation as a punitive measure,
>but
>> mere recognition of circumstances that already have occurred.
>> The national party has as its raison d'etre the nomination of a national
>> candidate, and state parties affiliate with this national party for the
>> purpose of fielding that candidate. A state party that chooses to field a
>> different candidate is a state party that has already chosen to decline
>> participation in the national party's raison d'etre. Such a party's
>> continued affiliation serves that party no useful purpose, and the
>national
>> party's decision to never contest such a party's affiliation serves only
>to
>> render national nominating convention candidacies mere suggestions,
>> endorsements, simple advice. I clearly treasure state party continued
>> autonomy- but while a state party's decision to withhold its ballot line
>> from the national nominating convention candidate should be respected,
>said
>> decision should- in my humble opinion- be viewed as state party
>repudiation
>> of affiliation.
>>
>> =======
>>
>> Again, please know that I by no means am attempting to dictate any course
>of
>> action regarding any motion to the GRP's GPUS CC representatives. I trust
>> their wisdom in coming to considered decisions that might not, need not,
>and
>> ought not reflect only my own point of view. Said CC representatives shall
>> undoubtedly consider during their deliberations not only my concerns, but
>> also Mike's remarks, and any viewpoints heard by them- and be guided
>> ultimately by their very own conscience and sense of how to best serve our
>> party. My viewpoint is a necessarily biased viewpoint that is also
>> necessarily limited in scope, as is true for the viewpoints of any one
>> individual.
>>
>> Sincerely yours,
>> Owen R. Broadhurst
>>
>> ----Original Message Follows----
> > From: Mike Heichman <mikeh.massed at rcn.com>
>> Subject: Re: [statecom] CC Position statement on attempts by
>> Nader/Camejocampaign's supporters to usurp
>> Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:46:47 -0400
>>
>>
>> Hi Owen (and everyone else):
>>
>> It has been clear that the progressive movement has been seriously divided
>> over the presidential election of 2004. It is also clear to us that the
>GPUS
>> has also been seriously divided; the national convention is a reflection
>of
>> those divisions.
>>
>> I believe that it is very important to stand for principle, and at the
>same
>> time to respect that others may be arguing for other principles.
>> Additionally, this has been a very emotional and scary time; many people,
>> including our comrades, are acting out of fear and with other negative
>> factors.
>>
>> What role should the GRP play? I believe that we have been playing a very
>> positive role. Recognizing our limited numbers and resources, we have
>> attempted to have a good process with good discussions. I believe that we
>> also played a very positive role in Milwaukee.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Cobb was not my choice in Milwaukee and I have had major problems with his
>> "strategy". However, despite the major problems in Milwaukee, I recognize
>> that he is the party's choice. Since the convention, more often than not,
>I
>> am very happy and pleased with the direction of the campaign. Cobb is the
>> candidate of our state party and he is my candidate too.
>>
>> I believe that the GPUS has taken a principled stand in support of the
>> rights of Nader/Camejo to be on the ballot; I believe that we have done
>the
>> same in this state (Is this true? Have we issued a statement?).
> >
>> On the other hand, I believe that the Nader/Camejo forces since the
>> convention have NOT behaved in the same principled way. Despite the flaws
>in
>> Milwaukee, which they have a right to be angry about, they made their
>choice
>> and did not get the result that they were seeking in Milwaukee. They have
>> also discovered that it has been much harder than they believed to get
>> ballot lines; I feel compassionate about their pain and righteous anger.
>> However, the GPUS is NOT responsible for this situation!
>>
>> I believe that Nader/Camejo and their forces have been behaving in an
>> unprincipled manner to STEAL "our" ballot lines. I say "our" lines because
>I
>> believe that the question of "ownership" is layered. Our line in MA, as
>well
>> as the other states, is a results of our own efforts in COLLABORATION with
>> the national party. Additionally, I believe that Nader/Camejo are
>complicit
>> in this effort to STEAL our ballot lines. As many of you know, I was a
>close
>> supporter of Kent Mesplay in Milwaukee. In that capacity, I witnessed the
>> pain and anger of Camejo; it was clear that he believed that the
>nomination
>> of Cobb was not legitimate ("legitimate" is my word).
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> I support the resolution. I believe that it is a fair representation of
>how
>> we are experiencing these developments. I believe that it is very moderate
>> in that it is not condemning Nader/Camejo; instead it is informing them
>and
>> asking them to correct the situation. The national party has a right to
>> defend itself. Additionally, to the extent that the Nader/Camejo forces
>are
>> successful in STEALING our lines, they weaken our national party and our
>> state parties as well (Part of our strength comes from our connection to
>the
>> national party.).
>>
>> For me, this is not an issue of grassroots democracy. This resolution does
>> not take away the right of a state party to defy the national party. This
>> resolution is aimed at the efforts of forces outside our party who are
>> attacking us.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Additionally, Owen says that "Green" states that nominate Nader/Camejo
>> should be disaffiliated. I disagree. On November 3, the sun will rise. It
>is
>> my hope that the GRP will play a constructive role in this state and
>> nationally, to try to repair the damage done and to rebuild our party and
> > the progressive movement. We cannot afford to be revengeful, even if we
>> believe that we are acting out of principles.
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>> Mike Heichman
>> 617-265-8143
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> StateCom mailing list
>> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>
>_______________________________________________
>outreach mailing list
>outreach at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/outreach
More information about the outreach
mailing list