[statecom-discuss] Facing some hard truths about our party

Tue May 8 21:48:31 EDT 2007

Hi Betty,

Sorry I didn't address your point of concern directly.

In fact, there is no simple answer—you have to look at the individual city or town to find out. You have to get hold of your town charter to see whether it allows binding initiative and referendum and if so, what the exact rules are. From what I could find out doing some of the research for the charts, the decisive thing isn't whether it's a city or a town, there is as much variance among cities and towns as there is between cities and towns.

Even if your town charter doesn't allow binding initiative questions on the ballot, that doesn't stop you having an advisory ballot question under the STATE law. The Motor Voter problem may still affect how many signatures you will have to gather, but the one-third-of-the-registered-voters rule isn't meaningful on an advisory question, anyway. 

B.T.W., do you know about the bill before the State legislature this year to have same-day registration in Massachusetts? This should solve the Motor Voter problem at a stroke: the six states which do NOT have the Motor Voter law are the same ones that already have same-day voter registration—N.H. is one of them. MASSVOTE has called for a concerted Beacon Hill lobbying effort for this bill Thursday the 10th 9 AM to 12 noon. The GRP has endorsed it I believe; Grace put it into the AdCom process last week and there were no concerns....

-----Original Message-----
>From: "Betty H. Zisk" <zisk at bu.edu>
>Sent: May 8, 2007 11:17 AM
>To: BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net>, Discussion List for StateCom members <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
>Subject: RE: [statecom-discuss] Facing some hard truths about our party
>
>Bill: Thanks so much for your referring me to the Bridge site and espec the rather discouraging feature on Motor Voter law. (I also took the time to browse further. It is a very informative effort.) I STILL didnt get the information I was after--perhaps it doesnt matter but I think it possbly does. Put in the most moronically simplistic terms, last time I looked (a long time ago) Massachsetts distinguishes between the legal categories of "cities" and "towns" with only a handful being granted "city" status and the rest of us falling into the "town" category. Cambridge, Somerville, Worchester etc are all cities; most of us poor slobs who live in the burbs (Burlington and Lexington and Concord and all the towns where I do most of my pol campaigns) are in towns. That matters most of all in the freedom granted by the Commonwealth on particular form of govt; it also matters I think (but I do not KNOW and this is what I am asking) on freedom to mount a petitition campaign--I am not at ALL SURE that Burlington or Lexington can do what Somerville or Cambridge can do in that respect. Thus I am not sure whether strategy of petition and balloting (even on advisory questions) would work at the Town Level as it has in Somerville. Your references to "municiple" level of elections thus dont enlighten me. Yes I know that very successful trial baloons (most notable being nuc freeze issue back in early 80s) have been launched at level of state or county districts and I applaud that as a local effort to get attention even at natl level. Though Randall Forsberg and AFSC offices in Western Mass had to build a major pol effort before they were able to do that--and it was not only well organized but reasonably well funded. 
>
>I am repeating myself: I ask not from idle curiosity but because I for one want to consider the Somerville example seriously as well move along in discussions about strategic choices. But if the "towns" have barriers to that very timeconsuming process, which someville doesnt have, I want to know that and neither you nor Ron have enlightened me. This is a strategic question and a well intended one. I hope very much that you can guide me. Or at least pt out the route I can take. Betts
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org
>[mailto:statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org]On Behalf Of
>BillCunningham
>Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 9:18 AM
>To: Discussion List for StateCom members; Discussion List for StateCom
>members
>Subject: RE: [statecom-discuss] Facing some hard truths about our party
>
>
>Hi Betts and everyone,
>
>In considering local initiative and referendum strategy, everyone should be aware of an obstacle that arises from the operation of the so-called "motor voter" registration reform passed in the early 1990s. This obstacle holds strongly for municipal ballot questions. It has hardly any impact on advisory questions in State Rep or Senate districts.   
>
>Here is the link for a Bridge article that explains the obstacle:
>
>http://bridgenews.org/news/072004/motorvotertrouble/view?searchterm=motor%20voter
>
>This is a report we produced to show how Motor Voter has impacted municipal registration around the Commonwealth: 
>
>http://bridgenews.org/background/votercharts.pdf
>
>The Somerville experience is with BOTH municipal and State Rep advisory ballot questions. When we discuss local electoral strategy, sometimes we mean municipal and sometimes we mean State legislative districts. 
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: "Betty H. Zisk" <zisk at bu.edu>
>>Sent: May 8, 2007 12:53 AM
>>To: Discussion List for StateCom members <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
>>Subject: RE: [statecom-discuss] Facing some hard truths about our party
>>
>>Ron, your analysis of weaknesses of GRP was brilliant (though I disagree  in
>>part with your pessimism)--but I for one genuinely seek more detailed
>>information from you on what has been in the past one of your preferred
>>strategies==the town referenda idea because if you are right about your
>>facts I think it might become one of the strategic working group's key
>>strategies. (And I dont think SWG in any sense moves in a preordained mode:
>>we are open to any and all ideas right now as I understand it.) But I want
>>to ask seriously if this referenda idea can apply right now to areas that
>>dont (like Somerville) have the "city" status. I am something of an expert
>>on statewide ballot issues and even on trial balloons in county efforts like
>>the nuclear freeze issue in the past, but I dont know anything about the
>>signature collection process or the exact ballot status at city or town
>>level, and more important, given the wide disparity of status between "city"
>>and "town" in Mass., I really want to know this. (Both as a GRP task force
>>member and as a teacher.) I think this was probably part of what Eli had in
>>mind when he wrote to you (and I am riding on just a part of your message; I
>>deleted the most recent exchange between you and Eli by mistake.) IF the
>>city AND TOWN referenda idea is practical and feasible in terms of # of
>>signatures I want to know it. I happen to live in a town (Burlington)--does
>>your preferred strategy apply to me or not? Many of us live in towns. I dont
>>know the exact history here (having avoided it in past) but I THINK we are
>>very much more a hapless tool of the state than you are.
>>
>>One constant theme of yesterday's very preliminary hearings--to which I paid
>>very close attention--was the plea for a focus on local contests and local
>>issues. I/we very much value your input here--and I think Eli does too. If
>>you feel your preferred strategies have been neglected I sympathize with
>>you. (So have mine in most of the past twenty years.) But I think we badly
>>want to correct that notion. That is why I for one have returned to GRP
>>activism; I want to make a fresh start and this process (cumbersome and
>>boring as it is) is so important. We urgently need input from you--as a very
>>wise and very candid person. No game playing or name calling. PLEASE answer
>>just a few of my questions. (Believe it or not at BU we dont have research
>>assistants unless we have a grant which I dont as someone about to retire.
>>But if you cant answer this because you dont know legal difference between
>>towns and cities, please tell me and I will try to discover it for myself. I
>>suspect you must have done a lot of research on this pt.) With respect,
>>Betts
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org
>>[mailto:statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org]On Behalf Of Ron
>>Francis
>>Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 5:50 PM
>>To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Facing some hard truths about our party
>>
>>
>>As to being in the collective process:
>>
>>You said:
>>
>>"Part of the collective process is hearing from members across the
>>state, including you. Yesterday's "hearing" went quite well in that
>>regard"
>>
>>SPWG has already heard from me in detailed written form about the
>>fundamental problems facing our party  and so the process has already
>>included me (I am indeed part of the collective process) and I would have
>>come in person except for a potluck involving local organizing which will
>>always be a priority for me.
>>
>>I don't think the SPWG wants specific plans at this point; it seems like the
>>group wants principles and ideas which I have already put forward for
>>months, including my last email,... and so that it what I mean by not
>>putting forward a specific plan - it would pre-empt the process.  (THE SPWG
>>process needs to consider the root causes of our problem, and once that is
>>understood move forward with a plan).   And anyhow, if it is a specific plan
>>that is desired, then I have already put out such plans, again in detailed
>>written form and thus I am part of the collective process.
>>
>>To summarize, I have provided a set a principles for thinking about our
>>root-cause problems, and I have ALSO submitted a detailed plan to solve the
>>problems.  I am happy to resend these materials.
>>
>>As for number 2)
>>
>>You said:
>>
>>"Isn't your proposal about local referenda with a possible focus on
>> an abolish-poverty issue a suggested plan for going forward? Shouldn't
>> you want the SPWG to put that in the mix among its considerations?"
>>
>>If the SPWG is interested in specific proposals based on the fundamental
>>ideas that I have put forward (including both the Common Local Ballot
>>Question Initiative and the Local Organizing Initiative), then the group is
>>free to advocate for or discuss those kinds of proposals and similar ones.
>>
>>These specific proposals (CLBQ adn LOI) are already in the mix...in detailed
>>written form.   They have even been submitted with timelines, rationale and
>>even mailed out in physical form to many members....  So I'm confused to
>>hear a suggestion that they are not in the mix.  In fact they are well in
>>the mix as is the ideas that Mike H. sent out the other day.  (I asked Eli
>>to make the CLBQ and LOI materials available to SPWG, as well as other more
>>root-cause analysis and I assume that he did)
>>
>>Merelice <merelice at gmail.com> wrote: On 5/6/07, Ron Francis  wrote:
>>> Hello Betz,
>>>
>>> I don't want to suggest any plan for going forward since I prefer that the
>>Strategic Planning Working Group use a collective process.
>>>
>>Hi Ron,
>>
>>Your response is confusing on two counts:
>>1 - Part of the collective process is hearing from members across the
>>state, including you. Yesterday's "hearing" went quite well in that
>>regard.
>>
>>2 - Isn't your proposal about local referenda with a possible focus on
>>an abolish-poverty issue a suggested plan for going forward? Shouldn't
>>you want the SPWG to put that in the mix among its considerations?
>>
>>Merelice
>>_______________________________________________
>>statecom-discuss mailing list
>>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>statecom-discuss mailing list
>>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>statecom-discuss mailing list
>>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>
>Bill Cunningham
>_______________________________________________
>statecom-discuss mailing list
>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>

Bill Cunningham