[statecom] Statement from the Nader campaign

[Jim Hammerman]

Hi Merelice,
I tried mightily to get language about "release of delegates" from the 
Nader campaign. They couldn't understand why Mr. Nader's public statements 
and actions didn't already serve that purpose, but also seemed resistant 
to saying anything that they haven't already said.

I do think that the statement I forwarded _is_ significant for another 
reason. If Mr. Nader "is not and has never been a candidate for the 2008 
Green Party nomination" then there is reason to question whether he should 
have been on the ballot in the first place, and certainly whether he 
qualifies to receive delegates according to our plan, as the plan only 
assigns delegates to "candidates" or "no preference". It may be this 
natural interpretation that the Nader folks are assuming we also would 
have that leads them to find repeated calls for specific language about 
"release" to be an annoyance. Perhaps AdCom can discuss these issues of 
implementing the intent of our plan when they get a chance to meet about 
the delegate allocation. 

By the way, Merelice, I also find it troubling that you so blithely 
acknowledge that you went around the agreed upon process because you were 
afraid that there might not be a consensus. While you may have had good 
intentions in acting in this way, we all know that the ends don't justify 
the means. 
-Jim
 



Merelice <merelice at gmail.com> 
Sent by: statecom-bounces at green-rainbow.org
05/21/08 06:46 PM
Please respond to
State Committee Official Business <statecom at green-rainbow.org>


To
"State Committee Official Business" <statecom at green-rainbow.org>
cc

Subject
Re: [statecom] Statement from the Nader campaign






Greetings,

Maybe Mike Richardson can exercise some influence in getting Nader or
someone in the national campaign office to release delegates. I
suggested that once before to Jim Hammerman and would welcome his
continuing his efforts along those lines. Unfortunately, the statement
from Mike Richardson is not sufficient. Here are the facts:

There is no doubt that Nader (and Ball and Brown) is not seeking the
Green Party nomination.

There is no doubt that most of us do not want to send delegates to the
convention to vote for someone who is not seeking the nomination.

There is no doubt that Mass. Law and our current delegate selection
plan compel the party to allocate delegates to those candidates on the
Mass. primary ballot who received enough votes to get delegates. That
fact has been reaffirmed by the legal opinion from the Elections
Division of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

There is no doubt that the candidates who are no longer seeking the
nomination can release the delegates that have been assigned to them.

There is no doubt that the letters that were mailed to the withdrawn
candidates on Monday (before all of AdCom had the opportunity to
approve them) quite firmly encouraged such candidates to release their
delegates and provided a release form and return envelope for them --
or someone authorized within their campaign -- to do so. It was
further explained that simply withdrawing from the race does not meet
the requirements of Mass. state law and our delegate selection plan in
regard to releasing the delegates they earned.

There is no doubt that StateCom consensed on April 12 to amend the
delegate selection plan to release delegates after the first ballot in
the event that the candidates neglected to do so, thereby
acknowledging that possibility.

That is the process that has been followed. At this point the party
can follow up with the candidates and await the results. Or a few
members of the party can challenge state law, the delegate selection
plan, and StateCom's consensus, using the pretense that their
objection is that the co-chairs did not abide by the plan because one
of them mailed the letters too soon -- letters which quite likely
would not have received Adcom's full approval, given previous patterns
of dissent. Then where would the party be and when would the party
ever assemble a convention delegation?

So, yes, Jim. Please help the party move forward by helping us legally
get through the delegate allocation process and then getting the
candidates to release the delegates they received as a result of the
presidential primary.

Thanks,
Merelice



On 5/21/08, Jim Hammerman <jim_hammerman at terc.edu> wrote:
> Dear StateCom,
>  I've spent a substantial amount of time talking with folks at the Nader
>  campaign about Mr. Nader's status in relation to the Green party
>  nomination. They are clear that Mr. Nader's statements in the press 
make
>  very clear his status and don't think further clarification is 
required.
>  I'm attaching the letter I received from Mike Richardson describing the
>  campaign's position on this. I hope this helps us move forward.
>  All the best,
>  Jim Hammerman
>
>  ------
>  Jim!
>
>  As we discussed on the phone, Ralph Nader is not and has never been a
>  candidate for the 2008 Green Party nomination.  Mr. Nader has already
>  announced his decision to not seek the Green nomination in a news 
release
>  earlier this year that you are familiar with.  Here in Massachusetts we
>  are preparing an "unenrolled" petition for an independent ballot line 
in
>  November.  Any Green-Rainbow Party member interested in helping Ralph
>  Nader appear on the Massachusetts ballot may be directed to me for
>  petition circulation information.
>
>  Mike Richardson
>  Ballot Access Coordinator
>  _______________________________________________
>  StateCom mailing list
>  StateCom at green-rainbow.org
>  http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>
_______________________________________________
StateCom mailing list
StateCom at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom