[statecom] Statement from the Nader campaign

[Yarden]

Jim,

Again by way of information, the Nader campaign was made aware of the  
needs of the GRP, when the notices informing the candidates of our  
requirement that they tell us whether or not they wished to appoint  
the delegates allocated to them as pledged delegates.  I am not sure  
whether you are again referring to Mr. Richardson in the field, who  
can only respond with the authority that he has.  Within the Nader  
campaign the matter of release of delegates nationally is likely to be  
of greater concern, again because as of last reading there are 117  
delegates to the convention already pledged to him.  I doubt very much  
that the floor rules of the convention will permit of a non-candidate  
to direct his pledged delegates to vote for another candidate.  But  
one never knows.  I suspect that he will not release his pledged  
delegates without consulting with the California party first.
Elie Yarden,
CDLC

On May 21, 2008, at 7:57 PM, Jim Hammerman wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom