[statecom] [adcom] From the Co-Chairs Re: Legal Opinion

[Merelice]

On 5/26/08, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com <Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com> wrote:

> The lawyer ... was asked because we clearly needed a legal opinion.   Merelice had
>  suggested such in an email to adcom right after we got Tassinari's letter.

This is at least the second time that Grace has incorrectly described
this action. I did not suggest; I asked, and I did so soon enough to
bring the matter to the April 12 StateCom if that had been AdCom's
wish. There was not a timely response. Further, my question was
specifically about the items that Tassinari said her office could not
address -- which related only to releasing delegates, not assigning
them. The communication to which Grace refers is below:

Greetings,

Below is the response from Michelle Tassinari, legal counsel and
director of the Elections Division, regarding the delegate selection
plan for the Green Party's presidential nominating convention.

As I see it, it raises three questions for CDLC to consider and make
its recommendation:

1 - Can the national party provide clarification on the questions that
Ms. Tassinari suggests we consult with them on?

2 - Should we ask legal counsel to advise us regarding the legality of
proceeding as CDLC has recommended (see question four and the
subsequent paragraph)?

3 - Can we (by national party rules) and should we add a paragraph to
our current delegate selection plan to allow CDLC's recommendation of
how to handle candidates no longer seeking the Green Party's
nomination? This could be presented to the April 12 StateCom meeting
and then filed with the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

The co-chairs and adcom look forward to hearing CDLC's suggested next steps.

Merelice


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tassinari, Michelle (SEC) <Michelle.Tassinari at state.ma.us>
Date: Apr 4, 2008 2:09 PM
Subject: RE: presidential delegate selection process
To: Merelice <merelice at gmail.com>
Cc: Dave England <dvengland at aol.com>, Jill Stein <jstein at massmed.org>,
Nat Fortune <nat.fortune at comcast.net>


Dear Merelice:

 I am writing in response to your e-mail in which you seek the opinion of
 this office as to application of the Green-Rainbow Party's delegate
 selection plans.  First, please note that many of the issues raised in
 your original e-mail and subsequent e-mails seek legal advice that this
 Office cannot provide.  I strongly suggest that you contact a private
 attorney and/or counsel for your national party.

 You indicate that three (3) candidates in the Green-Rainbow Party
 primary are no longer seeking the party's nomination.  Your delegate
 selection plans do not address this issue specifically, but do provide
 some guidance.

 I will answer your questions in the order presented:


 1.      In your opinion, does our plan, or Massachusetts General Law,
 compel our party to assign delegates to candidates who won them in the
 primary even though they have left the race for nomination as the Green
 Party presidential candidate, either by dropping out or by announcing
 they intend to run as an independent?


As you are aware, certain statutes govern delegates to a national
 convention.  Massachusetts General Laws chapter 53, section 70I states
 that "[i]f there is a roll call vote for president at the national
 convention or a political party, all delegates and alternate delegates
 whose selection is subject by party rule to the approval of a
 presidential candidate shall vote on the first such roll call for that
 presidential candidate unless released by such candidate."

Additionally, Massachusetts General Laws chapter 53, section 70E,
 requires delegate selection to "reflect the preference expressed by the
 voters on the presidential preference portion of the ballot at the
 presidential primary."  Also, on page 16 of your delegate selection
 plans it specifically states that "all delegates and alternate delegates
 committed to a particular candidate must pledge to vote for that
 candidate, or another candidate that their candidate has designated."

 Accordingly, it appears that the answer is yes.


 2.      If the answer to question 1 is "yes," - or we decide to go
 ahead and offer and/or assign committed delegates to such candidates -
 must these committed delegates still vote for those candidates on the
 first ballot?  Does a candidate's public announcement of withdrawal from
 the race in either way constitute release of that candidate's delegates
 to vote for someone else on the first ballot?


General Laws chapter 53, section 70I, requires all delegates and
 alternate delegates whose selection is subject to party rule to the
 approval of a presidential candidates to vote on the first such roll
 call for that presidential candidate unless released by such candidates.
 Accordingly, based on your own delegate selection plans and state law,
 it appears that delegates must vote on the first roll call for their
 presidential candidate unless they have been released.


 3.      Some are proposing that we change our delegate-selection plan
 to add procedures for these specific situations. Seeing nothing in MGL
 that says we can't, would we be permitted to file a revised plan at this
 time, or would it be better to wait until the current presidential
 election cycle is over?


Yes-It is my opinion that you can revise your plan but must do so in
 accordance with the process outlined in the plan (page 19).  However,
 please consult with the national party to see if any amendments would be
 accepted by them.


 4.    In following the current plan and proceeding to offer and
 assign the delegates earned by a candidate in the Primary, would it be
 appropriate to tell the candidates that their acceptance of delegates is
 conditional on their seeking the Green Party presidential nomination?
 Does this honor the Primary voting results since voters were likely
 making that assumption?


This is seeking legal advice that this Office cannot provide.

 In your most recent e-mail, you ask whether you can accept the public
 statements of withdrawn candidates Jared Ball and Elaine Brown, along
 with Ralph Nader's statement that he is no longer seeking the Green
 Party's nomination and plans to run an independent campaign, as
 official releases of the delegates they would otherwise receive to
 reflect the Primary election results. This Office cannot interpret your
 plan regarding this issue.

 I hope this information is helpful.

 Michelle K. Tassinari