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

[Yarden]

Jim,
Thank you,
Finally I am able to discuss the references with some one who actually  
read them, and can understand what I am saying, and even get some idea  
of why I question what was said.

Firstly, allow me to be clear that I never expressed the belief that  
an unoccupied candidacy was owed delegates, had to receive delegates,   
or that the delegates that were due a withdrawn candidacy for office  
could be freely distributed at the whim of the AdCom, the CDLC, or the  
State Committee.  This completely contradicts my notion of reality.   
It was rather the drafters of our Delegate Selection Plan, among them,  
Grace Ross, Jamie O'Keefe, and others who insisted that this was the  
chief problem.  And that this problem had been repaired by the last  
State Committee meeting, while we were out of the room.

Secondly, it has always been very clear to me that the choices of  
voters in our primary, were reflective of the desires of our most  
important source of growth, those people who chose to vote in our  
primary.  To dismiss the desires of those who voted for Ball, who  
remains a Green party member and asked that any delegates due him vote  
for McKinney; for Brown, who was the favored candidate of several  
active party party members -- some, members of my local; and the large  
turnout for Nader, is not a direction of party building.

Third, I refuse to blind myself to the statements made by members of A  
Minority Opinion, that suggest a redistribution of delegates that  
ignores the delegate selection process agreed to by the party on the  
ground that the list of candidates was improper in any way, did not  
meet the requirements of law, etc.   All of these are attempts to  
nullify the results of the primary.

Finally, it has always been obvious that the simplest way of solving  
the problem of disappeared candidacies is to use the opportunity to  
strengthen the party by increasing the number of uncommitted  
delegates.  I yielded to Grace's desire that the number of delegates  
that might have been assigned to 'write-in' candidates be  
redistributed among the other options instead of being assigned to  
'uncommitted' in good faith, and they were redistributed accordingly.

As for the passages cited, you nowhere read that anything is about  
candidates for a nomination decided by a party convention, and were  
able to read that it is about candidates for public office decided by  
voters voting for that office.  I am sure that the lawyer had some  
reason for citing this, but no one asked him why.  I would have done so.
Elie Yarden
MRGRA


May 30, 2008, at 7:56 PM, Jim Hammerman wrote:

> Dear Elie,
> I'm not sure what you mean that the lawyer "must have had much more  
> to go
> on than all the relevant documents". My understanding is that, as he  
> says,
> he read our plan and bylaws, the correspondence between Michelle  
> Tassinari
> and the co-chairs, the withdrawal statements of Brown and Ball and the
> Independent Candidacy announcement of Nader and, based on his deep
> knowledge of and experience with Massachusetts election law,  
> responded to
> the questions he was asked about who is considered a "candidate" for  
> the
> purpose of being allocated delegates, and whether a public  
> announcement of
> withdrawal or independent candidacy can be considered a release of
> delegates.
>
> And he was very clear on both counts--that someone who's withdrawn or
> announced an independent run is _not_ a candidate who can legitimately
> receive delegates within our delegate selection plan, and that  
> withdrawal
> also effectively releases any delegates who may have been assigned  
> from
> any obligations to those now "ex-candidates". It seems that the voters
> should reasonably expect their votes to count towards "legitimate
> candidates...standing before the voters as candidates for a political
> party" and that those who have withdrawn or declared an independent
> candidacy don't count as legitimate candidates within the party. Given
> that, he says a party that assigns delegates to such "ex-candidates"  
> is at
> risk for legal action from party members, other candidates who would  
> see
> such an assignment as unfairly disadvantaging them in their run for
> office, and possibly the Commonwealth for fraud. If this is as clear  
> as
> Mr. Rom implies, I don't want us walking down that road.
>
> By the way, I did read the sections of Massachusetts law he refers to.
> While they don't speak directly to our situation--and we shouldn't  
> expect
> them to-- they do seem to indicate that parties are quite free to  
> replace
> candidates who have withdrawn or are ineligible or are otherwise
> unavailable to serve in the roles for which they were nominated, again
> suggesting that only legitimate candidates deserve to benefit from the
> electoral process.
>
> Best, Jim
>
>
>
>
> Yarden <yen.yarden at verizon.net>
> Sent by: statecom-bounces at green-rainbow.org
> 05/30/08 06:30 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] short defense Re: From the Co-Chairs Re: Legal    
> Opinion
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To have issued the opinion that I read the lawyer must have had much
> more to go on than "all of the relevant documents."
> I am still waiting to find out from someone who can read better than I
> am able what the relevance of "Massachusetts
> election law, G. L. c. 53, Sections 13, 14 and 15" is to any questions
> asked of the lawyer in question.  Have any members of the A Minority
> Opinion faction read the sections cited?  To what might have the
> lawyer been referring.  If I were seeking legal advice in the course
> of seeking consensus, I certainly would invite someone of opposing
> views to the consultation.  Seeking consensus according to some
> proponents includes having access to the same information.  'Seeking
> consensus' should never be a cover for intrigues in hegemonic  
> quarrels.
> Elie Yarden
> MRGRA
>
> On May 30, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Merelice wrote:
>
>> On 5/26/08, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com <Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The lawyer who issued this opinion had all of the relevant
>>> documents (unlike
>>> merelice implies- .....
>>>
>>> The questions sent to the Head of the Elections Divission were
>>> *not* in fact
>>> agreed to by adcom.....
>>
>>
>> Grace has a courteous way of calling me a liar. I stand by my
>> comments.
>>
>> Merelice
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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