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

Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
Fri May 30 22:18:58 EDT 2008 

Elie - I am gong to correct only two of the possible errors in this 
representation of myrole:

First, I may work hard but I certainly did not somehow come up with even more 
hours to draft the Delegate Slection Plan _ I did not even have time to 
participate in its re-passage this past fall.

I have not maintained that the Delegate Selection Plan was fixed at the April 
Statecom meeting.   

More clarifications perhaps by others - Grace
In a message dated 5/30/08 9:43:44 PM, yen.yarden at verizon.net writes:


> 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 or that the delegates that were due a withdrawn candidacy for office 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
> 
> 




**************
Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with 
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
      (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&amp;
?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)

More information about the StateCom mailing list