Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
At 1:03 AM -0400 8/11/04, Michael Hoover wrote: The best way to highlight unequal/unjust ballot access procedures is to actually run a campaign that runs afoul of them -- then, there is a practical struggle. Who cares if ballot access procedures are unequal and unjust if there is no candidate other than the Democratic and Republican ones to begin with? of course, my point was that nader people have not - and will not - raise equal protection matter (although they'll - no doubt, and rightly so - complain about being exluded from prez debates)... Have you actually looked into all the lawsuits that the Nader campaigns have filed? Here are a couple of lawsuits (probably among many more) that the Nader campaigns this year and in the part have filed, singly or jointly with other parties: blockquoteV.T.C.A., Election Code §§192.032(a), 192.032(b)(3)(A), 192.032(c), and 192.032(d), as applied to the Plaintiffs herein for the 2004 Texas General Election and all subsequent General Elections in Texas, and the facts and circumstances relating thereto, are illegal and unconstitutional, in that they are violative of the rights of the Plaintiffs under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Title 42, United States Code, § 1983, in that the aforesaid statutes are not framed in the least restrictive manner necessary to achieve the legitimate State interests in regulating ballot access for a Presidential election, particularly as relating to the fact that the relatively earlier filing deadline for the current election year (viz.: May 10, 2004), shorter petitioning time, and higher number of required petition signature of 64,077 for Independent presidential candidates as opposed to the later petition signature deadline for the current election year (viz.: May 24, 2004), longer petitioning time, and lower petition signature requirement of 45,540 for recognition of new political parties in Texas constitutes an invidious discrimination against Independent presidential candidates in violation of their rights and the rights of their potential supporters under the equal protection clause to the United States Constitution, their right to political association for the advancement of political beliefs, and the right to cast their votes effectively; and, as applied to Independent presidential candidates, Texas' relatively early signature deadline, combined with the significantly higher signature requirement for Independent candidates as opposed to new political party candidates, and other particular circumstances herein, establishes an unreasonable and undue burden on Independent candidates for President of the United States seeking ballot access in Texas. http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/nader/nadertxsuit.html/blockquote blockquote1. This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs challenge the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's requirement at 25 P.S. §§ 2873, 2911, 2913, and 2914 that all candidates for elected office pay a filing fee in order to gain access to the ballot, with no provision for a waiver of such fee or alternative means of ballot qualification. This filing fee system violates Plaintiffs' fundamental rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. http://www.nvri.org/library/cases/Belitskus/Belitskuscomplaint.pdf/blockquote blockquoteOhio had authority to list the name of presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the November 2000 ballot without his Green Party affiliation, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. Ohio officials said the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling upholds the state's position that it has authority to impose reasonable requirements for ballot listings to ensure orderly, fair elections. The Green Party and Nader had argued that keeping the party's designation off the ballot violated their constitutional rights of free speech, free association and equal protection of law. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=4245/blockquote As a matter of fact, in his writing, Nader indicted violations of the equal protection clause as early as in 1958 in the context of noting the court's turning a blind eye to them: blockquoteFor example, the Illinois statute states that a petition to nominate candidates for a new political party must be signed by at least 25,000 qualified voters, including at least 200 from each of the 102 counties in the state. The New York statute compels even greater omnipresence. It reads:An independent nominating petition for candidates to be voted for by all the voters of the state must be signed by at least 12,000 signatures of whom at least 50 shall reside in each county of the state The Illinois law was challenged by the Progressive Party just before the 1948 elections. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court where it
Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/11/04 3:03 AM At 1:03 AM -0400 8/11/04, Michael Hoover wrote: of course, my point was that nader people have not - and will not - raise equal protection matter (although they'll - no doubt, and rightly so - complain about being exluded from prez debates)... Have you actually looked into all the lawsuits that the Nader campaigns have filed? Here are a couple of lawsuits (probably among many more) that the Nader campaigns this year and in the part have filed, singly or jointly with other parties: the 2004 Texas General Election and all subsequent General Elections in Texas, and the facts and circumstances relating thereto, are illegal and unconstitutional, in that they are violative of the rights of the Plaintiffs under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to blockquote1. This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs challenge the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's requirement blockquoteOhio had authority to list the name of presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the November 2000 ballot without his Green Party affiliation, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. Ohio officials said the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling upholds the state's position that it has authority to impose reasonable requirements for ballot listings to ensure orderly, fair elections. The Green Party and Nader had argued that keeping the party's designation off the ballot violated their constitutional rights of free speech, free association and equal protection of law. As a matter of fact, in his writing, Nader indicted violations of the equal protection clause as early as in 1958 in the context of noting the court's turning a blind eye to them: The Illinois law was challenged by the Progressive Party just before the 1948 elections. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court where it was argued that the statute's disproportionate favoring of rural counties violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, the court disagreed and upheld the law. Writing the dissent, Justice Douglas stated: The notion that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to our standards for popular representative government. He was referring to the fact that 25,000 signatures from 50 of the least populous counties could form a new party while the same number from 49 counties with 87 percent of the registered voters could not. . . . stand corrected re. reference to 14th amendment, although none of above addresses point i was making, they're all *within* states, not *among* them.. texas example is about differential filing deadlines between parties and independent candidates in texas, not differential deadlines throughout states... penn example is about absence of waiver for filing fee in penn (other states make allowance for such, thus, to not do so could be determined 'unreasonable' under 83 supreme court decision btw: 83 supreme court decision allows for differential definition of 'reasonableness'... ohio example is about differential number of petition signatures needed in ohio, party vs independent candidate... re. illinois example in 58 nader co-authored article, douglas dissent refers to differential number of signatures among state's counties, interestingly, this does begin to get at my point if douglass critique is applied *among* the states, similar to warren's 64 majority opinion in _reynolds v sims_ (case from alabama, if memory serves correctly) holding that one-person one-vote apportionment principle applied to state senates as well as to state lower-houses, if so, similar *principle* could also apply to u.s. senate irrespective of 1787 constitutional arrangement, same for douglass dissent if one considers differential numbers in various states (which could be addressed with use of percentage since states do have different size populations)... many technical/procedural/justice problems arise from 1787 constitutional language assigning each state authority to determine times, places, manner of holding elections... Sorry, I meant to write the Liberty Party. Although its vote never exceeded 3% of the votes cast in a presidential election, the party did further political abolitionism. In closely contested state and local elections, the Liberty party often held the balance of power, sometimes causing major party candidates to take advanced antislavery positions in a bid for its support (Kinley J. Brauer, Liberty Party, Encyclopedia Americana). More importantly, many Libertymen eventually joined with anti-slavery factions of Whigs and Democrats to form the Free Soil Party, many of whose former members would later form the core of the Republican Party. Only out of many seeming failures can a movement grow -- in fact, there is no way people can gain political experience except by trying, failing,
Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/11/04 8:32 AM many technical/procedural/justice problems arise from 1787 constitutional language assigning each state authority to determine times, places, manner of holding elections... meant to note in above portion of earlier point that congress may at any time by law make or alter state regulations... query 1: what became of nader's announcement a few months ago that he was going to establish a 'populist' party... query 2: reform party 'endorsement' of nader preceded his selection of camejo as running mate, any listers know whether reform endorsement is for nader only or does it include candidate at bottom of ticket as well... can imagine some (many?) 'reformers' being less than pleased if party endorsed socialist, 2000 reform party squabbles that gave impression of turnips falling off vegetable cart still exist to some degree, evidenced by dual/duel parties in michigan, moreover, nader endorsement has apparently not gone over well with some (majority?) in whatever remains of whatever reform party endorsed him, sounds familiar... mh -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
KPFA had a debate between Cobb Camejo regarding the charge of the rigged convention. It did not sound nearly as clear cut as it was presented here. I was once on a jury panel for Camejo, but was kicked off left with a clenched fist salute. I liked what he did when I was at Berkeley, but in his run for Gov., much of his attack on Davis what almost identical to what the Republicans said. He would mention some progressive positions, but he devoted most of his time to fiscal responsibility. In the debate Cobb came off as a well-intentioned Green. Not strong, but nice sincere, but he gave a reasonable explanation. Camejo had answers, but nobody seemed to have a clear cut case. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
At 1:07 PM -0400 8/9/04, Michael Hoover wrote: nader people might be of greater help to polity in general (of course, this is electoral campaign which, by definition, has narrow focus) by highlighting unequal/unjust ballot access procedures, state by state rules are clear violation of 14th admendment equal protection... The best way to highlight unequal/unjust ballot access procedures is to actually run a campaign that runs afoul of them -- then, there is a practical struggle. Who cares if ballot access procedures are unequal and unjust if there is no candidate other than the Democratic and Republican ones to begin with? At 1:07 PM -0400 8/9/04, Michael Hoover wrote: carcasses of 'minor' parties across u.s. political landscape Minor parties -- the Liberal Party, the Free Soil Party, etc. -- are destined to die, but they are among the important political arenas through which people network, gain experience, and accumulate knowledge, and I'm interested in what individuals who are trained in struggles that cannot immediately achieve their goals learn and what they will do with what they have learned. We need to keep learning from major failures and minor successes until we encounter objective conditions that may allow us to make use of our experience and knowledge. At 1:07 PM -0400 8/9/04, Michael Hoover wrote: reform party line is absolutely irrevelevant in states where party has ballot status save two - florida and michigan (drum roll please - so-called 'battlegrounds') It would be ironic if Cobb/LaMarche are on the Green Party ballots in one-party states and Nader/Camejo are on the ballots in battleground states. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/10/04 3:16 PM At 1:07 PM -0400 8/9/04, Michael Hoover wrote: nader people might be of greater help to polity in general (of course, this is electoral campaign which, by definition, has narrow focus) by highlighting unequal/unjust ballot access procedures, state by state rules are clear violation of 14th admendment equal protection... The best way to highlight unequal/unjust ballot access procedures is to actually run a campaign that runs afoul of them -- then, there is a practical struggle. Who cares if ballot access procedures are unequal and unjust if there is no candidate other than the Democratic and Republican ones to begin with? of course, my point was that nader people have not - and will not - raise equal protection matter (although they'll - no doubt, and rightly so - complain about being exluded from prez debates)... At 1:07 PM -0400 8/9/04, Michael Hoover wrote: carcasses of 'minor' parties across u.s. political landscape Minor parties -- the Liberal Party, the Free Soil Party, etc. -- are destined to die, but they are among the important political arenas through which people network, gain experience, and accumulate knowledge, and I'm interested in what individuals who are trained in struggles that cannot immediately achieve their goals learn and what they will do with what they have learned. We need to keep learning from major failures and minor successes until we encounter objective conditions that may allow us to make use of our experience and knowledge. neither of parties cited above would seem to be good examples of your explanation (wonder how many folks are even familiar with either)... free soilers (1848-54) were northern elite splinters from dem party who had come to oppose slavery for economic reasons (in contrast to moral abolitionists), they desired 'free land' for homesteading (19th century economic elites often manipulated egalitarian rhetoric of homesteading for financial gain by paying people to occupy land for them) while southern slaver class needed more land to perpetuate slave-based planatation system... free soil platform was ambivalent document in which anti-slavery plank was followed by statement that congress did not have authority to interfere with slavery within state boundaries, but then party slogan 'free soil, free speech, free labor, free men' was contradictory... interestingly, some complained that martin van buren's (former u.s. prez, 1837-40) 1848 prez campaign played 'spoiler' in splitting dem votes - van buren received about 10% of 'popular vote') and allowing whig zachary taylor to be elected (taylor died in office under somewhat suspicious circumstances, his body was exhumed within last decade to look into possibility of arsenic poisoning, test results said no, but michael parenti (that cper/milosevic supporter/conspiracy theorist!) suggests otherwise in _new political science_ article a few years back)... 1850 compromise weakened cause, party got about 5% of vote in 1852 prez election, dissolved itself shortly after, members dirfted into newly formed rep party... re. liberal party, suppose you mean new york liberal party as it is only one of any significance (if one considers it as such) that i'm aware of, origins in american labor split at end of ww2 over whether or not commies should be allowed to play a role in alp, anti-commie labor leaders opponents of such a role founded liberal party, so party had organized labor (of a cold war sort) support early on which manifest itself in endorsement of truman in 48 made possible by new york's 'fusion' ballot status... ny liberal party went on to endorse/nominate dem party candidate in every prez election except 1980 when it supported john anderson, party also gave endorsements to dem candidates for u.s senate from ny except for its support of 'liberal' republican jacob javits, some suggest that party's support of javits - who lost to alphonse d'mato in rep primary - split dem/lib vote in 1980 between javits and dem elizabeth holtzman allowing d'mato to win... what are lessons... At 1:07 PM -0400 8/9/04, Michael Hoover wrote: reform party line is absolutely irrevelevant in states where party has ballot status save two - florida and michigan (drum roll please - so-called 'battlegrounds') It would be ironic if Cobb/LaMarche are on the Green Party ballots in one-party states and Nader/Camejo are on the ballots in battleground states. Yoshie greens have prez ballot line in florida, parties have to hold national nominating convention to qualify, state went from most difficult access law in country to one more equitable a few years ago via initiative vote spearheaded largely by libertarian party with help from some other minor parties, including green, reform, socialist... however, my point was that nader's use of reform endorsement is politics as usual... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad
Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
retry - first attempt seems to have been sent as attachment for some reason, sorry... mh [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/08/04 5:03 PM Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 03:04:28 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party The nomination of David Cobb as the Green Party presidential candidate in Milwaukee was due to a well organized campaign to turn a minority view in the Green Party into what appeared as a majority decision at the convention. 1. A grossly undemocratic process was used at the national convention of the US Green Party, as described in the article, Rigged Convention Divides Green Party, by Carol Miller and Forrest Hill (see www.greensfornader.net); 2 Each state Green Party should have the right to nominate candidates supported by a majority of its members because the results of the national Green Party Convention do not represent the views of a majority of Greens in California, indeed, they represent the views of a small minority; 4. The Democratic Party has devoted huge resources to harass canvassers, to keep Nader/Camejo off the ballot in California 6. Nader and Camejo are the only candidates supporting Green values that have a chance of getting in the national televised debates. ; i've indicated in previous posts that i'm not big green party person while also thinking that greens need to wean themselves from nader, what follows are pulp musings... above is smarmy, smelly stuff that has long left rotting carcasses of 'minor' parties across u.s. political landscape, not to mention turning-off folks outside of organization (assuming anyone notices) and making contribution to turnout decline/civic disengagement/withdrawal from public realm/whatever else likes of robert putnam and social capital types call non-participation (how about alienation and cynicism)... circumstance reminds of buchanan-hagelin/2000 reform party implosion which left rp with ballot status in about 1/3rd of states where it had previously qualified... re. reform party (at least one of them anyway), nader received 'endorsement' (not nomination) back in may by way of telephone conference call, 4-5 people had 'qualified' to have their 'candidacies' debated by national/state committee people - wonder how democratic process of choosing members of such committees is - for a couple of hours one evening, nader was 'overwhelming' choice although i don't recall any actual vote totals being released, other names were complete unknowns, reform party people chose nader because he offers opportunity for party to get attention that it otherwise would not get (of course, kind of pub that buchanan debacle produced i suppose they'd rather do without)... reform party line is absolutely irrevelevant in states where party has ballot status save two - florida and michigan (drum roll please - so-called 'battlegrounds'), media likely to pay attention to nader in fla and mich - 'spoiler', 'darth' nader, blah, blah, blah, this is pure instrumentalist politics of mainstream sort (that's less criticism than it is observation, btw) on nader's part and explains why his campaign was so concerned about flap *between* michigan reform parties that appeared as if it might result in his name being kept off reform line (don't know if matter has been resolved)... re. dems trying to keep nader off ballots, obviously disgusting (didn't someone long ago say something to effect that all political issues in u.s. wind up in court)... nader people might be of greater help to polity in general (of course, this is electoral campaign which, by definition, has narrow focus) by highlighting unequal/unjust ballot access procedures, state by state rules are clear violation of 14th admendment equal protection... re. miller and hill article cited above, they characterize primaries as 'will of voters', u.s. is only political democracy in which party nominees are chosen this way (and in this instance, winners were placeholding), primaries are one legacy of not-so progressive era, example of peudo-democratization, early 20th century 'reformers' who pushed primaries claimed they were giving ' power to the people' as new procedure would empower 'ordinary citizens' at expense of party bosses, what happened was that such bosses were largely supplanted by activists (who, of course, have always exercised more influence than 'ordinary' people because they participate and their views are more intense)... re. each state party nominating its own candidates, silliness of this for prez election should be obvious... re. nader/camejo ticket, how democratic is it for person at top of ticket to choose vp candidate (i realize that nader's candidacy is independent one but that actually serves to make my point), party conventions chose vp candidates until fdr in 1940s, today, prez nominees announce their choices and conventions accept them (btw: reform party endorsed nader, not nader/camaejo, as far i know)... re. prez debates, it is
Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
---Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/08/04 5:03 PM Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 03:04:28 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party The nomination of David Cobb as the Green Party presidential candidate in Milwaukee was due to a well organized campaign to turn a minority view in the Green Party into what appeared as a majority decision at the convention. 1. A grossly undemocratic process was used at the national convention of the US Green Party, as described in the article, Rigged Convention Divides Green Party, by Carol Miller and Forrest Hill (see www.greensfornader.net); 2 Each state Green Party should have the right to nominate candidates supported by a majority of its members because the results of the national Green Party Convention do not represent the views of a majority of Greens in California, indeed, they represent the views of a small minority; 4. The Democratic Party has devoted huge resources to harass canvassers, to keep Nader/Camejo off the ballot in California 6. Nader and Camejo are the only candidates supporting Green values that have a chance of getting in the national televised debates. ; i've indicated in previous posts that i'm not big green party person while also thinking that greens need to wean themselves from nader, what follows are pulp musings... above is smarmy, smelly stuff that has long left rotting carcasses of 'minor' parties across u.s. political landscape, not to mention turning-off folks outside of organization (assuming anyone notices) and making contribution to turnout decline/civic disengagement/withdrawal from public realm/whatever else likes of robert putnam and social capital types call non-participation (how about alienation and cynicism)... circumstance reminds of buchanan-hagelin/2000 reform party implosion which left rp with ballot status in about 1/3rd of states where it had previously qualified... re. reform party (at least one of them anyway), nader received 'endorsement' (not nomination) back in may by way of telephone conference call, 4-5 people had 'qualified' to have their 'candidacies' debated by national/state committee people - wonder how democratic process of choosing members of such committees is - for a couple of hours one evening, nader was 'overwhelming' choice although i don't recall any actual vote totals being released, other names were complete unknowns, reform party people chose nader because he offers opportunity for party to get attention that it otherwise would not get (of course, kind of pub that buchanan debacle produced i suppose they'd rather do without)... reform party line is absolutely irrevelevant in states where party has ballot status save two - florida and michigan (drum roll please - so-called 'battlegrounds'), media likely to pay attention to nader in fla and mich - 'spoiler', 'darth' nader, blah, blah, blah, this is pure instrumentalist politics of mainstream sort (that's less criticism than it is observation, btw) on nader's part and explains why his campaign was so concerned about flap *between* michigan reform parties that appeared as if it might result in his name being kept off reform line (don't know if matter has been resolved)... re. dems trying to keep nader off ballots, obviously disgusting (didn't someone long ago say something to effect that all political issues in u.s. wind up in court)... nader people might be of greater help to polity in general (of course, this is electoral campaign which, by definition, has narrow focus) by highlighting unequal/unjust ballot access procedures, state by state rules are clear violation of 14th admendment equal protection... re. miller and hill article cited above, they characterize primaries as 'will of voters', u.s. is only political democracy in which party nominees are chosen this way (and in this instance, winners were placeholding), primaries are one legacy of not-so progressive era, example of peudo-democratization, early 20th century 'reformers' who pushed primaries claimed they were giving ' power to the people' as new procedure would empower 'ordinary citizens' at expense of party bosses, what happened was that such bosses were largely supplanted by activists (who, of course, have always exercised more influence than 'ordinary' people because they participate and their views are more intense)... re. each state party nominating its own candidates, silliness of this for prez election should be obvious... re. nader/camejo ticket, how democratic is it for person at top of ticket to choose vp candidate (i realize that nader's candidacy is
Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 03:04:28 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party 2004.08.08 00:04:27 http://greensfornader.net/archives/2004/08/rigged_conventi_1.html Please forward and act immediately::: The nomination of David Cobb as the Green Party presidential candidate in Milwaukee was due to a well organized campaign to turn a minority view in the Green Party into what appeared as a majority decision at the convention. To correct this injustice, the Coordinating Committee of the Green Party of California will vote on Monday August 9 on whether to hold a Special General Assembly to let California Greens decide if they want to put Nader/Camejo on the our ballot line. If you believe that the Green Party should continue to challenge the two-party duopoly and should not compromise it principles, then please sign the following proposal and email it to one (or all) of the CC members listed below. Time is of the essence! Peggy Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sharon Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gerry Gras [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Borenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jo Chamberlain [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matt Leslie [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alex Brideau III [EMAIL PROTECTED] PROPOSAL TO HOLD A SPECIAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PUT NADER/CAMEJO ON THE GREEN PARTY BALLOT IN CALIFORNIA Whereas: 1. A grossly undemocratic process was used at the national convention of the US Green Party, as described in the article, Rigged Convention Divides Green Party, by Carol Miller and Forrest Hill (see www.greensfornader.net); 2 Each state Green Party should have the right to nominate candidates supported by a majority of its members because the results of the national Green Party Convention do not represent the views of a majority of Greens in California, indeed, they represent the views of a small minority; 3. An overwhelming majority of Greens in the United States and California support the presidential ticket of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo; 4. The Democratic Party has devoted huge resources to harass canvassers, to keep Nader/Camejo off the ballot in California 5. Ralph Nader would hold fundraisers to support local candidates if nominated by the Green Party of California,. 6. Nader and Camejo are the only candidates supporting Green values that have a chance of getting in the national televised debates. 7. The Green Party of California is a recognized Party in California and has a ballot line; Therefore be it resolved that: We the undersign urge the Coordinating Committee of the Green Party of California to show leadership and hold a Special General Assembly too place Ralph Nader on the California state ballot for President of the United States and Peter Miguel Camejo on the California state ballot for Vice President of the United States. Signed -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
