[GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office

[Nicole Castor]

Soooooooooo......
Is this whole proposal about Gayle???

PFP has their bylaws written in a way that makes it clear they only endorse
of their party, with an exception.

We could have done something similar but instead have a proposal that is so
open about endorsements that it seems there is no real point in having a
distinct party at all.

The deadline has passed for state parties to share their endorsement
designations on the printed ballot and so much of this is moot.

I’m voting NO on this proposal, as it seems to be written with next-to-no
foresight, leaves too much open for interpretation, and encourages
candidates to not run Green.

-N

http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/about-us/by-laws


ARTICLE VIII – ENDORSEMENT OF CANDIDATES

Section 1:
No endorsements of candidates for California public offices shall be made
by the State Central Committee or in the name of the “Peace and Freedom
Party” or of the “California Peace and Freedom Party” except under the
provisions of this article. County central committees and other local and
regional party organizations may make other endorsements consistent with
their own bylaws and any endorsements made under this article, but such
endorsements must specify the body that made them. Only endorsements made
under this article shall appear in ballot pamphlets, and all such
endorsements shall be submitted to all appropriate election officials for
publication in ballot pamphlets.

Section 2:
The default procedure described in section 3 of this article shall be used
for all endorsements unless the State Central Committee adopts an
alternative procedure by majority vote at a meeting at least 2 months prior
to the deadline for candidates to file in any election to which the
procedure applies. No such alternative procedure shall specify any
candidates to be endorsed, nor shall it provide for any binding endorsement
decisions to be made within one week of its adoption. Any alternative
procedure shall be adopted for specific elections or for elections during a
specific time period, to end no later than the end of the second calendar
year after the State Central Committee meeting at which it is adopted.

Section 3
Default endorsement procedure:

(A) Endorsements of candidates for statewide office shall be made by vote
of the State Central Committee at a meeting whose notice says that
endorsements for such offices will be considered.

(B) Endorsements of candidates for non-statewide office in which at least
75% of the registered voters eligible to vote for the office live in
counties with active Peace and Freedom Party county central committees
shall be made by joint action of those county central committees. For
purposes of this section, an active Peace and Freedom Party county central
committee is one that (1) holds regular meetings at least once every three
months; and (2) includes at least one member in good standing of the State
Central Committee or at least one person who attended one of the State
Central Committee’s three most recent meetings.

(C) Endorsements of candidates for non-statewide office in which fewer than
75% of the registered voters eligible to vote for the office live in
counties with active Peace and Freedom Party county central committees
shall be made by the State Central Committee as for statewide office.

(D) For purposes of this section, a Peace and Freedom Party candidate is a
candidate who is registered as Peace and Freedom and who will be listed on
the ballot as affiliated with or preferring the Peace and Freedom Party.

(E) In endorsements made by a single body, a simple majority vote of those
present and voting suffices.

(F) In endorsements made by several bodies acting jointly, a simple
majority vote of each body of those present and voting suffices.

(G) If an election is called too close to the filing deadline for the State
Central Committee or for all relevant county central committees to act
under paragraphs (E) or (F), the State Executive Committee or the state
officers may make endorsements.

(H) If after an endorsement decision is made, circumstances change so that
there are additional or fewer Peace and Freedom Party candidates for the
office than were known at the time of the endorsement decision, the State
Executive Committee or the state officers may reconsider the endorsement
decision. If an endorsed Peace and Freedom Party candidate is no longer a
Peace and Freedom Party candidate, then that endorsement must be withdrawn
unless and until the State Central Committee, the State Executive Committee
or the state officers vote by a simple majority of those present and voting
to reinstate it.

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 3:24 PM Victoria Ashley <victronix01 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> More reasons to support Gayle  . . . From an email:
>
> *Single-payer Medicare-for-All foes are taking no chances on the Lt.
> Governor race in California, and they’ve found wealthy candidate to be
> their vehicle for opposing health care reform.*
>
> *On Thursday, wealthy Sacramento developer Angelo Tsakopoulos donated
> $2,020,000 to a super PAC for his daughter, Eleni Kounalakis, who is
> running for Lt. Governor. The super PAC is sponsored by the California
> Medical Association, which opposed the California universal health care
> bill, SB 562, saying it “would dismantle the healthcare marketplace and
> destabilize California’s economy.”*
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 26, 2018, at 9:35 AM, timeka drew <timekadrew at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse
> candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a
> registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that
> good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over
> those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by
> non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green
> candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over
> more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding
> as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a
> machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for
> endorsement be determined?
>
> “As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet
> who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are
> able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic
> advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best
> candidate.”
>
> On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who
> have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able
> to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage
> in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate.
>
>
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180326/71182f15/attachment.html>