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

[Laura Wells]

First, I want to say how glad I am to see such a respectful dialogue about a very important decision, and to see a lot of women weighing in, along with a lot of men.

Second, I sure hope 155 passes.

The Green Party seems to be perceived as – I don't know what – a group of people over there somewhere tilting at windmills, being pure, or insular, or “we're right you're wrong.” The Green Party I want is not that way, but I hear that perception out there. 

When someone says we need a new political party that’s really progressive I have to pinch myself. The Green Party is that “new” party we need. 

But it's like Facebook (of which I’m not a big fan) or Twitter (I did like the 140-character challenge): you have to like and follow and endorse other people to get them to reciprocate. We need to build the Green Party AND Green Values like justice, peace, environment, and real democracy, AND the walk-your-talk value of not taking the billionaire bosses’ money.

Passing ID #155 will help build what we have been building for 26+ years and I do think more people will register Green when we are allowed to reach out to them and endorse them. Also, this is about trusting future generations of Greens, trusting that they won’t be fooled or foolish.

RELATED: Come to the General Assembly in June - GROW is planning a focus on voter registration as another way to build a strong Green Party. Hope to see everyone there!

Laura Wells

On Mar 27, 2018, at 6:28 AM, Ann Menasche <aemenasche at gmail.com> wrote:

I think a nonsectarian approach of the GPCA showing a willingness to endorse NPP and P & F candidates who run corporate free campaigns consistent with Green values can only help our Party as well as the causes we support. 
Ann

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:25 AM, June Brashares <june.brashares at gmail.com> wrote:

> This 2018 election, we've seen not only Gayle McLaughlin endorse Greens but also the Peace and Freedom Party.  They've endorsed Greens; now it's up to us Greens as to whether we will show any solidarity back.   
>  
> The California Peace & Freedom Party has endorsed our local Green Party candidate Jason Kishineff who is running for Congressional District 5 against the incumbant Democrat Mike Thompson. 
> Peace & Freedom Party put their endorsements of Greens in several of the local County voter pamphlets that will go to all of the registered voters in those counties 
> and Peace & Freedom Party reached out to alert us about the free listings available for the Green Party to be able to put our endorsements in the local County voter pamphlets as well.
> 
> There are more cases like those as well as growing collaboration and coalition building across non-corporate parties and organizations.  That is why we want to give the General Assembly/SGA the freedom to vote on these. 
> 
> June Brashares
> Sonoma County
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:47 PM, <lindap_a at verizon.net> wrote:
> Well said, Nicole! 
> Instead of proposing a one time exception for Gayle or a similar designation that shows support without being a full on endorsement (like we have done in LA County), this proposal is changing the bylaws without thought to what the future may bring and what players may come onto our stage. 
> You hit the nail on the head, "no real point in having a distinct party at all."
> We will let others cannabalize us until we will just be a political interest club instead of a bona fide political party worthy of respect.
> Linda 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>
> To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
> Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2018 8:42 pm
> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
> 
> 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
> -- 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
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/20180327/762764f0/attachment.html>