Green Party Watch

Hat tip to Ballot Access News for this story:

On February 6, a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania jury convicted State Representative H. William DeWeese of using state resources to work on partisan political activity during the period 2000-2006. DeWeese was in the Democratic leadership in the House during those years. He directed staff to use government employees and government computers to help challenge the 2004 petition of Ralph Nader, and the 2006 statewide Green Party petition. See this story. DeWeese is currently in the legislature, and has been a state legislator since he was elected in a special election in May, 1976.

According to Ballot Access News, the Green Party and Constitution Party in Tennessee have won access to the Ballot in Tennessee via lawsuit:

On February 3, U.S. District Court Judge William J. Haynes invalidated Tennessee’s new ballot access law for minor parties. The case is Green Party of Tennessee and Constitution Party of Tennessee v Hargett, 3:11-00692. The decision is 90 pages. It strikes down the early April petition deadline, and also strikes down the 40,029 signature petition requirement. And, it says that it is unconstitutional to force minor parties to nominate by primary, at least in the context of an open primary state that doesn’t have party registration. It strikes down the 2011 law that reserves the best positions on the ballot for the two major parties.

The decision also puts the Constitution and Green Parties on the 2012 ballot, based on the evidence that in the recent past, both parties did collect several thousand signatures on petitions to get on the Tennessee ballot.

This is very big for the Green Party, which would have had a very difficult time getting on the Tennessee ballot if the new ballot access law remained in place.

The Arkansas Times reports:

Secretary of State Mark Martin said the Green Party gathered sufficient signatures to qualify for a party slot on the Arkansas election ballot this year. The party must hold a nominating convention by May 22.

The Arkansas Greens’ Jim Lendall joined the discussion to offer details about the road ahead: read more »

Posted at the Green Party of Oklahoma:

The Green Party of Oklahoma will be filing suit in February against the state of Oklahoma, to challenge the state’s ultra-restrictive ballot access laws.

Oklahoma was the only state in the union to allow only two choices for President in 2004 and 2008. Without a change in the law, this sordid history will repeat itself in 2012.

If you are an registered Oklahoma voter who would like to be a potential plaintiff in this case, please contact attorney James M. Branum.

We are also looking for donations to help fund the cost of litigation. Donations can be sent directly to the attorney with a credit or debit card via paypal by clicking here. Donations received will pay for the availability retainer, legal fees and costs of litigation.

As reported here in October, the Illinois Green Party has filed a lawsuit against the State Board of Elections over their interpretation of the “Established Party” statute. The Examiner (Chicago) has an excellent update on the status of the Illinois Green Party’s lawsuit for Ballot Access on behalf of Congressional Candidate Laurel Lambert Schmidt and others.

Some excerpts:

Laurel Lambert Schmidt will be traveling to Springfield (Illinois) on Tuesday, December 27th to file her 1315 petitions that she and about a dozen volunteers collected in the 3rd Congressional District to run again in the 2012 election in the same district, now redrawn. She only needed 600 petitions to be placed on the ballot as a member of the ILGP.

However, The Illinois Board of Election (ISBE) will likely not accept her petitions as an Illinois Green Party candidate this time, because the IBSE no longer recognizes the ILGP as an “established political party.” For Schmidt to gain ballot access for the 3rd Congressional district, she would now need 5000 signatures.

On the status of the lawsuit so far:

The ILGP had lost its first case in Cook County Circuit Court before Circuit Judge Edmund Ponce de Leon, who is also the Presiding Judge for the 4th Municipal District. The court cited the precedent of Vestrup v. DuPage County Election Commission, which was a 2002 case involving a Libertarian Party candidate.

The Illinois Green Party (ILGP) suffered another setback on Thursday in their bid to gain “ballot access” for several of its candidates statewide in Illinois. The First Judicial District Illinois Appellate Court (5th Division) ruled the Green Party cannot be on the March primary ballot in Illinois. The order to affirm an earlier lower court ruling was signed by Appellate Court Justices James R. Epstein, Joseph Gordon, Margaret Stanton McBride, and Nathaniel R. Howse Jr.

Bring it home, Andy Finko:

Andrew Finko is adamant about the cozy relationship between the court and the Democratic Party. “In Cook County, all the trial court and appellate court judges are Democrats and owe their jobs to the Democratic party that endorsed, promoted, and made it possible for them to be elected. Outsiders do not get elected to judge,” said Finko.

He added, “Regardless of the appearances, they all have an inherent, non-waivable conflict of interest when presiding over political cases. Whether directly and/or indirectly, they all want to help their team and keep their good relations with the party that gave them their jobs.”

I highly recommend reading the entire piece at The Examiner.

http://www.examiner.com/city-hall-in-chicago/it-s-not-easy-being-the-green-party-the-state-of-illinois

The Illinois Green Party, and congressional candidate Laurel Lambert Schmidt, on Monday filed suit against the State Board of Elections over the Board’s interpretation of the “established party” statute. A victory for the plaintiffs would substantially lower ballot access bars for Green candidates in numerous congressional and legislative districts across the state, which would allow for many more Greens to run for office in 2012.

The case, Schmidt v. State Board of Elections, was filed in Cook County Circuit Court (11-CH-36783). The complaint charges that the Board erred in determining that the Green Party does not retain established party status in areas of the state where Green candidates exceeded 5% of the vote in 2010. Four congressional candidates and six legislative candidates reached that level, including Schmidt, whose 10,028 votes in the old 3rd Congressional District earned her just over 6% of the vote.

The Board’s argument is that since the old districts no longer exist due to decennial redistricting, the 5% rule does not apply in the new districts.

“Laurel’s situation demonstrates the absurdity of the Board’s position,” said Phil Huckelberry, Illinois Green Party Chair.

As an established party candidate, Schmidt would need to submit a petition in December with valid signatures from 600 registered voters in the district, and would then be on the March primary ballot. Non-established or “new” party candidates would have to file 5,000 signatures in June.

“The advantages for established party candidates are substantial,” said Huckelberry. “Forums and debates are often set up by June, and a number of organizations will have already issued endorsements based on who is already on the ballot.”

Schmidt is running for the second time against Dan Lipinski, a relatively unpopular Democrat who was the latest recipient of what Huckelberry called “Mike Madigan’s sugarplum gerrymandering.” Schmidt’s own residence was drawn mere blocks outside of the district, but she is prepared to move back across the line to serve the district in Congress.

“I’ve been an active member of this community for 27 years. Dan Lipinski moved into Illinois and the district after he was handed a spot on the ballot that his dad had won in the primary. Now, every rule and every line are bent in Dan Lipinski’s favor,” said Schmidt, who labeled Lipinski as a “socially conservative, blue dog hawk.”

“The people of the 3rd District deserve a choice. As the first Green in Congress I will work for and be a voice for peace, people, and planet over short-term profits. The two-party system and its control by corporate cash is destroying the 99% – that’s us.”

Schmidt is not the only candidate who will be affected by the ruling, said Huckelberry. “We have interested people who are looking for some resolution on this issue before jumping in.”

Illinois Green Party: www.ilgp.org
Laurel Lambert Schmidt for Congress: www.laurel4congress.org

Ballot Access News (excerpt):

On October 7, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed SB 205, which made it a crime to pay registration workers on a per-registration card basis. Because Proposition 14 has left California minor parties with only one means to remain on the ballot, by having registration equal to 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, this veto will help minor parties. The Green, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom Parties had asked that the bill not be signed. The veto message says, “Voting is at the heart of our democracy. Efforts to register voters should be encouraged, not criminalized.”

Brown also acted on four other election law bills. He signed SB 397, which makes it possible for voters to register to vote on-line.

In a message posted at the Ohio Green Party website, Bob Fitrakis explains that the Ohio Secretary of State John Husted has interpreted a new Ohio law to mean that the Green Party no longer has a right to do battle in the voting booth.

In an August 5, 2011 letter written to the Libertarian Party of Ohio, Husted made it clear that his interpretation of the draconian Ohio House Bill 194, passed by the Republican-dominated legislature, means that all minor parties have lost their official statewide party status effective September 30, 2011.

John Miglietta, co-chair of the Green Party of Middle Tennessee, Green Party candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives Fifth District seat in 2008 and 2010, and professor of political science at Tennessee State University has this piece in the Tennessean:

Third parties have played a significant role in American economic, social and political development. The Free Soil Party challenged slavery in the 1830s. Laws ending child labor, improving safety in the workplace, and giving workers living wages and benefits came about as a result from the reforms of the Progressive Party era.

Many of the New Deal reforms that saved American capitalism during the Great Depression originated with the Socialist Party. The current emphasis on limited government can be traced to the Libertarian Party ideology. Recent discussions of environmental, social justice and peace issues stem in part from the Green Party’s growth.

The two-party system developed during the early republic from coalitions within legislatures. As a result, the electoral system in the United States favors two large parties. These parties are more broad electoral coalitions than political parties with a distinct ideology and legislative agenda. The two-party system more often gives us gridlock than thoughtful, long-term public policy.

Election laws are written to maintain the position of the major parties. In many states, onerous restrictions are placed on third parties when they seek ballot access. Third-party candidates must spend the bulk of their resources just getting on the ballot, leaving no time or money to campaign.
read more »

Aware of the odds stacked against them, it was reported that 35 people met to formally organize the Kentucky Green Party last weekend.

Kentucky’s laws for becoming a “Political Party” rather than a “political organization” requires obtaining 20% of the vote in a Presidential Election, a nearly impossible task.

Presumably the next step for the Kentucky Greens will be to become a formally accredited and recognized state chapter of the Green Party of the United States.

This article from the Courier-Journal covers the Kentucky Green Party’s organizing meeting and the state of third party politics in Kentucky:

Tired of Democrats and Republicans who don’t speak to the issues or solve the problems important to them, about 35 people gathered Saturday in Anderson County to form the Green Party of Kentucky.

But if that group’s experience is anything like third parties that have struggled for recognition in Kentucky before them, the Greens will learn that the state political system is stacked against them.

The problem according to John Longmire, who was the state chairman of the Reform Party when it formed in Kentucky prior to the 1996 presidential election, is a state law that requires that groups that want to be certified as parties get 20 percent of the vote in a presidential election.

He said the system is “slanted to keep down the advent of third parties.”

Under the law, all parties that can’t get 20 percent of the presidential vote are officially designated as “political organizations” and “political groups,” which means they aren’t allowed to conduct primary elections and their candidates often must spend thousands of dollars obtaining signatures on a petition just so they can file to run.

Before Saturday’s vote to become a state chapter, the Green Party had 498 people registered as members, according to the state Board of Elections — possibly the residual effect of past efforts to form the party in Kentucky, members who have relocated from other states or as a result of support for presidential candidates

Read the entire article here.

The Republican candidate for mayor of Tucson, Arizona has dropped out of the race due to a signature challenge on his nominating petitions.  This is of interest to third partisans for two reasons.  First, it is rare that a major party is pushed off the ballot due to signature challenges (meaning that he didn’t collect enough valid signatures on his nominating petitions in order to meet the legal requirement).  It’s more common to see major party primary challengers and minor party or independent candidates pushed off the ballot in this way.

Second, this means that in the general election there will only be a Democrat and a Green.  That Green will either be Mary DeCamp, a City Council candidate in the past, or Dave Croteau, a past mayoral candidate.  There will be a primary to determine who will be on the ballot for the general election.  Another candidate who was running for the Green nomination dropped out of the race in order to support and work on sustainability issues with the now-former Republican candidate.

EDIT: Apparently, according to Jeremy Young and Richard Winger in the comments at IPR, as well as the blog Jeremy Young recommended, the Republicans can still nominate a candidate by write-in through their primary.  Also, in addition to the candidates mentioned, an independent was also thrown off the ballot.

We need to hold the Green Party of California accountable in raising more money! Here, a concerned Facebook user asks why the Green Party does not require it’s registered members for monthly donations…(Some of the numbers are not exact, but hey, it gets the conversation going)

Someone asked me to explain what I meant by how small membership donations by the Green Party could result in more effective third party runs. So here it is:

This all began when I outlined something called the 5/25 plan which I thought the Green Party, or any other ambitious third party, should adopt. Your goal shouldn’t be too ambitious or based on something approaching the Rapture. (“People will just realize that the Green Party is right and the voters will be swept up into the sky and onward resulting in Green Party victory!”) I do think that the Rapture strategy is the operational strategy for the Green Party which is probably why they weren’t able to mount a very effective challenge against Alvin Greene, of all people.

But to not get too far off track, the 5/25 plan simply means walking before running. Let’s see if you can raise 35 million dollars to contest 5 senate seats and 25 house seats. From online sources I estimated that there were at least 300000 Americans who identified themselves as Green Party members. If all those Green Party members gave 10 dollars a month, then that would amount to 3 million dollars a month or 36 million dollars a year. You need at least 2 million to contest a senate seat in the average state, about 200000 to contest a US house seat. Those are minimums. If you can find someone who spent less money and won a house and senate seat please point that out to me. Keep in mind that Meg Whitman spent over a 100 million and lost the Governor’s race.

Well what does this mean for California Greens? I’ve been told that there are an estimated 50000 Greens in California. Ask them to commit to 10 dollars a month. This would mean 500000 a month or 6 million a year. This means you can run real races in California. If you can’t give that amount, which I can give even when I’m poor as dirt, then you’re not committed to change. Or at least committed to 10 dollar a month change. I should also point out that once it became clear that you were running real campaigns–with ads and dirt cheap field canvasses–then you would probably get more traction from small donors outside the Green Party. With that kind of money you could seriously contest several house seats and I would take a look at other seats if they’re available. A green Attorney General would be nice for those of us who would long for the day when corporations and fat cats might actually have to abide by the Rule of Law.

California could lead the way. I guarantee that after two years of actually contesting elections you will be much more successful than the national Green Party and their apparent wishful thinking strategy where Green Party candidates win without money and just because they’re right. Who knows. They might even make the Californian strategy a national strategy.

See the original post here: http://mirroruniverse.blogspot.com/2011/05/theory-behind-green-party-membership.html

Ms. May spoke at the Ottawa rally.
Yesterday the Green Party of Canada MP for Saanich–Gulf Islands, Elizabeth May called for voting reform for the Canadian Parliament.

10 cities in Canada hosted rallies for Fair Vote Canada’s National Day of Action for Electoral Reform.

Related articles

• Green party leader May calls for voting reform (canada.com)

Photo source. Author: ahblair

According to a post at Ballot Access News, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona has signed legislation which guarantees the Arazona Green Party access to the ballot in 2012 without having to re-petition to do so.

Among many other provisions, it says that when a party qualifies for the ballot, it gets the next two elections, not just the next election. Because the Arizona Green Party had successfully petitioned in 2010, it is now automatically on the 2012 ballot, even though it didn’t meet the already-existing requirements for a party to remain on the ballot (that it poll 5% for Governor, or that it have registration of at least two-thirds of 1% of the state total).

Rochester, NY is holding a special election for Mayor after former Mayor Robert Duffy won election as Lieutenant Governor. In New York, special elections do not have primaries and independents must collect the same number of signatures as in a general election, but have only two weeks to do so instead of six.

New York is one of three states, the others being Illinois and Pennsylvania, where challenging an opponent’s petitions has become a commonplace practice. Politicians find it easier to knock their opponents off the ballot, than to win the favor of voters with ideas.

As happens all too often, all independent nominating petitions were invalidated by challenges. In New York officially recognized parties need to collect zero signatures in a special election, so three candidates will appear on the ballot: Green Party candidate Alex White, Democratic Party candidate Tom Richards, and Working Families Party candidate William Johnson.

Johnson attempted to also secure an independent line, but failed when Nichole Malec, an aide for Tom Richards’ campaign, successfully filed objections to more than 700 signatures on Johnson’s petitions.

Another candidate with strong community support, Ann Lewis, managed to collect almost 1,900 signatures in two weeks in the middle of February. Johnson campaign manager Mitch Rowe filed objections to Lewis’ petitions, leaving her with only 1,009 out of the 1,500 necessary to secure an independent line.

Alex White, who was knocked off the ballot for Mayor in 2009, leaving the race uncontested, did not challenge anyone and offered to help Lewis defend her petitions. When asked why he chose to do so, White said: “If my experience in this election has proven anything, it is that more voices produce better elections. To unnecessarily restrict people’s choices in elections grievously hurts our society.” read more »