[Marin-d] REMINDER --> County Polling For Special Election; ** April 30th Deadline **
Marnie Glickman
marnie at greenchange.com
Tue Apr 28 05:05:01 PDT 2009
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Michael S Wyman" <mswyman at comcast.net>
> Date: April 27, 2009 2:57:59 PM PDT
> To: <northbaygreens at lists.riseup.net>
> Cc: "'Marnie Glickman'" <marnie at greenchange.com>, "'Chris Malan'" <cmalan at myoneearth.org
> >
> Subject: REMINDER --> County Polling For Special Election; ** April
> 30th Deadline **
>
>
> All counties Please Note: This poll has an April 30 Deadline
> (Thursday). The
> state party is three counties short of quorum. So if we can get our
> counties
> together and respond by Thursday, it will help a great deal.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Wyman
> North Bay Regional Rep.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gpca-cc-bounces at cagreens.org [mailto:gpca-cc-bounces at cagreens.org
> ] On
> Behalf Of County Contacts
> Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 7:00 PM
> To: County Contacts
> Subject: [GPCA-CC] [GPCA Official Notice] REMINDER --> County
> Polling For
> Special Election; ** April 30th Deadline **
>
> GREEN PARTY COUNTY CONTACTS MESSAGE
>
> This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List. For more
> information,
> or questions related to the topic of the posting, please do not hit
> reply.
> Follow the contact directions
> stated in the email.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please remember to participate in the county polling on ballot
> propositions. Your votes are due April 30.
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [GPCA Official Notice] County Polling For Special Election;
> **
> April 30th Deadline **
> Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:51:35 -0800
>
>
>
>
>
> GPCA COUNTY POLLING FOR MAY 19, 2009 SPECIAL ELECTION BALLOT MEASURES
>
> To: GPCA County Contacts List
>
> From: Warner Bloomberg Campaigns and Candidates Working Group
> Co-Coordinator
>
> Subject: County Polling for May 19, 2009 Special Election Ballot
> Measures
>
> NOTE: You can download a printable version of this message (PDF
> format)
> at http://cagreens.org/ccwg/polling/SpecElectionMay09.pdf
>
> Below you will find instructions for GPCA County organizations to
> report
> County GP positions on the six ballot measures that the California
> legislature set for special election as part of the recent "budget
> deal". Immediately following those instructions, you will find
> reports
> that have been written by members of the Green Party of Alameda
> County.
> These reports are simply the opinions of those who wrote them
> and DO
> NOT constitute GPCA positions. GPCA positions on ballot measures
> occur
> in two ways: By decision of the delegates at a General Assembly or by
> County Polling.
>
> Because a General Assembly of Delegates is scheduled for May 16-17 in
> Los Angeles County the weekend before the Special Election,
> consideration of these measures have been placed on the agenda for the
> next Plenary. However, only an hour has been allotted for this agenda
> item and this Plenary will occur only two days before the election and
> after mail-in ballots will have been issued for several weeks before
> that meeting. If County Polling has not established GPCA positions by
> the Plenary, quick tests for consensus will be made to determine
> whether
> GPCA decision making can occur for any of these items. PLEASE NOTE:
> Decisions by County Polling will remove the need to have those
> measures
> decided by County Polling on the Plenary Agenda. If your County GP
> fails to participate in this County Polling in a timely manner, then
> that may mean Plenary agenda time will be needed for those issues
> (instead being available for something else). As in previous years,
> special thanks to everyone who contributed to the reports and to Greg
> Jan for collecting them. Any questions about these comments should be
> addressed to Warner Bloomberg at wsb3attyca at aol.com or (408) 295-9353.
> Any questions about the following instructions should be addressed to
> Warner Bloomberg and Mathew Leslie mrl at greens.org -- acting County
> Polling Coordinators. All County Polling Reports should be submitted
> to
> these County Polling Coordinators.
>
> PLEASE NOTE: As recipients on the County Contacts list YOU have the
> responsibility to communicate this information to other members in
> your
> local County GP organization. You are to use whatever process you use
> in your County GP to make decisions of this kind - but each County
> needs to instruct its delegates on these issues in the event they need
> to be decided at the Plenary. A copy of these instructions and the
> following reports will be posted on the Plenary agenda page as a
> supplement to the Agenda Packet.
>
> Warner Bloomberg CCWG Co-Coordinator
> March 13, 2009
>
> INSTRUCTIONS FOR GPCA STATEWIDE POLL OF COUNTIES
> BALLOT MEASURES APPEARING ON THE MAY 19, 2009 SPECIAL ELECTION BALLOT
>
> The GPCA uses a poll of all recognized County Green Parties to
> determine
> GPCA positions on ballot measures as an alternative to making those
> decisions at a state meeting. Six measures have been put on the
> ballot
> by the State Legislature as part of the recent "budget deal" for a
> Special Election on May 19, 2009. Please be sure that your county
> participates by submitting votes by Thursday, April 30, 2009.
>
>
>
>
> THE POLL:
>
> This poll contains a list of Legislative ballot measures that will be
> voted on by Special Election held on May 19, 2009. Reports on these
> measures written by volunteers from the Green Party grassroots who
> have
> reviewed the measures follow below. Of course, counties are free to
> agree or disagree with the recommended positions. The full text of the
> initiatives can be located by going to the webpage for the California
> Secretary of State www.ss.ca.gov and following the applicable links.
>
> PROCESS:
>
> Please provide both Poll Coordinators (Warner Bloomberg and Mathew
> Leslie) with vote results from your county in the following form for
> each ballot measure:
>
> "Yes" for the GPCA to support the measure
> "No" for the GPCA to oppose the measure
> "No Position" for the GPCA to deliberately remain neutral on the
> measure
>
> Votes may also be cast as "Abstain" if they do not wish to participate
> in the poll. Abstentions will be counted toward quorum.
>
> Vote on each ballot measure itself, not the recommendation. For
> example,
> if the report has recommended a position of "No," and your county
> wishes
> to agree and vote "No" on the initiative, then your county should
> vote
> "No" on the initiative, and not "Yes" on the recommended "No"
> position.
>
> PLEASE SUBMIT VOTES IN THE AMOUNT ALLOTTED TO YOUR COUNTY FOR THE
> LOS ANGELES COUNTY (VENICE) PLENARY. That list is published in the
> agenda packet for that state meeting to be held MAY 16-17, 2009. For
> example, if your county has 2 delegates, you would submit 2 votes in
> any
> combination of positions. (Votes from counties with more than one
> delegate vote need not be unanimous.) If you have any questions about
> the total number of votes that can be cast for any measure, contact
> the
> GPCA Coordinating Committee member(s) who represent your region. Your
> county should rely on its own internal processes to arrive at its
> positions. The poll has an 80% threshold. The default where the
> threshold or quorum is not met is "No Position".
>
> TIMELINE:
>
> The voting period begins on March 15, 2009, and ends on April 30, 2009
> (11:59 PM PST).Votes received after the closing date and time will not
> be counted. Submit all votes to BOTH the Poll Coordinators at the
> following email addresses:
>
> Warner Bloomberg wsb3attyca at aol.com
>
> Mathew Leslie mrl at greens.org
>
> Please submit any questions about the process of the poll to the same
> addresses.
>
>
>
>
>
> MAY 19, 2009 SPECIAL ELECTION BALLOT MEASURES REPORTS
>
> RECOMMENDATIONS - VOTE NO ON ALL
>
> Official Titles and Brief Descriptions of Propositions that are on the
> May 19, 2009, Statewide Special Election Ballot
>
> Proposition 1A Stabilizes State Budget. Reforms California Budget
> Process. Limits State Spending. Increases "Rainy Day" Budget
> Stabilization Fund.
>
> Proposition 1B Election Funding. Payment Plan.
>
> Proposition 1C Lottery Modernization Act.
>
> Proposition 1D Protects Children's Services Funding. Helps Balance
> State Budget.
>
> Proposition 1E Ensures Funding for Children's Mental Health Services.
> Helps Balance State Budget.
>
> Proposition 1F Elected Officials' Salaries. Prevents Pay Increases
> During Budget Deficit Years.
>
>
>
>
> Report #1
>
> Dear Greens,
>
> Below is an initial write-up about the six propositions on the May 19
> statewide special election ballot, followed by an additional article
> with further relevant information. These were written and reviewed in
> early March by several Alameda County Green Party volunteers, and
> although we have not yet begun our final editing process for the Voter
> Guide which we will be publishing during April, the basic positions
> expressed (including the recommendation to vote "No" on all 6
> propositions) will not be changing.
>
> If you would like to read the "legal text" of the propositions and/or
> the information which will be published in the "official" state of
> California voter pamphlet, please see:
> http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/public-display-051909/official-ballot-pamphl
> et-public-display-051909.htm
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Greg Jan Oakland, CA
>
>
>
> May 19, 2009 Special Election; Vote NO on the Rotten Deal
>
> The writers of this Report, members of the Green Party of Alameda
> County, urge you to vote NO on all items on the ballot in the May 19
> special election. We are opposed, of course, to the cuts in
> transportation, education, social services, and the rest, that are
> part
> of this budget deal. We oppose this deal even though the politicians
> tell us that great hardship will result if they don't get their rotten
> deal passed. And it may even be true. But we are even more opposed
> to
> the process which concluded by offering us the "choice" of being
> shotin
> the leg or shot in the arm but did NOT offer us the choice of using
> our
> collective wealth to meet human needs. (For info on some better
> options, please see the bottom part of this article, about "what is to
> be done")
>
> Proposition 1A is a constitutional amendment that was part of the
> budget
> agreement but parts of it go far beyond the current agreement.
> Ironically, per the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), the provisions
> of 1A have no effect on the current budget. Rather, bringing this
> measure before the voters was the price agreed to by the Democrats to
> get the Republican votes needed for the budget deal.
>
> 1A provides that "unanticipated revenues" (revenues in excess of the
> ten-year average) would be saved in a Budget Stabilization Fund
> ("rainy
> day fund") for future years in which they could be spent for the
> Proposition 98 K-14 educational spending mandate (see 1B, below) or
> (if
> 1B fails, for example) to pay off various loans and bonds. Opponents
> say this measure is unclear, not transparent, doesn't do what it
> claims
> to do, and creates new problems.
>
> 1A asks us to accept a permanent spending cap (a zero growth budget)
> as
> the price the legislature insists on to raise some taxes temporarily.
> If such a spending cap had been in effect this year, billions of
> dollars
> in additional cuts would have been mandated.
>
> State spending on education, health care, the safety net for low-
> income
> people, and other essential services has been inadequate up to now.
> So
> freezing the state budget (except for population growth and
> inflation)
> means that the inadequate spending levels could never be raised. In
> addition, population growth does not reflect the different needs that
> different people have. One example we all have come to understand is
> that children whose families recently immigrated to the US and who do
> not speak English at home require more spending on school services, at
> least for a few years. Another example would be that as California's
> population ages, more per capita spending for health care and social
> services will be required.
>
> What about the effect of the 1A spending cap on any new programs
> California may want to create? We'll use the example of "health care
> for all forever." It is possible to pass a Single-Payer ("Medicare
> for
> all") health care plan in California, such as SB 840, which passed the
> Legislature but was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger twice, and is
> now
> being introduced again as SB 810. The new revenues such a plan would
> mandate would not be subject to the spending cap. However, studies
> which have shown that Californians could afford to cover everyone with
> the money that would be saved by cutting the health insurance
> companies
> out of the loop depend on also rolling existing programs into the new
> program. The deep cuts that have been made in state health care
> spending make this much more difficult.
>
> Although the budget battle was mainly portrayed by the mainstream
> media
> as Democrats (tax, cut, and borrow) vs Republicans (cut, cut, and
> cut),
> there were some parts of the deal that even some Democrats could not
> bring themselves to support. District 16 Assembly member Sandre
> Swanson, for example, voted against 1A (and several other budget
> cuts),
> and was stripped of a committee chairmanship byte Democratic "Leaders"
> in the legislature.
>
> Measure 1B looks good at first, as it seems to restore, starting in
> the
> 2011-12 school year, $9.3 billion dollars that were diverted from the
> amounts guaranteed under Proposition 98. There is no question that
> deep
> cuts in education funding are being made all around us. Thousands of
> teachers and other school employees are threatened with layoffs.
> However, 1B is contingent on passage of 1A. That is, 1B is the
> sweetener for the worst part of this rotten deal. While the
> California
> Teachers Association recommends support of 1B, many teachers,
> including
> the Oakland Education Association (by a unanimous vote of their Rep
> Council) recommends opposing prop 1A and 1B.
>
> 1C allows the state to borrow $5 billion against future lottery
> revenues, and use the funds for programs other than the schools. We
> oppose this individual proposal because we are opposed to the entire
> process and this entire deal.
>
> 1D and 1E alter past propositions to plug some holes in the current
> budget and that's why they are part of the current deal. We oppose
> these measures as part of opposing this entire deal. 1D redirects
> money
> from the Prop 10 (California Children and Families Act) Trust Fund; 1E
> redirects money from Prop 63 (the Mental Health Services Act).
>
> 1F is deceptive. The legislature is trying to look like they are
> sharing the sacrifices that the rest of us are being asked to make in
> these tough times. But 1F merely bars increases so the Legislature
> would continue to receive their normal salaries and per diems. People
> losing their jobs or their benefits get nothing. Some equality of
> sacrifice (Not!).
>
> The really terrible budget cuts that were made to pass the mid-year
> budget adjustments should note accepted by us as voters. We can
> send a
> message by defeating Propositions 1A through 1F.
>
> So what is to be done at the state level?
>
> (1) Abolish the 2/3 vote needed to pass the budget. Even State
> Senator
> Loni Hancock has introduced a constitutional amendment to do that.
> The
> current situation gives the Republicans much more power over the
> budget
> than their numbers warrant. That is obvious. What is less obvious is
> that the current situation gives cover to the Democrats. Billions of
> dollars in cuts of services to their constituents but Democratic Party
> legislatures then say don't blame them -- it's the Republicans fault.
>
> (2) Amend Proposition 13. Adopt the split-roll property tax system,
> in
> which income-producing property is taxed at a higher rate than
> peoples'
> primary residences. Amending Prop 13 should also include automatic
> reassessments when businesses are sold.
>
> (3) Return to the notion of progressive taxation. For too long,
> there
> has been a bipartisan agreement to move away from progressive taxation
> and substitute a trickle-down theory. It goes like this: If the rich
> get richer, perhaps a crumb can be gotten for the rest of us. Forget
> it. When Peter Camejo ran for Governor he made progressive taxation a
> centerpiece of his campaigns. We should follow his example.
> Progressive taxation does not just mean graduated tax rates on income.
> We need to tax wealth as well as income.
>
> (4) Change the state laws that govern redevelopment districts. In
> Oakland, for example, taxes generated by the big office buildings
> downtown have to be spent within that redevelopment area. This is
> deliberate starvation of the cities' general funds.
>
>
>
>
> Report #2
>
> Some Thoughts About the 5/19/09 Special Election
>
> My purpose in this "article" is to provide background information as
> we
> make our decisions about the items coming to the voters in the
> special
> election of 5/19/09. (This is not proposed as an actual article for
> the
> Voter Guide or other publication, but as information for Green Party
> activists.) My general approach is "tax and spend." Tax those with
> more
> money than others, and spend what we should to provide for health,
> education, welfare, the environment. The package the Duopoly has
> agreed
> to is really terrible from the point of view of further cutting
> spending in areas where the spending has already been inadequate for
> years, failing to tax those who have plenty of money, and failing to
> start spending for future-focused environmental and energy needs.
>
> A very useful source for ongoing analysis of the many issues is the
> California Budget Project (online at cbp.org). The gap between the
> business-as-usual expenditures and the business-as-usual revenue has
> been growing. (Currently the budget gap in California is the
> largest as
> a percentage of the General Fund of any state in the US.) In recent
> years various one-time accounting tricks, pieces of luck, borrowing,
> deferring necessary work, and other such gimmicks have been used to
> stumble from one near-calamity to another. This failure of our
> elected
> leaders to tell the truth and deal with the real problems has been
> pointed out by many commentators.
>
> Proposition 1A proposes a spending cap. This has been proposed and
> voted down in the past. If a spending cap had been enacted in
> 1995-96,
> we would have had to cut about $40 billion in spending in 2006-07,
> 2007-08, and 2008-09. The official ballot summary says 1A "strictly
> limits state spending and mandates a bigger rainy day fund -- forcing
> politicians to save more in good years to prevent tax increases and
> cuts
> to schools, public safety and other vital services in bad years."
> This
> statement gives the misleading impression that state revenue and state
> spending have been just fine except for this current crisis this year,
> and all we have to do is return to the good old days (of the dot-com
> bubble, the stock market bubble, or the housing bubble, all of which
> temporarily raised state tax revenues).
>
> But there were many problems with the business-as-usual expenditures
> even before the current round of cuts. I'll start with the topic that
> is most valued by the average voter, K-14 education.
>
> Voters approved Prop 98 in 1988 to assure that the proportion of funds
> spent on the schools (40% of the General Fund) stays at the same
> inadequate level it was then, rather than continuing to lose not
> only by
> comparison with what would be needed for a good school system, but in
> comparison to other budget items. Prop 1B proposes changes to Prop
> 98.
> Under the current conditions, we should oppose 1B.
>
> Another major part of the budget is welfare, including aid to the
> disabled, blind, and aged low-income people of California. The
> Federal
> SSI program has a built-in cost-of-living adjustment annually, as does
> Social Security. Many states, including California, supplement the
> Federal SSI grant with a "state supplement." By failing to increase
> the
> SSP (that is, passing along the Federal increase but freezing the
> SSP),
> or even by reducing it so that the check received by the beneficiary
> does not go up (the reduction "swallows" the Federal increase), the
> earning power of this safety-net program decreases over time. Using
> June 1990 as 100, the purchasing power of SSI/SSP in California has
> fallen to about 80, and the current proposals would reduce it still
> further. It bears repeating that all of this reduction is due to
> California's cuts over the years, as the Federal share has continued
> to
> rise. (source; CPB)
>
> Aid to low-income families with children, now called Cal-Works, has
> declined in that same period to about 70% of its value in 1990, and
> the
> proposed cuts now will reduce that to 50%. (source: CPB) Because the
> 1996 "welfare reform" law limits the time adults can remain on
> welfare,
> currently almost 80% of the people on Cal-Works are children. (That
> is,
> in some families, the children are still receiving a Cal-Works grant
> but
> the parent has been removed and the family's grant lowered.)
>
> Another large item in the budget is health care.. MediCal is the
> Federal/State program providing some health care for low-income
> Californians. (There are other requirements too. Not all low-income
> people can get MediCal.) As of December 2007, California spent $5695
> per recipient on each MediCal enrollee, less than Mississippi, less
> than
> Georgia, less than Alabama, far less than the national average of
> $7534,
> and, although this is hard to believe, less than ANY OTHER STATE.
> About
> ten states spent more than $10,000 per enrollee. (Source; CPB)
>
> Then there are the prisons, currently overcrowded to the point where
> even the courts are demanding a reduction in the number of
> incarcerated
> people. We support reducing the prison budget and releasing enough of
> the currently imprisoned to relieve the overcrowding. (Of course we
> also
> insist on state funding for community support for the people
> released.)
> Corrections (and rehabilitation) sending has grown at nearly four
> times the rate of General Fund spending as a whole since 1980-81.
> General fund spending is up by 381% and corrections and rehabilitation
> spending is up by 1491% (source; CPB) This cruel and disgraceful
> trend
> in California's history should be reversed.
>
> So, what should the Green Party recommend regarding the "spending"
> part
> of the budget?(Our Platform has many excellent suggestions.)
>
> And where should the tax revenue come from to pay for all that?
> Republican rhetoric about "everyone having to sacrifice" suggests that
> those who already are unable to afford adequate food, shelter, health
> care, and education should give up still more, such as dental care, so
> that millionaires and multi-millionaires don't have to pay more,
> although the rich can pay more with no actual deprivation
> resulting. As
> (the late) Peter Camejo pointed out during his campaigns for
> Governor
> (2002, 2003, 2006), the lowest-income households pay the largest share
> of their income in state and local taxes.
>
> "Corporate income taxes have declined over time as a share of General
> Fund revenues and as a share of corporate profits. If corporations
> had
> paid the same share of their profits in corporate taxes in 2006 as
> they
> did in 1981, corporate tax collections would have been $8.4 billion
> higher. The yield of the state's sales tax has declined over time,
> reflecting the shift in economic activity from goods to services and
> the
> rise of Internet and mail-order sales that escape taxation. If
> taxable
> purchases accounted for the same share of personal income in 2007-08
> as
> they did in 1966-67, the state would have collected an additional
> $16.4
> billion in sales tax revenue." (Source; CPB.)
>
> While there are some states which require a "supermajority" (that is,
> more than a simple majority) to pass their budget, and some states
> that
> require a supermajority to raise any state taxes, California is the
> only
> state to require both. That situation allows the most parsimonious
> anti-tax legislators (that is, the Republicans) to dictate terms
> although they are in the minority in the Legislature.
>
> Despite rhetoric about how everyone will have to sacrifice, everyone
> is
> not equally able to pay higher taxes while still being able to meet
> their basic needs. During the period 1995 to 2006, the taxpayers in
> the
> top 15% of the state's income distribution have had their income
> double,
> while the bottom four-fifths saw their income increase between 8.55
> and
> 10.8%. The wealthiest 1% could easily afford to pay higher taxes
> while
> the vast majority would suffer far more hardship if they had to do so.
>
> We should try to arrive at a general opinion about set-asides that
> have
> been enacted by the voters. Prop 98 (the 40% set-aside for K-14
> education) is by far the largest and best known set-aside. There have
> been a few others enacted in recent years as voters agree to meet a
> very
> specific need(such as more services for the mentally ill) with a very
> specific tax (Prop 63). We understand there is widespread and
> well-founded suspicion that the normal operations of the budget
> process
> will overlook some important need. Regardless of what we think about
> set-asides, we are now being asked to change some set-asides. Again,
> these are decisions passed by voters who could not trust the
> Legislature
> to provide what is needed in a specific area. In my opinion, we
> should
> oppose attempts to save money by subverting the set-asides. If we get
> to the point where basic necessities are adequately and routinely
> covered by the elected Legislature, set-asides will not even be
> noticed
> as an issue. Measures 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E are orders by those who
> think
> they are our leaders (the legislature) to drop our silly and childish
> opinions about what the holes are in the budget. Therefore I
> recommend
> voting NO on those Propositions.
>
> However, if we do vote NO on these changes to set-asides, we will have
> some unlikely opponents, including State Senator (from Sacramento)
> Darrell Steinberg, who (when he was a State Assemblyman) was a
> leader in
> the successful plan (Prop 63 in 2004) to raise taxes on people with
> incomes of $1 million and up, to generate money for community-based
> psychiatric services. According to a Dan Walters column in the
> Oakland
> Tribune on 3/3/09, Steinberg is now supporting 1E, a raid on the funds
> set aside but not yet spent, to be spent on state mental health
> services
> which are otherwise in danger of being reduced. We can view this as a
> practical necessity or we can view it as a further evidence of a
> dysfunctional state government which should not be rewarded for its
> dysfunction.
>
> The Democrats (especially the liberal Democrats in the Bay Area) are
> blaming the proposed budget cuts on the Republicans. As Greens we
> should point out (to anyone who will read our Voter Guide) that an
> election was held in November 2008. The long-standing problems with
> the
> structural imbalance between state revenue and state expenditures
> should
> have been loudly and clearly pointed out during the election season.
> The Democrats should have made it clear what kind of budget priorities
> they were committed to as a party, where they would raise taxes if
> they
> had the power to do so, and what expenditures they would reduce.
> Others
> may correct me, but I do not remember a clear and coherent call for
> the
> voters to elect enough Democrats to carry out some clear vision.
>
> There has been a recent gesture in the right direction. State Senator
> Loni Hancock issued a statement on 3/3/09 in which she agonizes about
> the "great price" we paid with the signing of the spending plan. She
> says the 2/3rds vote required to pass the budget "has proved fatally
> dysfunctional for California, making it impossible in recent years to
> pass budgets on time or with accountability." Of course she blames
> the
> Republicans. Hancock declares herself in favor of "progressive tax
> increases that benefit the average Californian" and says "Things must
> change." One change she suggests is a simple majority to pass the
> state
> budget. She has introduced a constitutional amendment, SCA 5, to do
> that. This measure would require a 2/3rds vote so it represents a
> propaganda move by Hancock, the kind of move that would be useful if
> made during an election season so voters would know what they could
> accomplish if they replaced their Republican representative by a
> Democrat.
>
> ###
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Contacts2006 mailing list
> Contacts2006 at lists.cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Contacts2006 mailing list
> Contacts2006 at lists.cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006
> _______________________________________________
> gpca-cc mailing list
> gpca-cc at cagreens.org
> http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cc
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.11.42/2042 - Release Date:
> 04/05/09
> 10:54:00
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Marnie Glickman
Executive Director
Green Change
www.greenchange.org
My Green Change page: http://network.greenchange.org/people/marnie
Green Change tweets: www.twitter.com/greenchangeorg
Green Change is a community of people with Green values: justice,
grassroots democracy, sustainability and non-violence. We work
together to share Green art, politics and culture.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/marin-d_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20090428/c0efaab9/attachment.html>
More information about the marin-d
mailing list