[Marin-d] Fw: [GPCA-CC] [GPCA Official Notice] County Polling Instructions and Reports -- March 3rd Votes Deadline!!!

Tue Jan 12 10:12:29 PST 2010

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: david quinley <david_quinley at yahoo.com>
To: northbaygreens at lists.riseup.net
Cc: marincg at groups.aol.com
Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 10:10:27 AM
Subject: Fw: [GPCA-CC] [GPCA Official Notice] County Polling Instructions and Reports -- March 3rd Votes Deadline!!!

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: County Contacts <contacts2006 at lists.cagreens.org>
To: County Contacts <Contacts2006 at cagreens.org>
Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 4:11:30 PM
Subject: [GPCA-CC] [GPCA Official Notice] County Polling Instructions and Reports -- March 3rd Votes 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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

January 10, 2010

To: GPCA County Councils, Co-Coordinators, and Activists

From: County Polling Coordinators

Re: Early 2010 County Polling; Ballot Measures for June 2010 Election

At the October 2009 Plenary, the General Assembly of Delegates directed
County Polling for two proposals that were in development for later
petition signatures regarding a possible future California
Constitutional Convention. It was expected that there would be one
proposal to authorize California voters to call a Constitutional
Convention and another actually doing so. The idea was that the GPCA
should express its position as early in this process as possible once
the content of the proposals had been established for a petition campaign.

Typically, County Polling deals with proposals that have been certified
for the ballot. At this time, there are three initiatives that are
certified for voter decision at the June 8, 2010 election.

The County Polling process begins with an invitation for persons
interested in writing reports about ballot measures to identify
themselves and, if possible, collaborate on reports and recommendations
for one or more items. A request for such reports was published on the
County Contacts, CCWG and Green Cal Forum email lists approximately
December 10, 2009. Responses to those requests are published below. No
write up was received regarding the anticipated Constitutional
Convention proposals. Accordingly, those items are not included in this
County Polling. At the time of writing this report, the ballot measures
had not been assigned ballot numbers.

INTRODUCTION TO COUNTY POLLING INSTRUCTIONS

Below you will find instructions for GPCA County organizations to report
County GP positions on the three ballot measures that the California
legislature placed for consideration of the voters as part of the June
8, 2010 Primary Election. Abel Maldonado’s so-Ccalled “Open Primary”
proposal was included as part of the February 2009 budget negotiations
to get his vote in the State Senate. Immediately following those
instructions, you will find reports that have been written by Green
Party activists. 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.

The next General Assembly of Delegates is scheduled for March 6th-7th in
Santa Clara County. Having County Polling at this time allows the GPCA
to take positions earlier than has been usual practice concerning June
Primary ballot measures. If GPCA positions are not decided by County
Polling before the Plenary, the undecided items will be placed on the
Plenary Agenda by previously adopted procedures. To the extent decisions
on these ballot measures can be made by County Polling, agenda time will
be created for other items. 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 <mailto:wsb3attyca at aol.com> or (408)
295-9353. Any questions about the following instructions should be
addressed to Warner Bloomberg and Richard Gomez -- County Polling
Coordinators. All County Polling Reports should be submitted to both
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.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR GPCA STATEWIDE POLL OF COUNTIES

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. Three measures have been put on the ballot
by the State Legislature for consideration of the voters as part of the
June 8, 2010 Primary Election. Please be sure that your county
participates by submitting votes by Wednesday, March 3, 2010 (also the
last day to register and submit delegate lists for the Plenary).

THE POLL:

This poll contains a list of Legislative ballot measures that will be
voted on as part of the June 8, 2010 Primary Election. 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 <http://www.ss.ca.gov/> and following
the applicable links.

PROCESS:

Please provide both Poll Coordinators (Warner Bloomberg and Richard
Gomez) 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 ALLOTED TO YOUR COUNTY FOR THE SANTA
CLARA COUNTY (SAN JOSE) PLENARY. That list is published in the agenda
packet for that state meeting to be held MARCH 6-7, 2010. 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 and “half votes” may be reported.)
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 and
requires at least 50% or active California County Green Parties to
participate. The default where the threshold or quorum is not met is “No
Position”. VOTES MUST BE REPORTED BY A COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBER.

TIMELINE:

The voting period begins on January 12, 2010, and ends on March 3, 2010
(11:59 PM PST). Votes received after the closing date and time will not
be counted. There will not be an extension of this voting period because
the Plenary convenes three days later. Submit all votes to BOTH the Poll
Coordinators at the following email addresses:

Warner Bloomberg wsb3attyca at aol.com

Richard Gomez nate136_66 at yahoo.com

Please submit any questions about the process of the poll to the same
email addresses.

BALLOT MEASURES APPEARING ON THE JUNE 8, 2010

PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT

The list of statewide measures qualified for the June 2010 Primary
Election ballot is as follows:

Constitutional Amendment
SCA 4. (Resolution Chapter 115, 2008), Ashburn.

*Property tax: new construction exclusion: seismic retrofitting.*
<http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/pdf/sca-4-bill-20080827-chaptered.pdf>

Statute
AB 583. (Chapter 735, 2008). Hancock.

*Political Reform Act of 1974: California Fair Elections Act of 2008.*
<http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/pdf/ab-583-bill-20080930-chaptered.pdf>

Constitutional Amendment
SCA 4. (Resolution Chapter 2, 2009). Maldonado.

*Elections: open primaries.*
<http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/pdf/sca-4-bill-20090219-chaptered.pdf>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The full text of each of these measures can be found by going to the
California Secretary of State website www.ss.ca.gov
<http://www.ss.ca.gov/>, clicking the Ballot Measures link, then the
Qualified for 2010 Primary link, and then each individual ballot measure.

Report #1 [As forwarded by Greg Jan] Below is some initial quick
analysis on SCA4, which will be on the upcoming statewide June ballot!

Vote "Yes" on SCA4 (property tax exemption for seismic retrofits):

SCA4 modifies the State constitution to allow the legislature to create
specific rules that encourage seismic retrofits of older buildings.
Currently, such retrofits might cause the assessed valuation to rise
considerably, as the retrofit is considered "new construction". Thus
owners may have a disincentive to improve the seismic safety of their
property, as it would make their taxes increase.

Since many residences and offices in California are at high risk for
damage and consequent injury of occupants, it is probably a good idea to
encourage safety retrofits. While many cities and counties may need
additional tax revenue, taxing seismic safety improvements is a bad way
to go about it. SCA4 should be supported.

Report #2 California Fair Elections Act of 2008; AB 583; Hancock

Background: This is the third proposal over a number of years for public
financing of partisan office elections to be considered or passed by the
California Legislature. All have been advocated by “Clean Money”
activists and sponsored in the California State Assembly by Lonnie
Hancock (D-Oakland). The 2004 proposal included both statewide and
legislative offices, but was so discriminatory against smaller political
parties that it was opposed in hearings by Green Party representatives
and was not approved out of committee. A 2006 version of the proposal
met GPCA criticisms enough that it was supported by the Electoral Reform
Working Group and was endorsed in advance of introduction by the
December 2005 General Assembly of Delegates. The legislation passed, but
was vetoed. The current ballot measure is self-described as a “pilot
project” and, if approved by the voters in the June 8, 2010, Primary
Election would apply only to candidates for Secretary of State. Its
claimed purposes are to eliminate the corrupting influences of large
campaign donations both for candidates and incumbents. The Fair
Elections Fund (FEF) would be financed from $700 fees paid every two
years by lobbyists, lobbying firms, and their employers (although $25
would go to the General Fund), by qualifying donations obtained by
Primary Elections and Independent candidates, by taxpayer donations,

Details: Similar to the second version, Secretary of State candidates
from political parties whose last previous candidate in the General
Election received at least 10% of the vote (read: Democratic and
Republican Party candidates) would qualify for public financing by
collecting 7,500 nominating signatures combined with a $5 donation
($37,500 total). Candidates of other political parties could qualify for
partial campaign funding by collecting at least 3,750 signatures and $5
donations ($10,750 total) and could become a “performance qualified”
candidate by collecting 15,000 signatures and $5 donations ($75,000
total). An independent candidate would have to meet this latter
threshold to qualify for public financing. The qualifying period for
candidates in primaries would run from nine months before the primary
election and end three months before the primary election (the last day
to file nomination papers and also the last day to submit signatures and
donations to qualify for public financing). However, there also would be
an “exploratory period” starting 18 months before the primary and ending
on the qualifying deadline during which there could be up to 750 $100
contributions made as “seed money” to fund the signatures and small
donations efforts. Unspent seed money could not be used during the
campaign and would be turned over to the FEF. A registered voter would
be allowed to sign only one candidate’s qualifying petition accompanied
by a $5 donation.

An “Office Qualified” candidate would be allotted One Million Dollars
for the primary election. The text of the ballot measure seems unclear,
but since Primary Election funding may not be used by the General
Election candidates, the “big party” nominees would presumably received
at least the same amount for the General Election campaign. “Eligible
Qualified” candidates would receive $200,000. Smaller party nominees
would receive either $1.3 Million if they had obtained the highest
number of qualifying signatures and $5 contributions, or would receive
$325,000 if they had qualified by the lesser minimum. Unspent primary
election funds would be returned to the FEF.

Political parties could not “nominate” a candidate, but could support or
oppose a primary candidate. State political parties would be allowed
spend 5% of a candidate’s allotment as an independent expenditure (i.e.,
separate from the candidate’s campaign). Candidates participating in the
public financing would not be allowed to accept campaign contributions
from any other source, would be barred from contributing to other
candidates’ campaigns or to independent committees, would be required to
make complete financial reports to the Fair Political Practices
Commission, would have to maintain a single campaign account, could use
the funds only for campaign related expenses, and could not use funds
for self or family compensation. Funding also would be tracked because
disbursements would be through a candidate specific debit card. Rules
violations by participating candidates could result in administrative
fine, criminal prosecution, barring a candidate from future elections,
and a demand for refund of part or all public funds distributed to the
candidate.

If a nonparticipating candidate spent $5,000 more than the highest
allotment, participating candidates’ public financing would be increased
by each $5,000 increment. Participating candidates would be required to
participate in at least one primary election debate and two general
election debates. Independent Committees would be subject to reporting
requirements if they spent $2,500 or more supporting or opposing a
candidate. Candidate advertising would be required to include a
statement of candidate approval. Participating candidates would be
allowed a 250 word candidate statement in the statewide ballot pamphlet;
nonparticipating candidates would have to pay the pro rata expense of
the pamphlet for their statement. Participating candidates would be
identified as such on the ballot and on the Secretary of State web page
listing candidates.

Comments: The GPCA Platform endorses public financing of political
campaigns to reduce the corrupting influence of money on our political
system. Getting a proposal to the ballot has involved numerous
compromises by public financing advocates in response to opposition
about the expenses of such a system and arguments that public money
should only be provided to candidates who can demonstrate significant
backing. The question for GPCA activists is whether the provisions in
this proposal are too discriminatory to small party candidates to allow
a principled endorsement of the ballot measure or whether this step
towards public financing in California politics is important enough that
the state party should endorse it. If it is approved by the voters,
qualifying GPCA primary candidates for Secretary of State would have
more campaign funds than anytime previously. The GPCA nominee also would
have more campaign money than ever before. Even though those funds could
only be used for those candidates, their campaigning in the Primary
Election and General Election would raise Green Party visibility and
presence in the election cycle. One could also envision using the
signature and $5 donations gathering as a basis for party organizing and
outreach – particularly since the qualifying petitions and donations
could be from any registered voter.

Recommendation: Endorse to vote Yes for this ballot measure, even if
there are reservations.

Written by Warner S. Bloomberg III

Co-Signor: Kendra Gonzales

Co-Signor: Jim Stauffer – with the following reservations:

Continuing to treat minor parties as second-class participants creates a
burden that, in turn, relegates us to second-class status. It's a
vicious circle, but the best we can get. Not exactly the basis for an
enthusiastic endorsement.

The two-tiered structure will cause a tremendous burden if we accomplish
implementing proportional representation. PR creates a level electoral
playing field, but second-class public financing would then be a
significant hurdle to minor party candidates.

Report #3 No on Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 4 (written by
Michael Rubin, GPAC) [Bracketed portion indicates edited text.]

Vote "No" on Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 4 -- The so-called
"open primary"

This is the legislative counsel’s digest of SCA 4 (Maldonado is the author):

“Existing provisions of the California Constitution require the
Legislature to provide for primary elections for partisan offices,
including an open presidential primary election, as specified....

“This measure, which would be known as the "Top Two Primaries Act,”
would provide for a "voter-nominated primary election” for each state
elective office and congressional office in California, in which a voter
may vote at the primary election for any candidate for a congressional
or state elective office without regard to the political party
preference disclosed by the candidate or the voter. The measure would
further provide that a candidate for a congressional or state elective
office generally may choose whether to have his or her political party
preference indicated upon the ballot for that office in the manner to be
provided by statute. The measure would prohibit a political party or
party central committee from nominating a candidate for a congressional
or state elective office at the primary, but the measure would permit a
political party or party central committee to endorse, support, or
oppose a candidate for congressional or state elective office. The 2
candidates receiving the 2 highest vote totals for each office at a
primary election, regardless of party preference, would then compete for
the office at the ensuing general election. This measure would require
the Legislature to provide for partisan elections for Presidential
candidates, political party committees, and party central steering
committees.

“This measure would designate the Superintendent of Public Instruction
as a non-partisan office.

“If the measure is approved by the voters it would become operative on
January 1, 2011.”

[The Green Party of California previously vigorously opposed a proposal
similar to this proposition.] We are opposed both to the practical
effects of this proposition and also to its underlying political
philosophy. On the practical level, this proposition would seriously
interfere with the ability of the smaller parties to participate in the
marketplace of ideas. It is entirely possible that the passage of this
proposition would mortally wound one or more of the small parties.
Contrary to the high-minded phraseology such as “the act is hereby
adopted by the people of California to protect and preserve the right of
every Californian to vote for the candidate of his or her choice,”
passage would severely limit choice. The two choices permitted would be
well-funded mainstream candidates, thus reinforcing the widespread view
that we have the best government money can buy. We also disagree with
the philosophic underpinnings of this proposition. We disagree with the
notion that political parties are bad; that there is something wrong
with like-minded people organized in a political party having candidates
of their choice competing in a general election. In fact, we believe
it’s their political right to do so. The supporters of this proposition
are trying to use the dysfunction of state government as an argument for
it. They say that the problems are due to the current electoral process,
which produces few moderates and is responsible for the excessive
partisanship in Sacramento. The Green Party disagrees with both of these
arguments. We believe that the current system, if anything, produces too
many moderates. If diversity of opinion in state government is the goal,
proportional representation would be a far superior remedy. As to
partisanship, we believe that the blame falls on the actions and
policies of the Republican and Democratic parties, not in the concept of
political parties in the abstract.

###-------- Original Message --------
Subject: CfER's position on Top Two "Open Primary" Act
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:27:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Steve Chessin <steve.chessin at sun.com>
To: gpca at cagreens.org

Californians for Electoral Reform

The CfER Board wanted to make sure that all of the ballot-qualified
political parties knew of our opposition. Your email addresses were
obtained from the Secretary of State's website (and links therefrom, if
necessary).

--Steve Chessin
President, Californians for Electoral Reform
www.cfer.org
steve.chessin at cfer.org
(650)-786-6200(w), (650)-962-8412(h)

Short statement from Californians for Electoral Reform explaining our
opposition to the so-called Top Two Candidates "Open Primary" Act.

On November 21, 2009, the Board of Directors of Californians for
Electoral Reform (CfER) voted to oppose the so-called Top Two Candidates
"Open Primary" Act that will be on the June 8, 2010 ballot.
We're in the process of preparing a longer statement explaining our
position in detail. Briefly, our opposition is based on the conclusion
that Top Two will limit voters' choices, not expand them, and this is
in direct conflict with CfER's stated belief that all citizens must have
equal and satisfactory representation in government.

(We put "Open Primary" in quotes because this proposal would not
establish open primaries. Rather, it would establish non-partisan
primaries with some similarities to the blanket primary system of
1998-2000. It would be even more accurate to say that there would be no
primaries at all because the first round of voting wouldn't select
nominees of political parties.)

Top Two will virtually eliminate minor parties from the ballot, not only
in the November election, but even as a "party preference" that
candidates could specify on the primary ballot. The proposal creates
conditions for maintaining ballot-qualified status that no group other
than the two major parties will be able to meet. It also eliminates the
safety-valve of write-in candidacies in the November runoff elections.

Top Two is being advertised as a way to encourage the election of more
moderate candidates. While there is no proof that it will do so, even if
it could it would be at the cost of limiting voter choice and
weakening political parties. There are much better ways to ensure the
election of moderates, such as a system of proportional representation.

In addition, Top Two is in direct conflict with the Fair Elections Act
of 2008, which establishes public funding for candidates for Secretary
of State, that will also appear on the June 8 ballot. CfER has no
position on the Fair Elections proposal; some of our members support it
and some oppose it, so an as organization we remain neutral. But those
who do support it should be aware that, should both measures pass in
June, there is no telling what the courts will do to resolve the conflict.

--Steve Chessin
President, Californians for Electoral Reform
www.cfer.org
steve.chessin at cfer.org
(650)-786-6200(w), (650)-962-8412(h)

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/marin-d_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20100112/f142ab0f/attachment.html>