<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14pt"><div><br></div><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;"><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">----- Forwarded Message ----<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> david quinley <david_quinley@yahoo.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> northbaygreens@lists.riseup.net<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> marincg@groups.aol.com<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Tue, January 12, 2010 10:10:27 AM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Fw: [GPCA-CC] [GPCA Official Notice] County Polling Instructions and Reports -- March 3rd Votes Deadline!!!<br></font><br><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;
font-size: 14pt;"><div><br></div><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;"><br><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">----- Forwarded Message ----<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> County Contacts <contacts2006@lists.cagreens.org><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> County Contacts <Contacts2006@cagreens.org><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Mon, January 11, 2010 4:11:30 PM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> [GPCA-CC] [GPCA Official Notice] County Polling Instructions and Reports -- March 3rd Votes Deadline!!!<br></font><br>GREEN PARTY COUNTY CONTACTS MESSAGE<br><br>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<br>stated in the email.<br><br><br><br><br><br>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br><br><br>January 10, 2010<br><br>To: GPCA County Councils, Co-Coordinators, and Activists<br><br>From: County Polling Coordinators<br><br>Re: Early 2010 County Polling; Ballot Measures for June 2010 Election<br><br>At the October 2009 Plenary, the General Assembly of Delegates directed<br>County Polling for two proposals that were in development for later<br>petition signatures regarding a possible future California<br>Constitutional Convention. It was expected that there would be one<br>proposal to authorize California voters to call a Constitutional<br>Convention and another actually doing so. The idea was that the GPCA<br>should express its position as early in this process as possible once<br>the content of the
proposals had been established for a petition campaign.<br><br>Typically, County Polling deals with proposals that have been certified<br>for the ballot. At this time, there are three initiatives that are<br>certified for voter decision at the June 8, 2010 election.<br><br>The County Polling process begins with an invitation for persons<br>interested in writing reports about ballot measures to identify<br>themselves and, if possible, collaborate on reports and recommendations<br>for one or more items. A request for such reports was published on the<br>County Contacts, CCWG and Green Cal Forum email lists approximately<br>December 10, 2009. Responses to those requests are published below. No<br>write up was received regarding the anticipated Constitutional<br>Convention proposals. Accordingly, those items are not included in this<br>County Polling. At the time of writing this report, the ballot measures<br>had not been assigned ballot
numbers.<br><br>INTRODUCTION TO COUNTY POLLING INSTRUCTIONS<br><br>Below you will find instructions for GPCA County organizations to report<br>County GP positions on the three ballot measures that the California<br>legislature placed for consideration of the voters as part of the June<br>8, 2010 Primary Election. Abel Maldonado’s so-Ccalled “Open Primary”<br>proposal was included as part of the February 2009 budget negotiations<br>to get his vote in the State Senate. Immediately following those<br>instructions, you will find reports that have been written by Green<br>Party activists. These reports are simply the opinions of those who<br>wrote them and DO NOT constitute GPCA positions. GPCA positions on<br>ballot measures occur in two ways: By decision of the delegates at a<br>General Assembly or by County Polling.<br><br>The next General Assembly of Delegates is scheduled for March 6th-7th in<br>Santa Clara County. Having County Polling at this
time allows the GPCA<br>to take positions earlier than has been usual practice concerning June<br>Primary ballot measures. If GPCA positions are not decided by County<br>Polling before the Plenary, the undecided items will be placed on the<br>Plenary Agenda by previously adopted procedures. To the extent decisions<br>on these ballot measures can be made by County Polling, agenda time will<br>be created for other items. As in previous years, special thanks to<br>everyone who contributed to the reports and to Greg Jan for collecting<br>them. Any questions about these comments should be addressed to Warner<br>Bloomberg at <a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:wsb3attyca@aol.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:wsb3attyca@aol.com">wsb3attyca@aol.com</a> <mailto:<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:wsb3attyca@aol.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:wsb3attyca@aol.com">wsb3attyca@aol.com</a>> or (408)<br>295-9353. Any questions about the following instructions
should be<br>addressed to Warner Bloomberg and Richard Gomez --
County Polling<br>Coordinators. All County Polling Reports should be submitted to both<br>County Polling Coordinators.<br><br>PLEASE NOTE: As recipients on the County Contacts list YOU have the<br>responsibility to communicate this information to other members in your<br>local County GP organization. You are to use whatever process you use in<br>your County GP to make decisions of this kind – but each County needs to<br>instruct its delegates on these issues in the event they need to be<br>decided at the Plenary. A copy of these instructions and the following<br>reports will be posted on the Plenary agenda page as a supplement to the<br>Agenda Packet.<br><br>INSTRUCTIONS FOR GPCA STATEWIDE POLL OF COUNTIES<br><br>The GPCA uses a poll of all recognized County Green Parties to determine<br>GPCA positions on ballot measures as an alternative to making those<br>decisions at a state meeting. Three measures have been put on the ballot<br>by the State
Legislature for consideration of the voters as part of the<br>June 8, 2010 Primary Election. Please be sure that your county<br>participates by submitting votes by Wednesday, March 3, 2010 (also the<br>last day to register and submit delegate lists for the Plenary).<br><br>THE POLL:<br><br>This poll contains a list of Legislative ballot measures that will be<br>voted on as part of the June 8, 2010 Primary Election. Reports on these<br>measures written by volunteers from the Green Party grassroots who have<br>reviewed the measures follow below. Of course, counties are free to<br>agree or disagree with the recommended positions. The full text of the<br>initiatives can be located by going to the webpage for the California<br><span>Secretary of State <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.ss.ca.gov">www.ss.ca.gov</a> <</span><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.ss.ca.gov/">http://www.ss.ca.gov/</a>> and following<br>the
applicable
links.<br><br>PROCESS:<br><br>Please provide both Poll Coordinators (Warner Bloomberg and Richard<br>Gomez) with vote results from your county in the following form for each<br>ballot measure:<br><br>"Yes" for the GPCA to support the measure<br><br>"No" for the GPCA to oppose the measure<br><br>"No Position" for the GPCA to deliberately remain neutral on the measure<br><br>Votes may also be cast as "Abstain" if they do not wish to participate<br>in the poll. Abstentions will be counted toward quorum.<br><br>Vote on each ballot measure itself, not the recommendation. For example,<br>if the report has recommended a position of "No," and your county wishes<br>to agree and vote "No" on the initiative, then your county should vote<br>"No" on the initiative, and not "Yes" on the recommended "No" position.<br><br>PLEASE SUBMIT VOTES IN THE AMOUNT ALLOTED TO YOUR COUNTY FOR THE SANTA<br>CLARA COUNTY (SAN JOSE) PLENARY. That list is published in the
agenda<br>packet for that state meeting to be held MARCH 6-7, 2010. For example,<br>if your county has 2 delegates, you would submit 2 votes in any<br>combination of positions. (Votes from counties with more than one<br>delegate vote need not be unanimous and “half votes” may be reported.)<br>If you have any questions about the total number of votes that can be<br>cast for any measure, contact the GPCA Coordinating Committee member(s)<br>who represent your region. Your county should rely on its own internal<br>processes to arrive at its positions. The poll has an 80% threshold and<br>requires at least 50% or active California County Green Parties to<br>participate. The default where the threshold or quorum is not met is “No<br>Position”. VOTES MUST BE REPORTED BY A COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBER.<br><br>TIMELINE:<br><br>The voting period begins on January 12, 2010, and ends on March 3, 2010<br>(11:59 PM PST). Votes received after the closing date and
time will not<br>be counted. There will not be an extension of this voting period because<br>the Plenary convenes three days later. Submit all votes to BOTH the Poll<br>Coordinators at the following email addresses:<br><br>Warner Bloomberg <a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:wsb3attyca@aol.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:wsb3attyca@aol.com">wsb3attyca@aol.com</a><br><br>Richard Gomez <a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:nate136_66@yahoo.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:nate136_66@yahoo.com">nate136_66@yahoo.com</a><br><br>Please submit any questions about the process of the poll to the same<br>email addresses.<br><br>BALLOT MEASURES APPEARING ON THE JUNE 8, 2010<br><br>PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT<br><br>The list of statewide measures qualified for the June 2010 Primary<br>Election ballot is as follows:<br><br>Constitutional Amendment<br>SCA 4. (Resolution Chapter 115, 2008), Ashburn.<br><br>*Property tax: new construction exclusion: seismic
retrofitting.*<br><<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/pdf/sca-4-bill-20080827-chaptered.pdf">http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/pdf/sca-4-bill-20080827-chaptered.pdf</a>><br><br>Statute<br>AB 583. (Chapter 735, 2008). Hancock.<br><br>*Political Reform Act of 1974: California Fair Elections Act of 2008.*<br><<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/pdf/ab-583-bill-20080930-chaptered.pdf">http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/pdf/ab-583-bill-20080930-chaptered.pdf</a>><br><br>Constitutional Amendment<br>SCA 4. (Resolution Chapter 2, 2009). Maldonado.<br><br>*Elections: open primaries.*<br><<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/pdf/sca-4-bill-20090219-chaptered.pdf">http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/pdf/sca-4-bill-20090219-chaptered.pdf</a>><br><br>------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>The full text of each of these measures can be found by going to the<br><span>California Secretary of State website <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.ss.ca.gov">www.ss.ca.gov</a></span><br><<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.ss.ca.gov/">http://www.ss.ca.gov/</a>>, clicking the Ballot Measures link, then the<br>Qualified for 2010 Primary link, and then each individual ballot measure.<br><br>Report #1 [As forwarded by Greg Jan] Below is some initial quick<br>analysis on SCA4, which will be on the upcoming statewide June ballot!<br><br>Vote "Yes" on SCA4 (property tax exemption for seismic retrofits):<br><br>SCA4 modifies the State constitution to
allow the legislature to create<br>specific rules that encourage seismic retrofits of older
buildings.<br>Currently, such retrofits might cause the assessed valuation to rise<br>considerably, as the retrofit is considered "new construction". Thus<br>owners may have a disincentive to improve the seismic safety of their<br>property, as it would make their taxes increase.<br><br>Since many residences and offices in California are at high risk for<br>damage and consequent injury of occupants, it is probably a good idea to<br>encourage safety retrofits. While many cities and counties may need<br>additional tax revenue, taxing seismic safety improvements is a bad way<br>to go about it. SCA4 should be supported.<br><br>Report #2 California Fair Elections Act of 2008; AB 583; Hancock<br><br>Background: This is the third proposal over a number of years for public<br>financing of partisan office elections to be considered or passed by the<br>California Legislature. All have been advocated by “Clean Money”<br>activists and sponsored in the California
State Assembly by Lonnie<br>Hancock (D-Oakland). The 2004 proposal included both statewide and<br>legislative offices, but was so discriminatory against smaller political<br>parties that it was opposed in hearings by Green Party representatives<br>and was not approved out of committee. A 2006 version of the proposal<br>met GPCA criticisms enough that it was supported by the Electoral Reform<br>Working Group and was endorsed in advance of introduction by the<br>December 2005 General Assembly of Delegates. The legislation passed, but<br>was vetoed. The current ballot measure is self-described as a “pilot<br>project” and, if approved by the voters in the June 8, 2010, Primary<br>Election would apply only to candidates for Secretary of State. Its<br>claimed purposes are to eliminate the corrupting influences of large<br>campaign donations both for candidates and incumbents. The Fair<br>Elections Fund (FEF) would be financed from $700 fees paid every
two<br>years by lobbyists, lobbying firms, and their employers (although $25<br>would go to the General Fund), by qualifying donations obtained by<br>Primary Elections and Independent candidates, by taxpayer donations,<br><br>Details: Similar to the second version, Secretary of State candidates<br>from political parties whose last previous candidate in the General<br>Election received at least 10% of the vote (read: Democratic and<br>Republican Party candidates) would qualify for public financing by<br>collecting 7,500 nominating signatures combined with a $5 donation<br>($37,500 total). Candidates of other political parties could qualify for<br>partial campaign funding by collecting at least 3,750 signatures and $5<br>donations ($10,750 total) and could become a “performance qualified”<br>candidate by collecting 15,000 signatures and $5 donations ($75,000<br>total). An independent candidate would have to meet this latter<br>threshold to qualify for
public financing. The qualifying period for<br>candidates in primaries would run from nine months before the primary<br>election and end three months before the primary election (the last day<br>to file nomination papers and also the last day to submit signatures and<br>donations to qualify for public financing). However, there also would be<br>an “exploratory period” starting 18 months before the primary and ending<br>on the qualifying deadline during which there could be up to 750 $100<br>contributions made as “seed money” to fund the signatures and small<br>donations efforts. Unspent seed money could not be used during the<br>campaign and would be turned over to the FEF. A registered voter would<br>be allowed to sign only one candidate’s qualifying petition accompanied<br>by a $5 donation.<br><br>An “Office Qualified” candidate would be allotted One Million Dollars<br>for the primary election. The text of the ballot measure seems
unclear,<br>but since Primary Election funding may not be used by the General<br>Election candidates, the “big party” nominees would presumably received<br>at least the same amount for the General Election campaign. “Eligible<br>Qualified” candidates would receive $200,000. Smaller party nominees<br>would receive either $1.3 Million if they had obtained the highest<br>number of qualifying signatures and $5 contributions, or would receive<br>$325,000 if they had qualified by the lesser minimum. Unspent primary<br>election funds would be returned to the FEF.<br><br>Political parties could not “nominate” a candidate, but could support or<br>oppose a primary candidate. State political parties would be allowed<br>spend 5% of a candidate’s allotment as an independent expenditure (i.e.,<br>separate from the candidate’s campaign). Candidates participating in the<br>public financing would not be allowed to accept campaign contributions<br>from
any other source, would be barred from contributing to other<br>candidates’ campaigns or to independent committees, would be required to<br>make complete financial reports to the Fair Political Practices<br>Commission, would have to maintain a single campaign account, could use<br>the funds only for campaign related expenses, and could not use funds<br>for self or family compensation. Funding also would be tracked because<br>disbursements would be through a candidate specific debit card. Rules<br>violations by participating candidates could result in administrative<br>fine, criminal prosecution, barring a candidate from future elections,<br>and a demand for refund of part or all public funds distributed to the<br>candidate.<br><br>If a nonparticipating candidate spent $5,000 more than the highest<br>allotment, participating candidates’ public financing would be increased<br>by each $5,000 increment. Participating candidates would be required
to<br>participate in at least one primary election debate and two general<br>election debates. Independent Committees would be subject to reporting<br>requirements if they spent $2,500 or more supporting or opposing a<br>candidate. Candidate advertising would be required to include a<br>statement of candidate approval. Participating candidates would be<br>allowed a 250 word candidate statement in the statewide ballot pamphlet;<br>nonparticipating candidates would have to pay the pro rata expense of<br>the pamphlet for their statement. Participating candidates would be<br>identified as such on the ballot and on the Secretary of State web page<br>listing candidates.<br><br>Comments: The GPCA Platform endorses public financing of political<br>campaigns to reduce the corrupting influence of money on our political<br>system. Getting a proposal to the ballot has involved numerous<br>compromises by public financing advocates in response to opposition<br>about
the expenses of such a system and arguments that public money<br>should only be provided to candidates who can demonstrate significant<br>backing. The question for GPCA activists is whether the provisions in<br>this proposal are too discriminatory to small party candidates to allow<br>a principled endorsement of the ballot measure or whether this step<br>towards public financing in California politics is important enough that<br>the state party should endorse it. If it is approved by the voters,<br>qualifying GPCA primary candidates for Secretary of State would have<br>more campaign funds than anytime previously. The GPCA nominee also would<br>have more campaign money than ever before. Even though those funds could<br>only be used for those candidates, their campaigning in the Primary<br>Election and General Election would raise Green Party visibility and<br>presence in the election cycle. One could also envision using the<br>signature and $5 donations
gathering as a basis for party organizing and<br>outreach – particularly since the qualifying petitions and donations<br>could be from any registered voter.<br><br>Recommendation: Endorse to vote Yes for this ballot measure, even if<br>there are reservations.<br><br>Written by Warner S. Bloomberg III<br><br>Co-Signor: Kendra Gonzales<br><br>Co-Signor: Jim Stauffer – with the following reservations:<br><br>Continuing to treat minor parties as second-class participants creates a<br>burden that, in turn, relegates us to second-class status. It's a<br>vicious circle, but the best we can get. Not exactly the basis for an<br>enthusiastic endorsement.<br><br>The two-tiered structure will cause a tremendous burden if we accomplish<br>implementing proportional representation. PR creates a level electoral<br>playing field, but second-class public financing would then be a<br>significant hurdle to minor party candidates.<br><br>Report #3 No on Senate
Constitutional Amendment No. 4 (written by<br>Michael Rubin, GPAC) [Bracketed portion indicates edited text.]<br><br>Vote "No" on Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 4 -- The so-called<br>"open primary"<br><br>This is the legislative counsel’s digest of SCA 4 (Maldonado is the author):<br><br>“Existing provisions of the California Constitution require the<br>Legislature to provide for primary elections for partisan offices,<br>including an open presidential primary election, as specified....<br><br>“This measure, which would be known as the "Top Two Primaries Act,”<br>would provide for a "voter-nominated primary election” for each state<br>elective office and congressional office in California, in which a voter<br>may vote at the primary election for any candidate for a congressional<br>or state elective office without regard to the political party<br>preference disclosed by the candidate or the voter. The measure would<br>further provide that
a candidate for a congressional or state elective<br>office generally may choose whether to have his or her political party<br>preference indicated upon the ballot for that office in the manner to be<br>provided by statute. The measure would prohibit a political party or<br>party central committee from nominating a candidate for a congressional<br>or state elective office at the primary, but the measure would permit a<br>political party or party central committee to endorse, support, or<br>oppose a candidate for congressional or state elective office. The 2<br>candidates receiving the 2 highest vote totals for each office at a<br>primary election, regardless of party preference, would then compete for<br>the office at the ensuing general election. This measure would require<br>the Legislature to provide for partisan elections for Presidential<br>candidates, political party committees, and party central steering<br>committees.<br><br>“This measure
would designate the Superintendent of Public Instruction<br>as a non-partisan office.<br><br>“If the measure is approved by the voters it would become operative on<br>January 1, 2011.”<br><br>[The Green Party of California previously vigorously opposed a proposal<br>similar to this proposition.] We are opposed both to the practical<br>effects of this proposition and also to its underlying political<br>philosophy. On the practical level, this proposition would seriously<br>interfere with the ability of the smaller parties to participate in the<br>marketplace of ideas. It is entirely possible that the passage of this<br>proposition would mortally wound one or more of the small parties.<br>Contrary to the high-minded phraseology such as “the act is hereby<br>adopted by the people of California to protect and preserve the right of<br>every Californian to vote for the candidate of his or her choice,”<br>passage would severely limit choice. The two
choices permitted would be<br>well-funded mainstream candidates, thus reinforcing the widespread view<br>that we have the best government money can buy. We also disagree with<br>the philosophic underpinnings of this proposition. We disagree with the<br>notion that political parties are bad; that there is something wrong<br>with like-minded people organized in a political party having candidates<br>of their choice competing in a general election. In fact, we believe<br>it’s their political right to do so. The supporters of this proposition<br>are trying to use the dysfunction of state government as an argument for<br>it. They say that the problems are due to the current electoral process,<br>which produces few moderates and is responsible for the excessive<br>partisanship in Sacramento. The Green Party disagrees with both of these<br>arguments. We believe that the current system, if anything, produces too<br>many moderates. If diversity of opinion in
state government is the goal,<br>proportional representation would be a far superior remedy. As to<br>partisanship, we believe that the blame falls on the actions and<br>policies of the Republican and Democratic parties, not in the concept of<br>political parties in the abstract.<br><br>###-------- Original Message --------<br>Subject: CfER's position on Top Two "Open Primary" Act<br>Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:27:11 -0800 (PST)<br>From: Steve Chessin <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:steve.chessin@sun.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:steve.chessin@sun.com">steve.chessin@sun.com</a>><br>To: <a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:gpca@cagreens.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:gpca@cagreens.org">gpca@cagreens.org</a><br><br>Californians for Electoral Reform<br><br>The CfER Board wanted to make sure that all of the ballot-qualified<br>political parties knew of our opposition. Your email addresses were<br>obtained from the Secretary of State's website
(and links therefrom, if<br>necessary).<br><br>--Steve
Chessin<br>President, Californians for Electoral Reform<br><span><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.cfer.org">www.cfer.org</a></span><br><a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:steve.chessin@cfer.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:steve.chessin@cfer.org">steve.chessin@cfer.org</a><br>(650)-786-6200(w), (650)-962-8412(h)<br><br>Short statement from Californians for Electoral Reform explaining our<br>opposition to the so-called Top Two Candidates "Open Primary" Act.<br><br>On November 21, 2009, the Board of Directors of Californians for<br>Electoral Reform (CfER) voted to oppose the so-called Top Two Candidates<br>"Open Primary" Act that will be on the June 8, 2010 ballot.<br>We're in the process of preparing a longer statement explaining our<br>position in detail. Briefly, our opposition is based on the conclusion<br>that Top Two will limit voters' choices, not expand them, and this is<br>in direct conflict with CfER's stated belief that all
citizens must have<br>equal and satisfactory
representation in government.<br><br>(We put "Open Primary" in quotes because this proposal would not<br>establish open primaries. Rather, it would establish non-partisan<br>primaries with some similarities to the blanket primary system of<br>1998-2000. It would be even more accurate to say that there would be no<br>primaries at all because the first round of voting wouldn't select<br>nominees of political parties.)<br><br>Top Two will virtually eliminate minor parties from the ballot, not only<br>in the November election, but even as a "party preference" that<br>candidates could specify on the primary ballot. The proposal creates<br>conditions for maintaining ballot-qualified status that no group other<br>than the two major parties will be able to meet. It also eliminates the<br>safety-valve of write-in candidacies in the November runoff elections.<br><br>Top Two is being advertised as a way to encourage the election of more<br>moderate candidates.
While there is no proof that it will do so, even if<br>it could it would be at the cost of limiting voter choice and<br>weakening political parties. There are much better ways to ensure the<br>election of moderates, such as a system of proportional representation.<br><br>In addition, Top Two is in direct conflict with the Fair Elections Act<br>of 2008, which establishes public funding for candidates for Secretary<br>of State, that will also appear on the June 8 ballot. CfER has no<br>position on the Fair Elections proposal; some of our members support it<br>and some oppose it, so an as organization we remain neutral. But those<br>who do support it should be aware that, should both measures pass in<br>June, there is no telling what the courts will do to resolve the conflict.<br><br>--Steve Chessin<br>President, Californians for Electoral Reform<br><span><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.cfer.org">www.cfer.org</a></span><br><a
rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:steve.chessin@cfer.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:steve.chessin@cfer.org">steve.chessin@cfer.org</a><br>(650)-786-6200(w), (650)-962-8412(h)<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Contacts2006 mailing list<br><a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:Contacts2006@lists.cagreens.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:Contacts2006@lists.cagreens.org">Contacts2006@lists.cagreens.org</a><br><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006">http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/contacts2006</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>gpca-cc mailing list<br><a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:gpca-cc@cagreens.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:gpca-cc@cagreens.org">gpca-cc@cagreens.org</a><br><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cc">http://marla.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpca-cc</a><br></div></div>
</div><br>
</div></div>
<!-- cg12.c2.mail.re1.yahoo.com compressed/chunked Tue Jan 12 09:23:03 PST 2010 -->
</div><br>
</body></html>