-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Qs re Election Code Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:42:26 -0700 From: "Stuart Bechman" To: Gerry Gras Hi Gerry, Please find the ERWG Presentation notes at the bottom of this e-mail. I took the notes, and I remember feeling a bit overwhelmed with all the section-code numbers being thrown around, so I'm hoping you can verify/correct the section numbers I've provided in the minutes. -Stuart On 27 Jul 2004 at 18:22, Gerry Gras wrote: > > At the Sacramento plenary the ERWG made a presentation > to the plenary about the proposed election code. And > the audience was allowed to ask questions. > > Do you have the notes from that session, and do they > include the questions from the audience? If so, > the ERWG subcommittee dealing with the election code > would like a copy. > > Thanks, > > Gerry > 3) ERWG: GPCA Election Code Discussion ML, Orange: The next item on the agenda is a discussion item from the ERWG, a proposed GP election code. This is the next step in the ongoing effort to create an official Green Party of California election code section. Chris Collins, AC: We have included the language of the proposed election code sections in the plenary packet, and we are continuing to solicit opinions on the proposed sections. We would like to hear from the general assembly. We will take your comments and concerns and incorporate them into our proposal that we will then bring back at our next scheduled plenary in preparation of taking them to the state legislature. Warner Bloomberg, : Please take this document and the Q & Cs back to your counties. We need discussion and suggestions at the county level. What have we missed? What's left unanswered? So we ask that you all take this material back to your counties and try to get back to our working group by the end of July. MB, ED: When do you plan to put this in front of the legislature? JMC, SF: In Sec. 78-79, bottom of pg. 12: A section says that County Green Parties may modify the size of their county council, and how to do so; I would think that section belongs before 78-78. Also, in 79- 41, pg. 16, it says no person may be in a county council unless they're registered Green in a recognized Green Party local. We would like to have an exception for those who can't otherwise register. In 79-43, we'd like to have language allowing how a person can be removed from office. 79-51, All meetings of the committee, it should probably say meetings of the county council. WB: OK, we encourage everyone with comments to additionally e-mail or send those comments in writing to us. Jo Chamberlain, SM: I find the election code very annoying, but thank you for your work. 69-65: National delegates shall be provided for as in the bylaws of the national green party. We have no such bylaws; we probably should change it to say the convention policies. I would also ask that the Bylaws committee review this before it is brought to the GA for final approval. Also, it gives the Secy. of State the authority to place a presidential nominee on the ballot, I would like to see a few more criteria before they can do that. Sec. 69-62, we have the same difficulty with the Sec. of State: "The SoS may add to their selection of candidates." 78=78, an IRV issue, there's no formula or threshold provided; it needs to be stated or referred to elsewhere. Sec. 78=92C, pg. 14, it says that the SoS, no later than July 20, can..." what's special about that date? Sec. 79- 43, I concur with JMC's concern: "Any party member that registers with another party..." what about DTS registration? And recalling of a county councilperson, the recall procedures need to be done somewhere other than in our bylaws. David Marin, CC: This issue of whether we let DTS voters vote in our primaries. I'm quite confused about what this proposed code says. Also, if we decided to change this, would we have to go back to the legislature or do it at a plenary? Jim Staffer: It's not addressed in this code, it's handled elsewhere. Ken Culler, Stanislaus: I'm concerned that in our enthusiasm to have the most "Green" elections possible, it's possible that we may run into trouble with the state election code. County councilpeople are elected; we have to stand for election. Having ex-cons, etc., as county council people is a violation of state law; you have to be a voter in good standing, you have to meet the same requirements as any other person running for election. We need to make sure we're not violating a state law. Kevin McKeown, LA: The minutes of our most recent county council draft form have just come out, but here's what they've mentioned. The term "central committee" is bothersome to us in LA county, and I think that there is an effort to redefine them as county councils. However, this term continues to be used in this document, we'd like to see that removed. Sec. 63-12, the NOTA votes must be processed, tabulated, and counted; I'm not sure that will be enough for our county registrar offices to actually county them. Also, per the county council is defined as requiring 50% men and 50% women, we suggest changing it to be at least 50% women. Greg Jan, AC: In addition to the Q of what body does this, there's the Q of due process. I don't know if we'll be able to fit all this in this one document, but I think it's imperative that we do. Mike Feinstein, LA: 69-64. If the SoS receives a comm from the GPCA Liaison to the SoS. As written, this gives the Liaison complete power to send whatever letter he wants to the SoS without any further criteria. 69-65: NOTA could not win in a plurality; our court case had a ruling that said if 55% of voters vote for a candidate, then the majority would want a candidate and thus NOTA would fail. 79-20, removing county councilmembers: I would say nothing about removing CC members until there's a process for that, but JS is talking about electing rather than appointing CCs for newly-formed counties, if we move in that direction, I'd like to see that applied here. Also, recalls, the state of CA provides for recalls only for PAID offices; there is no recall process for non-paid positions such as county councilmembers. Tian Harter, SC: I would like to see some language stating that if the SoS has some information s/he wants to share with the GP, they should put it in a letter and send it to our Liaison for inclusion in the next GPCA plenary. Chris Collins, AC: Someone asked me to mention a question about Ranked-Ballot voting, pg. 8, where it says the GP should use Ranked- Ballot voting Using RBV doesn't really apply to IRV situations, how would we apply this language in such situations? Jim Stauffer: There's some confusion in the comments between Bylaws and Election Code; and there's some things that the SoS are going to look for in our proposed code. So what we'd like to do is simply request all of these, prepare a written response, and send it back to the counties. Warner Bloomberg: One, we want to observe Green process; so how long this will take is a real unknown. We want to eventually come up with a comprehensive document that will be approved by the state legislature. We had originally hoped to have something to present to the state leg. in Jan. 2005; that may be overly optimistic. The point of this is to make us stronger, not tie our hands. MF's comments about NOTA, he's correct about that court decision, what's not operative in that decision is the implementation of Choice Voting/IRV. Chris Collins: Is there anyone who made comments today who would like an immediate response rather than wait for a written response on our website or otherwise?....OK, great, it appears that everyone's willing to wait for a written response. Our goal is to return this document with all concerns expressed at the next plenary.