|
Electoral Reform Working
Group The ERWG divided into two groups at the Sacramento plenary. Caleb Kleppner facilitated the group that discussed the desired contents of the Green Party Section of the state elections code. Jeanne Rosenmeier facilitated the group discussing IRV efforts. Elections Code At the last plenary, the party supported the idea of developing a proposal for the Green Party section of the state elections code. Because we were unable to complete our work on the proposal in time for the Sacto plenary, we made a presentation on this issue, the importance of holding contested county council elections in March 2002 and other electoral reform issues. Please look over the current proposal and send input to Caleb In Sacto we continued to discuss the details of the proposal that we will be present in Sacto, including the issue of whether or not we will allow Decline to State voters to vote in Green Party primaries. Sentiment continues to run against allows DTS voters, but this is not absolute. It is essential that we finalize the details of
the proposal by the end of July so that we can present the proposal in San
Mateo in September and work to introduce the bill in January
2002. IRV The IRV section of the electoral reform working group met on April 29, 2001, in Sacramento. Working Group co-chair, Jeanne Rosenmeier (that’s me!), opened the session with a brief status report. Since the last working group meeting in San Diego, there have been two conferences on IRV, one in L.A., and one at Stanford. There was also an IRV and proportional representation workshop in San Francisco. Suzanne Mayes from San Bernardino County would like to do a mini-conference there, and Woody Hastings from LA volunteered to put her in touch with the southern California coalition of IRV supporters to help set one up. Jeanne Rosenmeier explained that there are two types of counties in CA, charter counties and general law counties. Charter counties have the option of amending their charter to provide for IRV if they so choose. General law counties are furnished with a boiler plate charter by the state, which does not permit IRV. The general charter can only be amended by action of the state legislature. The co-chair passed around a list of all the counties in the state, identifying all charter counties. Noting that cities have the same situation as counties, she also passed around a list of all charter cities in the state. Also included was a list of voting equipment used by each county, identifying which counties already have equipment which could be used for IRV with only minor modification. Jeanne also passed around sample literature explaining IRV. This literature costs $40 per 500 pieces. Lucy Colvin suggested that the working group use part of its budgeted funds to purchase literature for the locals to hand out. Jeanne proposed a subsidy of 50% of the cost. Another suggestion was to charge on a sliding scale. (Note: no actual decision was reached, but I will send around a proposal by e-mail to the listserve shortly. -- JMR) Steve Loebs from Placer County questioned whether the working group had decided to shelve the idea of working toward a state IRV initiative. This idea was put forward at the last working group meeting, and no consensus was reached. It is still not ruled out, and no decision has been made, but it appears clear that the Green Party needs more resources (or powerful allies) before a state-wide initiative can be successful. The question was raised as to whether A.B. 1515 (Hertzberg) will mandate IRVor be merely enabling legislation. (Editor’s note: enabling) During the past five months, a coalition has been formed, California IRV Coalition (CAL IRV), the goal of which is IRV at every level up to statewide. Several people pointed out the potential efficacy of the “spoiler” strategy at pushing the Democratic Party into supporting IRV. Hedvig Lockwood from Humboldt County remarked that the Humboldt Democrats are supporting IRV already, and that we should not hesitate to approach them. They might surprise us. Remember, IRV is not a partisan issue, it’s an issue of better democracy. Ray Glock-Grueneich of Santa Cruz remarked that he was all for IRV in non-partisan races, but was opposed to IRV in party races. (Editor’s note: The Green Party platform supports IRV for all single-seat races, and proportional representation for all multi-seat races.) Steve Loebs of Placer County inquired regarding the consensus process in a working group. He pointed out that the New Mexico Greens have done some serious spoiling, but do not yet have IRV. He believes that we should go for a statewide IRV initiative. Woody Hastings of LA County: The process of working toward IRV has been grounded in grassroots activism and has been deliberated every step of the way. We have made much progress, but in the meanwhile, we just have to live with the spoiler image. Kevin McKeown of Santa Monica: It takes time to achieve success. Local efforts are the first step. Lucy Colvin of San Francisco: We have not made a formal decision to pursue local over statewide. The previous state plenary decided to form a committee to develop a proposal. Ray Glock-Grueneich of Santa Cruz County: We must do local first because we need a precedent that IRV works. Emily Nalven of Oakland: We will work locally in Oakland, regardless of the state strategy. Jim from San Francisco suggested that 2004 would be a good target date for a statewide initiative. The decision was tabled. In a change of subject, Medea Benjamin asked for a volunteer to be a liason with a coalition which is attempting to change the format of our statewide candidate debates. No one stepped forward immediately. If any of you find yourself interested now, please contact her at Global Exchange, 415 255-7296, or me at jmrjmrjmr@aol.com (925 939-9993). Also, Dan Johnson-Weinberg, national field director for the Center for Voting and Democracy is available to travel to forums on IRV. We would like to see mini-forums around the state to acquaint ever more people with IRV. So what should general law counties be doing regarding IRV, since they cannot pass their own local legislation, and we are not yet ready to undertake a statewide initiative? Chris Jerdonek if Yolo County responded that general law counties could build support for statewide enabling legislation. A proposal to put an item on the agenda of the September plenary to become a member of the California IRV Coalition was passed by consensus. Submitted by Jeanne Rosenmeier, co-chair, Electoral Reform Working Group |