Electoral Reform WG:  San Diego, December 2-3, 2000

Here is a brief, very overdue report from the activities of the Electoral Reform Working Group (ERWG) at the San Diego plenary back in December.

Summary of Electoral Reform Working Group meeting and proposals
From San Diego plenary, December 2-3, 2000
Caleb Kleppner and Jeanne Rosenmeier, co-coordinators
February 11, 2001

FIRST, my apologies for the lateness of this report.  I really should have gotten it out in December or January.

SECOND, the WG presented a proposal at the San Diego plenary to develop legislation to create a Green Party section of the California Elections Code (state law).  The purpose would be to codify in law the right of the party to do some things that the state is currently preventing us from doing.  These include using NOTA in Green Party primary elections and choice voting/proportional representation for county council elections. 

By consensus, the plenary decided that this was a good idea and requested that the WG develop a detailed proposal for presentation at the next plenary.  That is the chief job before us now, and I will be sending you more information about this in a separate post.  See the end of this document for some preliminary opinions on things we want in the proposal and things to leave out.

THIRD, there was enormous support for working on electoral reform at the plenary.  We had so many people at the WG meeting that we broke it up in two pieces.  One discussed the details of the elections code bill, and the other addressed local and statewide organizing for IRV.

As co-chair of the WG, I asked Dan Johnson-Weinberger to facilitate the discussion of IRV, and I instructed him to focus on local organizing efforts because I believe that we need to score a few local wins before we push IRV at the state level.

After the session, Dan and many others told me that the group really wanted to focus on statewide efforts, and many resented Dan’s insistence on focusing on local efforts.  I want to clarify that I asked Dan to focus on local efforts, so any resentment about this approach should not be directed at me.  I see that my direction to Dan showed poor judgment, and I’d like to apologize to the group for pushing an agenda that turned out to be out of touch with what the group wanted.  I’m also sorry that I put Dan is a tough spot.  So, my apologies all around.

At the same time, it’s phenomenal to see all the Green energy behind these issues.  As with public power, Greens are showing real leadership on key issues.

FOURTH, the ERWG now has two list serves to facilitate email communication.  Please join either or both, and please invite other Greens interested in electoral reform to join them, too.  To join the list serve, send a message to the addresses below, and in the body of the message, simply put the word, subscribe.  The subject line is ignored, so don’t both putting anything in there.

Electoral Reform Working Group list serve

mailto:gpca-erwg-request@greens.org

IRV list serve for networking on local and state IRV efforts:

            mailto:gpca-irv-request@greens.org

FIFTH, some more detailed and less organized notes about the election code bill and general brainstorming appear below in three sections.

Please post comments about this to the list serve (gpca-erwg@greens.org) or feel free to contact me directly if that is more appropriate.

Yours,
Caleb Kleppner, co-chair
Electoral Reform WG
415-824-2735

Appendices

1. Actions suggestions and consensus items on IRV and voting equipment
2. Notes from brainstorming after plenary
3. WG recommendations on provisions of Green Party section of Elections Code

1. NOTES on IRV and voting equipment brainstorming in San Diego

Action suggestions:

• Make a list of people who attacked us and lobby them for IRV.
• Need to have sample initiative or legislation at IRV conferences.
• Points out that the Green Party and Center for Voting and Democracy may have different agendas.
• Now is the time to do a statewide initiative.
• We need to do whatever we do in coalition with other groups.
• It would be easier to approach the legislature than pursue initiative.
• HR 57 could help us through national study.
• Let’s take advantage of the current crisis.
• The political climate is in flux.  Now is the time to go forward.
• We should form a committee to draft a proposal for the next plenary.
• Lobbying would be cheaper and easier if the legislature would put IRV on the ballot as a referendum rather than us doing it as an initiative.
• Better to link IRV and proportional representation than to do them separately.
• IRV without proportional representation makes us a permanent minority.
• Now is the time for IRV.  Let’s form a coalition with other groups.
• Now is the moment to act.
• There is lots of interest in IRV now, even from the Democrats.
• An initiative would be good publicity for us, even if it loses.
• Let’s do both.  Let’s do local and state initiatives, and approach the lege.
• Rodney has personal experience with a group smaller than the Green Party which got a statewide initiative on the ballot.
• Let’s get the IRV literature out to the locals.

We will:

• Begin process of lobbying legislature.
• Ask CVD for legislative and initiative language.
• Begin soliciting endorsements.
• Come back to the next plenary with action proposals.

2.  ACTION SUGGESTIONS from Brainstorm Session after Closing of Plenary

• Press conference with heavy-weight endorsements.
• HR 57:  Ask our congresspeople to co-sponsor.
• Maxine Waters could be approached to help.
• Deadline for filing an initiative for 2002 is Sept 2001.
• Include teach-in re IRV in Dec 17 or Dec 18 actions.
• Donald and Bernice Tollefson got article in LA Times re Greens.  They don’t have e-mail.  Their phone numbers are Donald 818 344-4591, Bernice 818 344-6340.
• Sheila Kuehl is the new state senator from Santa Monica.  She is very practical.  Perhaps LWV could approach her.
• IRV mugs will be available soon.
• There is a 10-minute tape re IRV being made.
• IRV conference calls once per month beginning early Jan.
• Can we use IRV in primaries as a hook to get our foot in the door for general election.
• Getting rid of punch-card voting is a pre-requisite for IRV.
• Maybe kill-the-punch-card initiative or legislation should be first priority.
• We like the name “majority rule initiative” for our IRV initiative.
• Jared Aldstadt is proficient in GIS (location of registrants) and can help us.  Aldstadt@rohan.sdsu.edu,  619 583-5930
• Per Beth, the CC could endorse “kill the punch card”.
• Beth has the potential to get us on local radio or TV in her area.
• March 1 is the deadline to request time on next plenary’s agenda.

3.  WG opinions on provisions of Green Party election code section

The WG (and straw poll of plenary) generally supported the following provisions (although not all unanimously or equally):

1. Allow counties to use choice voting to elect county councils including a No Other Candidate (NOC) option
2. Give GPCA option of using instant runoff voting (IRV) and None of the Above (NOTA) in primary elections (as long primary remains closed).
3. Put the burden of proof on county registrars who claim that complying with our election code section would be too burdensome (this is the point we lost NOTA on - too much burden).  It could work like this:  if a registrar certifies in writing that the cost of compliance exceeds a particular amount – such as $1 per registered voter or the per voter cost of the Democratic or Republican primary – then the registrar shall work in good faith to achieve the goals of the party by using alternative or provisional means.  Such provisional approaches could include but are not limited to:  allowing Greens or election workers to count ballots by hand, delaying counting of Green party ballots until after all other election results have been certified, and so forth.
4. Conduct nominations by primary and not by convention
5. Require all candidates for county council to appear on the ballot.  Under current practices, if a race for county council is not contested, the registrar is not obligated to place the candidates on the ballot.  This would repeal the “sufficiency “ clause, which says that if there are not more candidates for county council than seats, the registrar is not obligated to place the candidates on the ballot.

The WG (and straw poll of plenary) generally opposed the following provisions:

1. Allow voters registered “Decline-to-State” to vote in Green primaries.
2. Change signature requirements for running for office.  Current requirements for county council are a minimum of 20 signatures.  For statewide races, there are requirements for geographic distribution of signatures.
3. Adopt provisions to protect the party against “raiding” by outside forces working against Green values, especially if we receive federal matching funds.  Remember the Reform Party.

Some other provisions that were discussed but not agreed to:

1. Short and sweet:  “The bylaws of GPCA control Green Party elections.”
2. Include ex-felons and non-citizen residents in Green Party elections