Electoral News

FEC Recognizes Green Party

"The decision of the FEC adds to the enormous momentum the Green Party now enjoys," said Dean Myerson, Green Party Political Coordinator. "We are running more candidates, electing more candidates, gaining more members and sup-port." During the party's annual meeting in Santa Barbara, California last July, Green delegates voted to establish a national party and to apply to the FEC for national committee status. Delegates also approved growth plans that include opening an office in Washington, D.C. and hiring a team of field organizers for the mid-term election season.

"National Committee status is a tremendous accomplishment for the young party, one that acknowledges its place as the leading and fastest growing political alter-native in the United States," added David Cobb, General Counsel for the Green Party of the United States. "It will help increase the numbers of voters who recognize us as the party of change, a serious contender on the political landscape." National Committee status will permit the Green Party to accept contributions up to $20,000 per year from individuals, but internal Green Party rules cap such donations at $10,000 per year. The party and its candidates also refuse contributions from corporations.

"The Green Party is the only political party to oppose the big money that is corrupting politics in America," said Steve Schmidt, chair of the party's Platform Committee. "We're the only party that chooses to regulate itself more strictly than the federal government."

Reprinted with permission of the Green Party of the United States

Loudoun Greens Win First Election!

Chris Simmons is a quietly persuasive guy, and it was impossible to dismiss the logic of his faith that the Greens could impact a local election if we started with the "training ground" of the Soil and Water Conservation District board -- a natural for ecology-committed Greens. We were later surprised to find seven people running for the three slots (usual-ly this is a three-for-three race). But we continued on...fliers, journalists, and e-mail. Chris and his special-force volunteers were terrific at formulating the key issues and at the polls, and we even had a "rapid-response" team of one, Margaret, who gave me a critical white paper at a critical moment, enabling us to get the support of an e-mail list-master of some influence! The win is considered some-thing of an upset in the County and has certainly got people curious about the Greens:)

Through both agricultural and urban pro-grams, the SWCD promotes the control and prevention of soil erosion, the prevention of flood water and sediment damages, and the effective conservation, development, utilization and disposal of water. The District provides on-site assistance to landowners with problems such as drainage, pond management, erosion and siltation, flooding, pasture management, plant material recommendations, and other natural resource concerns. One of this District's most popular programs is the spring tree seedling sale. A variety of tree seedlings are available to individuals or groups. The seedlings can be used to stabilize eroding areas and/or enhance wildlife habitats. The proceeds from the sale are used to fund the District's environmental education program.

I officially take office January 1, but already I have attended two SWCD board meetings, an all-day strategy session, a lunch meeting with Supervisor Harris' assistant, an evening meeting with the volunteer Stream Monitoring Program, and a tree-planting event at Franklin Park. I will be making my strongest efforts in the Education/ Public Relations/ Outreach areas and welcome all help and suggestions.

Thank you all once again for believing we can make a difference.

Jim Lowenstern's Campaign for the State Legislature

Alexandria Green Jim Lowenstern ran a hard-fought race for the 46th District seat in the Virginia General Assembly. Jim has been active in the Greens in the Northern Virginia area for many years, and has also represented Virginia at national Green meetings. This was his first race for elect-ed office. Jim received the Green Party of Virginia nomination at the quarterly state meeting in August at Pocahontas State Park. Due to a suit by the Libertarian Party, the Green Party was allowed to have party designation appear on the bal-lot. Jim was the first candidate in Virginia besides Ralph Nader to have the G of the Green Party after his name.

Jim was out in the community going door to door, and also participated in several debates, including one sponsored by the Wakefield Civic Association and another by a campus group, Youth Votes. Jim had a strong contingent of supporters at the polls on Election Day, including members of the Alexandria Greens and the Arlington Courthouse Greens. Jim also held a series of campaign events that combined fundraising with political education, featuring Arlington Green Larry Yates doing organizing training, DC Statehood Green Steve Shafarman making a presentation on his writings, including the book "Healing Politics," and Dr. Thomas West, author of a book on the quintessentially American economic theorist Henry George, who was almost elected Mayor of New York on a third party ticket over a century ago.

A focal issue in Jim's campaign was mass transit, especially the need for rail along the main road corridors. Jim received about 2.7% of the total vote.

Larry Yates is a member of the Arlington Courthouse Greens.

An Open Letter to the Greens of Virginia

Dear Greens,

Jana asked me to write something about my run for Congress for the Green newspaper. This is what I have to say.

I want to let all of you know about my attempt to run for the Congress of the United States in the Fourth District of Virginia as the Green Party candidate. This was the special election in the 4th District to fill the seat that became vacant as a result of the death of Representative Norman Sissisky (D).

The election was held on the 19th of June, 2001. Because this was a special election, there was not much time to prepare. Also , since I did not live in the 4th District, I did not think I could run in a district in which I did not live. But I was told by some of our green friends that I could run and they encouraged me to run.

I confirmed with the state Board of Elections that I did not need to live in the District in order to run for the seat, and so I decided to run. As a candidate for Congress, I need-ed 1000 signatures from registered voters living in the 4th District.

I managed to collect 1665 signatures from voters in the district and we submitted them a few minutes before the deadline. However, I was informed by the VA Board of Elections that I only had 813 valid signatures. The others were either not registered voters or they did not live in the district, or the election officials could not verify or read the address given.

I was give a few days to correct or verify the addresses in order to make up the required total of 1000 signatures. In order to do this, I had to get an affidavit from each person who signed that it was, indeed, their signature. I felt that this was unreasonable and also intrusive and unfair.

The following Friday, a meeting of the Election Board was held which I was allowed to attend. Jeremy Good and I attended this meeting. At that meeting, it was decided that I would not be on the ballot. I asked if the voters could abbreviate my signature, but this was denied. I also asked for an extension of time to correct any errors in the addresses, etc. which was denied, too.

I discussed the issue with Ed Davis, an attorney. We elected to go to court to get an injunction on the basis of a violation of the constitutional rights of the non registered voters.

Unfortunately, Mr. Davis was in California at the time and I could not get any help from other organizations like ACLU, Virginia Democracy Coalition, Horizon Institute for Policy Solutions, etc. Although they were sympathetic to my case, they could not help due to various reasons.

I went to federal court in Norfolk. Judge Friedman appeared to be very biased and his first question was how I could even run in a district that I did not live in. He spent a lot of time on this issue. Then he said that that was not the issue in question and ruled that the requirement of 1000 signatures was not unreasonable and there were no grounds for an injunction and denied my appeal.

In spite of these setbacks, I did make some headway in getting our message across. i was on WNIS Radio in Norfolk for one hour with Tony Mcreeny, and that interview went very well. On air I talked about the need for Universal Health Care, light rail transportation, cleaning up the environment, the hazards of pollution, and the rapid rise in the respiratory illness like asthma. I spoke against drilling for oil in ANWR, and about the plight of those who now have to drink water with high levels of Arsenic.

I also got half an hour TV spot with Capitol News with Barbara Berlin in Richmond. All the issues I discussed with WNIS were also discussed on TV with Capitol News. The people at this TV station are very nice and some of them are Greens. I believe it was Mark Newton who gave me the tip to contact this TV station. I want to thank him for that favor. I did not see it aired in Norfolk, but I would like to know if any of you saw it elsewhere.

I also made an attempt to participate in the first debate in Petersburg at the Richard Bland college. I walked up to the stage and asked the permission of both candidates, Randy Forbes and Louise Lucas. I told the moderator that I am the Green Party candidate and since I will be discussing some issues that are neglected by the other two candidates, I should be allowed to participate. Unfortunately, the moderator asked me to leave, and since I had no choice, I backed off. I gave my fliers to the panel who encouraged and supported my efforts after reading it following the debate. Part of this was shown on TV evening news.

Additionally, I did an interview with Petersburg Newspaper that appeared in the local paper.

Sincerely yours,

D.C.Amarasinghe, M.D. • 6204 N. Military Hwy. Norfolk VA 23518
E-mail dcam@infi.net • Web: http://www.pilot.infi.net/~dcam/
Tel: 757-855-1900 • Fax: 757-855-2272

State and Federal Electoral Reform

Electoral reform may not be in the headlines these days, but it is being discussed in state legislatures, including Virginia's. On June 14th, the Joint Subcommittee on Virginia's Election Process and Voting Technologies held a hearing in Richmond. Members of the Green, Libertarian, Democratic, and Republican Parties, as well as Common Cause, the State Board of Elections, and the League of Women Voters, attended the meeting.

The Subcommittee broke into groups to discuss numerous electoral issues, including voter intent, recounts, and contests, and election fraud; administrative structure; voter registration; election procedures and absentee voting; and voting equipment and technology. The group on voting equipment looked at voter education, and how types of voting equipment and ballot rejection rates varied from county to county.

At this time, only 5 states have uniform voting equipment (Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island). Florida recently passed legislation requiring optical scan machines, and Georgia required direct recording electronic (DRE) machines. Virginia mandated that counties with optical scan machines have new and uniform equipment. The equipment will be programmed to give voters a second chance to correct overvotes (voting for too many candidates in the same race) made in error.

About 36% of Virginians vote on mechanical lever machines, 24% vote on optical scan, 20% on punch cards, slightly under 20% on DRE, and the rest on paper ballots. There was no consensus reached by the group on the best type of voting equipment. While DRE and lever machines have lower rejection rates and make overvoting impossible, they do not leave paper trails for recounts in the way that optical scan and punch card ballots do. There was greater agreement on the need to provide funds for voter education.

The Subcommittee held further meetings on October 12th and November 29th and made several recommendations, including state funding to ensure accessibility to the polls for all voters.

Other states have proposed sweeping changes to their voting systems such as cumulative voting and instant runoff voting (IRV). Illinois is discussing the possibility of returning to the system of cumulative voting that it formerly used to elect its state legislature. Alabama has introduced legislation to implement cumulative voting at the local level.

Legislation to implement instant runoff voting has been introduced in state legislatures in California, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. In 2002, Alaska will hold a ballot initiative on IRV unless the legislature passes the bill first.

On November 6th, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. introduced three electoral reform bills at the federal level. HR 3232 supports IRv in Presidential Elections, H.J.RES. 72 establishes a Constitutional right to vote, and H.CON.RES. 263 opens the Presidential debates to candidates beyond the two major parties.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney has re-introduced the Voters' Choice Act (HR 1189), which would repeal a 1967 law mandating single-member congressional districts. It would allow states to implement proportional representation methods of election for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Tom Yager is co-clerk of the GPVA and a member of the Arlington Courthouse Greens.

More electoral news articles...