{news} RE: Registered Green List: Humpty Dumpty, Question # 9 , The CEP, and the CT SOTS

Mon Mar 16 02:16:34 EDT 2009

David:
Thanks,
Mike DeRosa

-----Original Message-----
From: David Bedell [mailto:dbedellgreen at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 1:09 AM
To: Mike DeRosa; 'Robert Vogel'; ctgp-news at ml.greens.org;
'2a-CTgreensForum'; newhavengreens at yahoogroups.com
Cc: 'Mark Lopez'; 'Mark Ladov'; 'Michael Westerfield'; 'Jean de Smet'
Subject: Re: Registered Green List: Humpty Dumpty, Question # 9 , The CEP,
and the CT SOTS

For party enrollment statistics, check here:
http://www.sots.ct.gov/sots/cwp/view.asp?a=3179&q=401492&SOTSNav_GID=1846

The SOTS issues statistics every year in late October.  Up through Oct 2007,
this included enrollment figures for each minor party (Greens were 2151
then, Working Families were 56). Funny thing is, the stats for Oct 2008
don't give this breakdown,but just list total minor party enrollment as 8059
(vs. 7758 in 2007).

The erroneous press release stating there are 19,706 CT Greens is still
available here:
http://www.sots.ct.gov/sots/lib/sots/releases/2008/11.3.08_record_voter_regi
stration.pdf

David Bedell

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike DeRosa" <smderosa at cox.net>
To: "'Robert Vogel'" <vogel at ct.metrocast.net>; "'David Bedell'"
<dbedellgreen at hotmail.com>; <ctgp-news at ml.greens.org>; "'2a-CTgreensForum'"
<ctgp-forum at ml.greens.org>; <newhavengreens at yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "'Mark Lopez'" <mlopez at lcnlaw.com>; "'Mark Ladov'" <mladov at aclu.org>;
"'Michael Westerfield'" <westerfield at sysmatrix.net>; "'Jean de Smet'"
<j.desmet at att.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 10:22 PM
Subject: Registered Green List: Humpty Dumpty, Question # 9 , The CEP, and
the CT SOTS

Robert and Fellow Greens:

This is an interesting turn of events.  Until recently the CT SOTS position
has been that we have to pay $300 for a list of all registered voters in CT
and then we have to extract the Green Party registered names from the CT
SOTS computer program.

Think about the absurdity of this position.  The state of CT is obstructing
the legitimate representatives of the CT Green Party access to the names of
the voters who are registered Greens Party members.  Our taxpayer money goes
to an agency that gets paid to compile lists of registered voters in CT but
then that agency charges the legitimate representatives of these political
organizations $300 to gain access to something that is public record.  I
don't know if CT SOTS charges the Democrats or Republicans for such lists,
but that is moot because in every town and city in CT Democratic and
Republican "registrar of voters" freely share those lists with their
respective political parties. I guess we can conclude from this that: All
political parties in CT are equal, but some political parties are more equal
than others.

Let's see if they actually hand these names over to us on Monday.  We
believe we have a right to be treated fairly by gaining access to basic
resources (i.e. voter lists) that we pay for as taxpayers.

We are on strong legal ground here. For example the judicial decision in
"Socialist Workers Party vs Rockefeller."  This 1970 decision says if a
state gives the list of registered voters to the qualified parties, it must
also give it to the unqualified parties that are trying to get on the
ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed this 3-judge U.S. District
Court ruling from New York.  Most recently, there is the decision Green
Party of Michigan vs Land, no. 2:08-cv-10149 (Mar. 26, 2008). This decision
overturned the law that said that the list of voters who vote in the
Republican presidential primary and the Democratic presidential primary
should be given to ONLY those Parties, but no one else.

But getting the list is not enough.  We need to work the lists, and rework
the lists.  That means calling everybody on the list and giving them
information about what we are doing and how they might assist, help, or join
us.  This of course is a lot of work, but that is one of the ways you could
build a political party.

I also raised with Atty Bromely of SOTS the fact that question #9 on the CT
voter registration form (see attachment) asks the voter to indicate a
preference for one of the following choices:  1. Join The Republican Party
or 2. Join The Democratic Party or 3. Join another "Other" party______  or
4. "I don't wish to register in a party at this time".  Bromely says that a
bill was passed a few years ago that requires this exact language.  I think
we should make an issue that the "Other" party choice (Post-Modernists would
have a field day with this one) is discriminatory because the name of the
Democratic party and the Republicans party appear but the legal names of
legitimate third parties are absent from question 9 except for the word
"other".  The SOTS keeps pushing forward the fictions that there are so many
minor parties in CT that they can't list them all or this recently passed
law requires them to only list the two major parties.   The inconvenient
facts are that there are really only 3 or 4 parties that actually have a
minor party following in CT. The CT SOTS's office could have a lot influence
if they sponsored a bill that would require this change or they could just
require it based on simple constitutional grounds.

I have searched the CT SOTS for a press release that was posted in late 2008
giving the latest numbers of registered minor party members.  It does not
seem to be there (maybe somebody could help me find it). It incorrectly
stated that the CT Green Party had over 19,000 registered voters instead of
the 1,900 (or so) that was the actual number if someone at the CT SOTS had
added all the figures correctly. I pointed this mistake out to them by phone
and since then the press release has disappeared (but maybe it's still
hidden there somewhere or maybe it is somewhere still in virtual space).
This is nothing new for the CT SOTS since they could not correctly in 2008
count our legal write-in presidential candidate's (Cynthia McKinney) votes.
According to an article in the CT Post of 10/08/08 by Ken Dixon, the CT SOTS
is quoted as saying that the CT Green Party has 2.151 registered voters in
CT and the CT Libertarian Party has 1,147 registered voters.  The
Independent Party of Waterbury has around 3,000 registered voters (based on
the disappeared press release) and the CT Working Families Party has less
than 100 registered voters (last time I saw the figure in late 2008 it was
around 57).  All the other minor parties in CT are either no longer in
existence or have less than 50 members.  In reality there are only three
minor parties that are breathing and actually running legislative and
federal candidates in CT.  The other "third" party (WFP) is probably a
caucus in the Democratic party disguised as a third party based on their low
registration numbers and lack of independent candidacies. They theoretically
could be included based on their one independent candidate race against two
major party candidates in 2008 (Debra Noble) and their cross endorsement of
Cicero's Booker's minor party Independent Party senatorial race in Waterbury
in 2008. Perhaps their cross endorsement of around 94% of incumbent
legislative Democrats and some other local election wins give them some kind
of official halo of legitimacy. They theoretically could be accepted as a
legitimate third party and be listed in the question number 9 box if their
party registration numbers increased.

You don't have to be a political scientist or a social psychologist to
figure out that if people are NOT given a fair and obvious opportunity to
choose which political party most matches their political views on CT's
official voter registration form they are probably going to answer question
# 9 with the response:"I don't wish to register in a party at this time."
Since 44% of the voters respond in this way, why is there no one
representing the unaffiliated or independent point of view? By the way, 35%
of the voters are registered Democrats and 20% are Republicans.  Does this
mean that that the Republican party is really a third party in CT?

It is my belief that if people saw and could check off the option "Green
Party" as a response to question 9 on the voter registration form that many
more would register as Greens.  I can't actually prove that at this time but
I think it is quite likely that this is the case.  So it is my opinion that
after we get through winning our lawsuit against campaign finance deform,
that we demand the CT SOTS create some minimum registration requirement for
the status called "minor party" and I suggest 1000 registered voters as a
minimum number of registered voters to obtain that designation.  This
minimum would only be applicable for the purposes of being specifically
listed as a party using the minor party's legal name on the CT voter
registration form as an addition choice to question 9.

I also think the various "modicum of support" arguments for ballot access
requirements are unconstitutional. If the 1% valid signature petition
requirement is such an accurate and fair measure for political legitimacy in
CT why doesn't the state of CT apply these requirements to the major party
candidates every time they run for office or allow minor parties a fair
mechanism to gain permanent ballot access?

This especially comes sharply into focus when you look at the 20% valid
signature petitioning requirement for getting a grant under CT's Citizen
Election Program. The CEP and the law that created it essentially says that
if you are not a major party you can only get a full grant under CEP in
future elections (i.e. get equal treatment) under the law by proving that
you can get 20% or more of the votes in an a previous election.  Under CEP
if you are a minor party you can alternately get a full immediate grant by
getting the valid signatures of 20% of the people who voted in the last
election in the district you are running in (that is, prove your are really
a major party)(Note under CEP: No petitioning requirement for major parties
in CT).

But what happens to this CEP requirement when you find out that in 14
legislative races in 2008 the major party candidate got less that 20% of the
final vote. Why would you give a future CEP grant to a major party candidate
in 2010 who got less than 20% of the vote in 2008 when you deny a future
grant to a minor party candidate who got less than 20% of the vote in the
same election in 2008?  Does this imply that the designation "Major Party"
confers a special and protected legal status under CT campaign finance law?

It reminds me of what Lewis Carroll wrote in Though The Looking Glass: "
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it
means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' 'The question
is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
".

Of course, we all know what ultimately happened to Humpty Dumpty.

Regards,
Mike DeRosa

__________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Vogel [mailto:vogel at ct.metrocast.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 11:05 AM
To: Mike DeRosa; 'David Bedell'; ctgp-news at ml.greens.org
Subject: Re: {news} Proposed agenda - voter list

If you are allowed to copy it, why don't you resell it at a more reasonable
fee.

About $20.00 should cover the cost of copying a DVD and leave a small
profit.

I bet you could sell a few.

Bob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike DeRosa" <smderosa at cox.net>
To: "'David Bedell'" <dbedellgreen at hotmail.com>; <ctgp-news at ml.greens.org>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 11:53 PM
Subject: RE: {news} Proposed agenda - voter list

> Connecticut Green Party - Part of the GPUS
> http://www.ctgreens.org/ - http://www.greenpartyus.org/
>
> to unsubscribe click here
> mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org
> I spoke with Atty Bromley at CT SOTS.  He says he will have a list of all
> CT
> Green registered voters for us on this coming Monday.
> He will be extracting them from the master list and there will be no
> charge
> for this.
> Sincerely,
> Mike DeRosa
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org
> [mailto:ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org] On Behalf Of David Bedell
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:42 AM
> To: ctgp-news at ml.greens.org
> Subject: {news} Proposed agenda - voter list
>
> Connecticut Green Party - Part of the GPUS
> http://www.ctgreens.org/ - http://www.greenpartyus.org/
>
> to unsubscribe click here
> mailto:ctgp-news-unsubscribe at ml.greens.org
> I spoke with Pearl Williams a couple weeks ago.  I thought a declared
> statewide candidate might be able to get the voter list for free, but she
> assured me that everyone has to pay, $300 for the CD(s).  If we know
> someone
> who already has a recent version, they might be willing to copy it for us.
> Or maybe we could split the cost with someone like the Libertarians or the
> Independent Party.
>
> Once we get the list for the annual mailing, we need to make copies for
> each
> of our chapters and our candidates (last year, not all our candidates got
> a
> list of Greens in their district).  I hereby volunteer for the task of
> copying and distribution.
>
> David Bedell
>
> ----------Original message----------------
> Ronna:
>
> Have not heard back from the CT SOTS.  I will call the lawyer I spoke with
> on Monday to find out the status so we can move forward.
>
> Thanks for looking into the database.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mike DeRosa
>
>
>