Monthly Archives: July 2011

← Previous Entries

Eastern Greens say “No fracking way!”

July 25, 2011 in 2011 Summer

Efforts to ban hydraulic fracturing methods heat up
by Deyva Arthur, Green Party of New York State

Portrayed as an energy source alternative to oil, why is the Green Party so adamantly against the use of hy­draul­ic fracturing (hydrofracking) for natural gas? With the increased risk of contaminating groundwater with toxic chemicals, emitting dangerous gases into the atmosphere, and no governmental regulations in place to keep any of it in check, it has be­come clear to residents and environmental organizations that they need to join with Greens to try to halt hydro­frack­ing altogether.

“In less that 2 years time, the equivalent of Pennsylvania’s largest natural lake will have been turned into untreatable radioactive wastewater. This is unsustainable! This is unconscionable!” said Jay Sweeney, Green Party of Pennsylvania (GPP) member, on the impact hydrofracking will have in his state.

Green Party members in New York, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere have been taking the lead in not just raising awareness about hydrofracking, but trying to get it banned completely and permanently.

Hydraulic fracturing wells extract natural gas by drilling vertically and then horizontally into shale beds. An undisclosed cocktail of chemicals, sand and water is pumped into the wells to push out the natural gas. Companies like Exxon, Halliburton, Schlum­berger, and Chesapeake state they will not reveal what chemicals they use for proprietary reasons, however, studies of nearby contaminated groundwater has revealed radioactive material, arsenic, benzene, and bromide, to name a few. Res­idents of drilling areas have become chronically ill from liver, heart, blood and brain damage as well as leukemia and other cancers due to exposure to carcinogenic, neur­o­toxic, and radioactive wastes in the air, water and soil. Although hydrofracking has been around for more than 60 years, new techniques and new chemical compounds bring it to a whole new level of danger and in the last 15 years its use has in­creased by 3000 percent, according to advocacy group Food and Water Watch.

Originally started in Texas, hydrofracking is now conducted in 34 states across the country. The Marcellus Shale bed, which runs from West Virginia through to western New York, has large deposits of untapped natural gas and is currently where the fracking battle is being waged most in­tensely be­tween gas and oil companies and activ­ists like local Green Parties.

But activists have received sporadic to no support from local, state and federal government. The use of hydro­fracking has managed to side step most water and air regulations, so there has been few limitations to enforce. Even if there were rules and limits, most state agencies lack the ability to properly enforce them. With companies demanding their techniques remain private there is little information to go on to even set up new rules, and with the promise of cheap energy and economic benefits, corporations have been able to strong-arm state governments into allowing hydrofracking companies to do whatever they want unchecked.

Howie Hawkins, who ran on an anti-hydro­fracking platform in his campaign for New York governor said: “A Cornell study finds that the global warming impact of natural gas is equal to or greater than coal due to the carbon dioxide released by burning gas and the leakage of methane, which is 23 times more potent as a greenhouse gas over a century. Burning all of the recoverable gas in the Marcellus Shale will re­lease 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide, the full US per capita share of the 250 billion ton world carbon release cap through 2050 that climate scientists say is needed to pre­vent runaway global warming.”

Hydraulic fracturing is not only a risk be­cause of added methane in the atmosphere and contaminants seeping into drinking aquifers, the process also strips vast areas of forest and farmland for the wells. Some municipal wastewater treatment plants have even been unable to handle the waste and ended up dumping it into waterways. Also there is some evidence the blasting to make the wells has caused earthquakes. Despite all this the Bush Administration officially stated hydraulic fracturing was completely safe and clean. The Obama ad­ministration is supporting that misconception.

Actually, the federal government has been so supportive of hydrofracking, it is being pushed in other countries. “In April 2010, the United States Department of State established GSGI — the Global Shale Gas Initiative — to promote hydraulic fracturing around the world, especially to China and India, to make money selling Amer­ican technology,” said Green Party member Carl Arnold at a protest calling for a ban in New York State. He added gas companies are buying up leases in Eu­rope, Africa, and Asia to start up there. “The CEOs of the pow­erful corporations, the Mon­san­tos, the Exxons, the GEs, the Rio Tintos and Anadarkos, Peabody Coal or Massey Energy, these power brokers don’t realize that they’re suicidal. They don’t realize that they’re committing suicide for all of us. They’re not going to change. We must change the way we look at the world, at agriculture, at so­ci­ety, at water, air and soil — the very fundamentals that allow us to live — to exist,” Arnold said.

Green Party members in New York, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere have been taking the lead in not just raising awareness about hydrofracking, but trying to get it banned completely and permanently. Pennsyl­va­nia Greens have had to be diligent and take a strong stance against fracking as the state has been particularly hard hit with a drill­ing frenzy. Sweeney said, “DEP reports over 1300 wells were drilled in 2010 and over 300 so far in 2011. At 5 million gallons per fracked well, that is approximately 8 billion gallons of water used in the hydro­­fracking process in 16 months.”

In their statement submitted to the governor, Pennsyl­vania Greens make it loud and clear what needs to happen: “Be it re­solved that, we, citizens of the Com­mon­wealth of Pennsylvania and members of the Green Party of Pennsylvania, call for the termination and prohibition of all natural gas extraction involving the use of our Commonwealth’s water resources. We call for a ban immediately stopping all high volume, slick water, horizontal fracturing of deep shale, including exploration, in Pennsylvania and worldwide.” Both the cities of Pittsburgh and Phila­del­phia have resolutions banning hydro­fracking.

Although drilling has already been happening in Pennsylvania, gas companies in New York are poised at the door to start major drilling. Thanks to strong activism against hydrofracking, the New York State Senate voted to have a moratorium on drilling until the Department of Environmental Conservation finishes its impact statement, which could take a year. Despite this small win, New York Greens and other groups are not resting in their laurels since hydro­fracking companies will soon be making political deals to start production. To confirm the need for diligence, shortly after the moratorium was declared, Governor Cuomo said he would get it reversed (as a compromise he said he would restrict drilling near New York City’s water supply, but allow it elsewhere in the state).

Cecile Lawrence, last year’s Green New York State senate candidate, has been active against hydrofracking for years. Along with Howie Hawkins, gubernatorial candidate and the other candidates in the state slate, she made banning hydrofracking a major part of the campaign. Lawrence said at a speech in New York City, “A little over a year ago the Green Party stated its firm position that the only responsible response to the threat of hydrofracking into stone shales was a complete and total ban. That was the platform position on fracking for all the Green Party candidates running that year with the goal of returning us to the NYS ballot and it is still the position of the Green Party of New York. We got a lot of pushback, with people telling us that a ban was not realistic, was not politically feasible, or was illegal. Well, a year later, look at where we are now. Look at how many of you are gathered here today!”

As the effort to stop hydrofracking continues, Arnold said, “What can we do? First, we must continue to grow the ban fracking movement so that this scourge is stopped dead on our doorstep. If enough of us become mobilized, we can bring enough pressure on officials and politicians.… Then we must change our way of looking at the world, our way of being in the world.”

For more information on hydraulic fracturing of natural gas go to: gp.org, un-na­turalgas.org, damascuscitizens.org, or pro­publica.org

Sign the petition to ban unconventional gas drilling in New York State: www.thepetitionsite.com/1/NY-State­wide-Ban-On-Natural-Gas-Drilling

Tags: , , , , , ,
1 Comment »

Metastasizing xenophobia

July 22, 2011 in 2011 Summer

U.S. Greens work to stem anti-immigrant tide
by Randall Amster

With the passage of the now-infamous immigration law SB 1070 and its historically-tainted “show me your papers” logic, the eyes of the world have fallen upon my home state for all the wrong reasons: ethnic intolerance, racial profiling, status crimes, guilt by association, and the blatant erosion of the remaining tatters of hard-fought constitutional protections against unwarranted searches and seizures. In this light, telling people you’re from Arizona today is not unlike saying you’re from Mississippi in the 1960s or Germany circa 1939.

There has been a tremendous outcry and effort to stop these measures. The Green Party has made speaking out against these immigration laws a priority and has been active in immigration reform. Driving this urgency among many local activists, including Green Party members and candidates, is a sense that the Ari­zona case was merely a trial balloon for launching similar anti-immigrant efforts in other states. Arizona activists understood we were facing a genuine “buck stops here” moment in terms of how our struggle would play out in the not-too-distant future. Stopping SB 1070 in particular, and directly confronting Arizona’s brutal policies in general, was bound up with an im­plicit recollection of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s insight that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

In June of this year, both Alabama and South Carolina passed measures that are rhetorically competing for the misbegotten title of the “nation’s toughest immigration law.”

I reflected in an article on Common Dreams on the possibility of a coming proliferation of Arizona-style immigration laws spreading around the country: “From the Eastern Seaboard to the Rust Belt, states are looking to imitate Arizona’s ‘zero tolerance’ approach to immigration (an apt phrasing if ever there was one)…. The truly remarkable thing about this metastasizing xenophobia is that it is based entirely on empirical falsehoods, by most respect­able accounts…. Take heed friends, lest you find that as goes Arizona, so goes the rest of the nation.”

Unfortunately, these predictions have steadily come to fruition in other states. A visual map from March 2011 was produced by ColorLines, which indicated, “at least 16 state legislatures have introduced SB 1070 copycat bills.” In many of these cases, the bills stalled, were tabled, or defeated, including a suite of ‘SB 1070 on steroids’ measures proposed but not passed in Arizona last spring. But in a number of states, including Indiana, Utah, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina, measures emulating or even expanding upon the harsh provisions of SB 1070 have been adopted. Oklahoma has considered a bill specifically dubbed “Arizona Plus” which, according to a report in AlterNet, would “order police to enforce immigration law, allow law enforcement to confiscate the property of undocumented immigrants, including homes and cars, and could criminalize providing social services and otherwise interacting with undocumented immigrants.” The Oklahoma bill eventually died in the state senate when community activists, human rights groups and social service organizations lobbied hard against it.

In Indiana, a federal judge recently blocked key portions of an anti-immigrant law set to take effect on July 1, 2011, including a provision allowing summary arrests of potential deportees without affording them an opportunity to appear before a judge. Utah passed a suite of immigration laws this past March hailed in some quarters as a more tolerant and reasonable approach to the issues, focusing primarily on the creation of “guest worker” programs. But as author David Bacon ob­serves, “the Utah laws, however, are not new. And they’re certainly not liberal, at least towards immigrants and workers. Labor supply programs for employers, with deportations and diminished rights for immigrants, have marked U.S. immigration policy for more than 100 years.”

In June of this year, both Alabama and South Carolina passed measures that are rhetorically competing for the misbegotten title of the “nation’s toughest immigration law.” According to Reuters, the South Carolina law will require police to check the immigration status of any individual they suspect is in the country illegally after they have stopped that person for another reason (akin to Arizona’s SB 1070); will allow the state to revoke the business license of any employer who knowingly hires “unauthorized aliens;” and will create a new (and pejoratively named) “Illegal Immigration Enforcement Unit.” Alabama’s new law, as reported by the Associated Press, “was modeled on Ari­zona’s” and contains additional provisions “requiring schools to find out if students are in the country lawfully and making it a crime to knowingly give an illegal immigrant a ride.”

The passage of these new draconian laws has prompted the U.S. Department of Just­ice to initiate a review and call for meetings with state law enforcement officials in order to ascertain whether the federal government will file lawsuits similar to the successful challenge it launched against SB 1070. Yet here in Arizona, well before the federal government stepped in, the state Green Party took a strong stance on immigration issues, as reported by the local FOX News station: “Besides its position on the environment, there is another issue the Green Party is very clear about and that is its position on immigration. The Green Party is the only party that supports amnesty. ‘We want comprehensive immigration reform. We do not support any of this legislation, whether it’s SB 1070, anti-ethnic studies legislation, employer sanctions, English only,’ says Angel Torres, AZ House candidate.”

During the 2010 election cycle, Arizona Green Party (AZGP) candidates for state office were outspoken about immigration issues, including AZGP co-chair Torres, who noted that “as a Puerto Rican/Xicano and life-long Arizonan, SB 1070 is an insult to me, my family and the entire Latino community. To scapegoat or racially profile an entire community does not solve the problem. Our economic and immigration policies need to serve the interests of all working-class folks, not the interests of the corporations.”

Linda Macias, AZGP vice co-chair and 2010 State House candidate, added: “We need major federal reform of our immigration laws. Immigrants come to the United States in hope of a better life. We need to give them citizenship now and write immigration laws that are humane and just.” The AZGP further issued a press release asserting that “Arizona’s anti-immigrant legislation does not address the root causes of migration: poverty, lack of economic opportunity, war and political conflict, and environmental devastation…. The Arizona Green Party encourages all Arizonans to join the grassroots movement to overturn SB 1070, and organize for comprehensive immigration reform.”

As indicated by Leenie Halbert, AZGP and national Green Party co-chair, some im­portant gains were made here, “In Arizona, we’ve been able to use our special status under the state’s Clean Elections laws, in which we participate in organized televised debates, to directly address issues like im­migration and SB 1070, without parsing our words and hedging our positions like the Democrats do. We’re looking forward to the upcoming election cycle, as we pre­pare to field candidates who will represent our intention to become an electoral arm of a growing political movement against the state’s racist and draconian anti-immigrant laws. We are the only poli­tical party in the state that’s aligned with this perspective.”

The Georgia case similarly reveals an active Green Party agenda to forestall anti-immigrant sentiments and challenge the proliferation of harsh laws aimed at vulnerable segments of the population. Before the new law was passed, the Georgia Green Party (GGP) circulated a petition against it. Upon passage of the measure, the GGP issued a call for a travel and tourism boycott of the state. As GGP Secretary Hugh Esco observes, Georgia’s new law invokes the state’s history of lynching by making “hateful hospitality the law of the land,” and he inquires: “Why would our governor let white fear tear apart immigrant families?”

Along with the prior Arizona, Utah, and Indiana cases, a federal judge recently has enjoined the Georgia law from taking effect, and similar legal challenges are pending in Alabama and South Carolina. The arguments of equity and dignity advanced by Greens and others have thus far been successful in establishing a counter-narrative to that being plied by the anti-immigrant forces behind these odious laws. As Omar Jadwat, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, observes, “Geor­gia’s law, like Arizona’s, Utah’s, and Indiana’s before it, has been blocked by a federal court because it is fundamentally flawed. The universal failure of these laws in the courts is a stinging rebuke to state lawmakers who have pushed laws that would threaten all of our freedoms in order to express their hostility to immigrants and immigration.”

As the immigration debate continues to evolve nationally, the foundational Green Party values of social justice, equal opportunity, economic justice, nonviolence, and respect for diversity will undoubtedly serve to inform the discussion and help support the efforts to overturn this spate of ill-advised and unconstitutional laws that accomplish little more than institutionalizing racism and fear. The national Green Party, as well as state and local Greens across the country, can and must play a crucial role in stemming this divisive tide of anti-immigrant sentiment in the days ahead.

Randall Amster, J.D., Ph.D., is the Graduate Chair of Humanities at Prescott College. He serves as Executive Director of the Peace & Justice Studies Association and as Contrib­ut­ing Editor for New Clear Vision. Among his recent books are Lost in Space: The Criminal­ization, Globalization, and Urban Ecology of Homelessness (LFB Scholarly, 2008), and the co-edited volume Building Cultures of Peace: Transdisciplinary Voices of Hope and Action (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009).

Tags: , , , ,
1 Comment »

Elizabeth May and the Canadian Greens Make History

July 22, 2011 in 2011 Summer

by Camille Labchuk, Green Party of Canada Federal Councillor and former Press Secretary to Elizabeth May and Jordy Gold, Elizabeth May Deputy Campaign Manager

On May 2, British Columbians made history by electing Elizabeth May the first elected Green Member of Can­a­dian Parliament, ousting a 14-year incumbent and sitting cabinet minister in the Conservative Party government. May joins the ranks of a small, but growing, number of Green politicians who have broken through and won at the national level under first-past-the-post voting. How did this occur?

In August of 2006, May, a well-known and media-savvy environmentalist, lawyer and author was elected Lead­er of the Green Party of Canada, bringing a high profile to the party. Less than two months later, a by-election (special election) was called in Ontario. May shocked pundits and the Canadian public, finishing second with an unprecedented 26 percent of the vote — more than any Green in Canada’s history.

In the lead up to the next federal general election in September 2008, May announced that she would seek a seat in Central Nova, a primarily rural riding in Nova Scotia. She spent less than half of her time there and the rest touring the country raising the party’s profile in support of other Green candidates. She also participated in the televised national leaders’ debates — a first for the Greens. Originally excluded, public outcry forced the TV executives (and some other party leaders, who wanted her kept out) to reverse their decision.

Nationally Greens garnered nearly 7 percent of the national vote but failed to win a seat. May won a record-breaking 32 percent, but not enough to steal the seat from the incumbent Conservative, who happened to be the Minister of National Defence.

The 2008 election gave the Greens much to think about. The party’s Federal Council adopted a new strategy for the next election, prioritizing electing the leader to Parliament. This had two critical components. First, identifying the best possible riding for Elizabeth May. Second, devoting the pre-election resources and energy necessary for her to win. After extensive polling and consultations in Spring 2009, it was clear that Saanich—Gulf Islands (SGI) in Brit­ish Colombia (BC) was the best option in the country.

The West Coast is Green-friendly territory. The Green Party of BC was the first in North America, founded by current Green Party of Canada Deputy Leader Adriane Carr in 1983,  and as a result, Green politics have been on the radar for decades in BC. Environmental protection is a hot issue there and British Colum­bians are used to considering the Greens as a viable alternative to the old-line parties and had already elected many Greens to municipal governments. With a Green base established and other capable, Green-friendly groups present, running in SGI provided the possibility of attracting a range of high quality volunteers.

SGI was also already one of the greenest ridings in Canada, comprised of voters from the suburbs of the city of Victoria, as well as residents of the Gulf Islands, accessible only by ferry. Voters there gave Green Andrew Lewis 17 percent of the vote in 2004 — the best federal result to that date. Provincially, Lewis won over 25 percent in 2001. In recognition of the popularity of the Greens in SGI, the Liberals and NDP had recruited former Green activists as candidates in the 2008 election — a clear indication SGI voters hold Green values and issues near and dear.

SGI traditionally also has some of the highest voter turnout in the country (second only to Prince Edward Island in 2001.) We believed that if could maximize voter turnout, pull key traditional Conservative voters who are either frustrated with the local candidate or the Conservative party leader, and unify a large percentage of voters under one banner, we could win. In retrospect, we did just this.

Also relevant was the strong anti-Con­servative sentiment. Conservative cabinet minister Gary Lunn had held the riding since 1997, only because progressive voters were split between the Liberals, New Democrats and Greens. Progressives in the riding had acknowledged the problem and launched a Shun Lunn campaign, encouraging voters to rally around one of Lunn’s opponents to vote him out. Introducing May brought a rallying point for both progressive voters and traditional Conservatives who were frustrated with the direction of the Conservative government. In her two previous campaigns, May had easily built support among voters who usually supported other parties, and we expected the trend would continue in SGI.

Early stages of the campaign

The initial response was incredibly positive, but we had to work hard to build her profile among non-Greens. Not everyone knew of her great work, or was certain she was not a “parachute candidate”. Although it is not legally necessary that a candidate live in the riding, it made a huge difference that she moved to SGI and became integrated into the community for a year and a half before the election was called. This allowed her team to knock on thousands of doors and interact with the same voters many times. Her char­isma and genuineness made it difficult to meet her and not want to vote for her.

We worked hard to dispel the party’s “one-issue” reputation, demonstrate that we were electable. Grassroots organizing ultimately made it possible,and bring the majority on board who had never voted for the party in the past.  Meet-and-greets in peoples’ homes were essential  and we won over supporters of all ages and who had traditionally not voted at all or not for the Green Party. Powerful unions, left-wing progressives and major strategic voting website endorsed May, as did right-wing media commentators and even high-profile former Conservative Party members.

The Election

The Conservative government fell in late March, and we moved into full campaign mode immediately. May ran a shorter and more focused leader’s tour. Spending 10 days on tour out of a 36 day campaign allowed May to maximize the time she spent in SGI.

Then, a result of deliberate and concerted collusion between the corporate media and the other political parties, the TV networks excluded May from the televised leaders’ debates, despite her participating in 2008. There was outrage from the overwhelming majority of voters, rallies in major centers across the country, and an emergency legal challenge, but the anti-democratic decision of the networks was allowed to stand and debates went ahead without May and this hurt our national vote. But this may have helped the SGI campaign as voters wanted to hear what May had to say and were prepared to vote for her to make sure she had a chance to speak on the national stage.

As May is a tremendous speaker and fabulous debater, we were determined to showcase this in the ten-plus local debates. De­bate halls were consistently packed — some with over 1000 people — and May received multiple standing ovations, sometimes simply for entering the room.

SGI has a history of dirty electoral tricks from the old-line parties, so May was determined to run a clean campaign and hoped for everyone to play by the rules. This at­mosphere was helped by reports of Green Party volunteers fixing up damaged signs from all parties.

We knew the campaign was going well when people randomly began their own initiatives, from the kids who made their own lawn signs, to the artist that created the “Yes We May” posters as a take­off on Obama’s “Yes We Can”, or the individuals who parked on main streets with homemade posters on their cars and trucks. As much as we were running a strong campaign, the positivity was out of our control.

Late in the campaign, we released a poll. We knew, pre-election, that we were competitive, but additional polling during the writ period did not come through until the mid-way point in the campaign. When we saw the numbers we nearly hit the floor – May in first place with 45 percent, and Lunn second at 35 percent. Although we had concerns that some might be de-motivated to vote if they thought May was going to win handily, we decided it was more important to prove that she could be elected, and we reminded people we were in a close race and their vote could make the difference.

Election Day

We never took anything for granted throughout the campaign and that did not change on election day. Our get-out-the-vote effort was a success, due to a team of competent staff and high quality, committed volunteers on the ground in SGI and on phone lines across the country making calls to the riding to ensure we got out our identified vote, and to encourage as many as possible to vote  — a strategy known as “pulling from strength,” knowing that in most areas, most people wanted to defeat the Conservative incumbent, and the more we increasted turnout, the better things would be.

SGI would be one of the last ridings in the country to declare a result, and as such, we were on pins and needles. But barely an hour after polls closed, with only 20 of 200+ polls reporting reporting, Lunn called May personally to graciously concede de­feat and congratulate her on the victory. Soon afterwards, the national networks began announcing that May had won with over 46 percent of the vote and the crowd went wild. Not only were Green supporters thrilled, but phone calls and Twitter messages from non-Greens across the country came to us, universally expressing elation the Greens had finally elected an MP.

What’s Next?

In the brief time the House of Commons sat after May was elected, she has established the Greens as principled, yet pragmatic, as the sole dissenting voice on a vote to extend Canada’s mission in Libya, and denying unanimous consent to fast-track legislation affecting fundamental rights protections in criminal trials, With just one MP, the Greens are breaking down the psychological barrier that some have to voting Green. The next general election isn’t until 2015, but we may have the chance to elect Greens through by-elections before then. Now it’s time to start building to add to the Green caucus.

For more information, see the expanded series detailing the historic election win of Elizabeth May, written by Camille Lab­chuk and Jordy Gold at www.Camille­Lab­chuk.ca and www.JordyGold.com

10 Lessons Learned

  • Saanich-Gulf Islands was without a doubt ‘the’ riding for the Greens to make their breakthrough
  • There is no substitute for an extraordinary candidate and an informed, engaged, courageous electorate
  • Nothing works better than genuinely listening/responding and person-to-person engagement
  • Confirmed that you win elections be­tween elections and focussing on one riding to begin, is essential
  • Actions speak louder than words and there is no substitute for hard work and dem­onstrating consistent long-term comittment
  • Champions who previously supported other parties are worth their weight in gold
  • At least in the case of SGI, if not across Canada, people are sick of negative politics and will gladly get behind a strong candidate and platform that are positive and demonstrate vision
  • Past election results are informative but are not necessarily indicitive of future results
  • Greens pull votes from right across the spectrum
  • Greens are no doubt electable, even in our antiquated First Past the Post electoral system

Tags: , , ,
6 Comments »

Global Greens Congress 2012

July 22, 2011 in 2011 Summer

Greens from around the world are warmly invited to Global Greens Congress 2012 from 29 March to 1 April 2012 

Global Greens Congresses are exhilarating, empowering and vital. People come from all over the Green world with different cultures, diverse histories and many languages but united by a sense of global citizenship and committed to common political values and ideals. It is particularly exciting that Global Greens 2012 will be held in Africa, a continent that exemplifies both the hope and the challenge of the many pressing issues facing the world. This Congress will have on its agenda: the push for real democracy flowering in north Africa, the need for fundamental economic reform and a Green New Deal, climate change and energy, and the safeguarding of life itself — the world’s biodiversity, especially in marine environments. It will take the next steps to strengthen the Global Greens and improve our capacity for cooperation and action.

The Greens are committed to tackling the social and ecological crises facing humanity and the planet. This Congress will focus on planning for action — it will help shape Green politics and so world politics for the coming decades.

Global Greens 2012 will be hosted by the Fédération Démo­cratique des Ecol­o­gistes du Sénégal (FEDES) in partnership with the African Green Federation and the Global Greens Coordination. Other meetings will be held in conjunction with the Congress to make the most of the opportunity for people to come together. This is the third Global Greens Con­gress and the first in Africa. The first Congress was in Canberra, Australia, in 2001 and the second in Sao Paolo, Brazil, in 2008.

Tags: , , , , , ,
1 Comment »

Greens are winning more federal and state winner-take-all elections worldwide

July 22, 2011 in 2011 Summer

by Mike Feinstein, Green Party of California
and member of the International Committee of the Green Party of the United States

Most Greens elected on the federal or state level around the world have been elected in multi-seat districts through systems of proportional representation.  However, the recent election from single-seat districts of Elizabeth May to the Canadian House of Commons (May 2011) and Caroline Lucas to the British House of Commons (June 2010) raise questions as to whether this is the beginning of a new trend. The answer is a qualified maybe.

Since 1999, 15 Greens have been elected in single-seat federal races, exclusively on a Green Party ballot line. Six of them — May, Lucas, Hans-Christian Ströbele (Germany 2002, 2005, 2009) and Jeanette Fitzsim­mons (New Zealand 1999) have won winner-take-all, first-past-the-post elections, in competition with all of the other major parties. These are the most difficult races to win, because there is an inherent pressure to vote for the ‘lesser of evils’ rather than an emerging party like the Greens. Yet despite this disincentive, it is a strong indication of the Greens’ growing appeal that voters are beginning to elect them even under this system.

Additionally, two Australian Greens have been elected in single-seat federal races using the single-transferable-vote (instant run-off voting), where voters rank candidates in the order of their preference. This eliminates the ‘vote-splitting’ dynamic of first-past-the-post systems, and the structural suppression of voter preference that results. By contrast, in France’s two round majority run-off system, Greens have eliminated the ‘vote-splitting’ dynamic by cooperating with the Socialists in an electoral coalition, so that only one candidate between the two parties would contest each race. This has led to seven Greens being elected to the Assemblée Nationale.

Yet another approach has been tried in México where in 2009 four Greens were elected in single member districts to the Mexican Federal House of Deputies through an alliance with the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), where each candidate appeared on both the PRI and PVEM (Partido Verde Ecologista de México) ballot lines. In each case the majority of votes came on the PRI line.

On the state level, 18 Greens have been elected in single-seat races exclusively on a Green Party ballot line, in competition with candidates from all the other major parties. Seventeen have come in either the German state of Baden Württemberg in 2011 or the German city-state of Berlin since 1995. The eighteenth was John Eder, to the Maine State House of Represen­ta­tives in 2004. Two other U.S. Greens have won two-way state house races against a Democrat: Eder in 2002 and Audie Bock to the California State Assembly in 1999. And in Australia, two Greens – Jamie Parker and Adele Carles – have been elected to state legislative assemblies in single-transferable-vote elections.

Why are Greens winning in single-seat districts?
There are a few main variables in common among the Greens winning single-seat state and federal races.

Greens are winning in countries that have experience with both proportional representation and winner-take-all/first-past-the-post
In Germany, Mexico and New Zealand, elections are conducted under what is called a Mixed-Member Proportional repre­sen­tation system, where some seats are elected proportionally and some in first-past-the-post elections. In these countries, Greens have had the advantage of first able to build a positive reputation for governing after being elected from the proportional side, before voters in larger numbers were willing to elect them in the first-past-the-post. They also benefited from voters being used to voting Green under proportional representation, so single-seat races were not completely novel.

Greens are winning in countries that al­ready have a multi-party tradition, even without proportional representation
Countries that have proportional representation naturally have multi-party representation and as a result, voters are used to considering more than just two choices. But the last two federal single-seat victories have come in Canada and England where like in the U.S., there is no proportional representation and they use exclusively winner-take-all elections. However unlike the U.S., both Canada and England have historic traditions of more than two parliamentary parties.

Greens are targeting green-friendly districts
After the previous Canadian federal election in 2008, the Green Party of Canada made a strategic choice to: identify the one district in the entire country most likely to elect a Green, have its party leader move there, and to have the party concentrate its resources into electing her. May moved across the country from Nova Scotia to British Columbia to give herself and the party the best chance to win.

In England, the Green Party specifically targeted three districts – Brighton Pavilion, Norwich South and Lewisham, of which they had strong existing support and significant local government representation, including one – Brighton Pavilion, where Lucas was elected, where the Greens are the largest party on the local city council.

Greens are winning the largest share of the multi-party center-left vote
 In the case of May, the Green Party had never won more than 16.7 percent of the vote in her district and had no local government representation. But with her national presence and reputation, along with a lot of grassroots organizing May was able to unify 70 percent of the three party center-left-green vote there around her candidacy to defeat the five term Conservative incumbent. The riding’s electorate was ripe for someone to do just that owing to a frustration where in the last three elections, between 56 percent and 65 percent of the electorate had voted for one of the center-left candidates and yet the Conservative incumbent won each time with a small plurality of the vote.

In Germany, Hans-Christian Ströbele has been elected three consecutive times to the Bundestag (federal parliament) from the ultra-progressive Friedrichshain-Kreuz­berg district in Berlin, by finishing ahead of both the Social Democrats and the Left Party. The same thing has been true eight times since 1995 in parliamentary elections of the city-state of Berlin from the same area.

Greens are winning where they aren’t being held back by the perception of vote-splitting. In Australia, Greens running in single-transferable vote elections don’t face the pressure that Greens do in first-past-the-post systems, i.e. the perception that a vote for a Green will elect a conservative. Under this system, Adam Bandt became the first Green elected to the Federal House of Representa­tives in 2010 by 56 percent to 44 percent over the Labor Party candidate (after the preferences were transferred) in a Melbourne electoral division that was held by the Labor Party since 1904.

In France, Greens have eliminated the vote-splitting perception by literally splitting the candidacies between themselves and their primary competitor for left-of-center votes, the Socialists, so that only one candidate between the two parties would contest each race.

Insights for U.S. Greens

The victories of May and Lucas should give hope to U.S. Greens because they occurred in single-seat, winner-take-all districts in elections with a relatively large number of votes cast (68,987 and 51,834 respectively), where left-of-center voters were willing place their faith in the Greens instead of the larger center-left parties. May’s election helps because it happened right here in North America, and just like the existence of Canadian single payer health­care, the very presence of a Green MP across the border makes the prospect for it in the U.S. more plausible.

At the same time, the U.S. does not have a history of multi-party democracy the way Canada and England do. The average turnout in U.S. Congressional elections is also between 150,000 and 250,000 voters —  approximately two to five times the number that turned out in the elections of May and Lucas — meaning their results may be more transferable in the U.S. to safe, left-of-center, mid-size state legislative districts, than for U.S. Congress.

The targeting strategy of English Greens was to focus in areas with a history of Green success in local government. The three most similar areas in the U.S. are Portland, Maine; Madison, Wisconsin and in Cali­for­nia along the coast through San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Mendocino and Humboldt Counties.

The results in these areas thus far have been to elect Eder twice in the Portland area and to run a strong first time 31 percent second place State Assembly finish for Ben Manski in Madison in 2010. But in Eder’s races the total number of votes cast were between two and three thousand, while in Manski’s it was only 25,000. In California by contrast state assembly districts contain an average of 450,000 residents. So the prospects for further state legislative victories are most likely in those states with smaller districts.

It also should be remembered that in targeting strategy, both May and Lucas benefited from the press coverage they received as national Green party Leaders before they were elected (May since 2006 and Lucas since 2009). Many U.S. Greens, pensive about hierarchy, have been reluctant to designate individuals with such titles and positions. Will the experiences of Greens elsewhere cause U.S. Greens to rethink this position?

Next Steps

On the horizon, perhaps the best next chance for victory is Mark Miller in the Third Berkshire District of the Massa­chu­setts State House of Representatives. Mil­ler received 45 percent of the vote in a two-way race against a Democrat in 2010 and since then, that Democrat has been appointed to a district court position, leading to a November 2011 special election for the now open seat.

—————————————————————————————————————————

Mike Feinstein is the Content Development Manager for the Global Greens website and has compiled a complete list of Greens elected worldwide in federal and state single-seat races: www.globalgreens.org/officeholders/elect­ed-federal-single-seat and
www.globalgreens .org/officeholders/elected-state-single-seat

Tags: , , , , ,
6 Comments »

German Greens flying high as nuke era ends

July 22, 2011 in 2011 Summer

by Phil Hill, Bündnis ‘90/Die Grünen (German Green Party)

By the end of July 2011, the chancellor of the world’s most advanced major industrial country signed a law making nuclear power illegal in ten years. Of the country’s 17 nuclear power plants, eight have been recently shut down and the rest will follow, about one a year, by 2022.

That country is Germany, the world’s fourth largest economy, and by far the healthiest of the four. When British Pre­mier David Cameron recently asked Ger­man Chan­­cellor Angela Merkel how Ger­many managed to do so well in the post-melt-down world, her answer was “We still make things.” Not “products,” like packages of upside-down mortgages and junk bonds. Things, like machines the whole world buys. Germany’s promise to itself and to the world is: no nukes and no coal.

And yet, Germany is shutting down nuclear power. If the U.S. did that, the air conditioners would go out at Goldman Sachs. In Germany, according to pro-nuke propaganda, the machines should stop running at Siemens. But they won’t – and that is in no small part thanks to the fact that the Greens, when they were in government here, laid the foundation for a massive alternative energy program.

Moreover Germany is not, like the U.S., the big blocker in the worldwide fight against climate change, but a country that has that fight at the top of its foreign policy agenda — even if Merkel’s conservative-liberal government is not exactly practicing what it preaches. Germany’s promise to itself and to the world is: no nukes and no coal.

Alliance 90/The Greens, the world’s leading Green Party, plans to make good on that promise. First, they have to unseat Merkel  — which they will in two years, at the latest, according to all polls. Then, Germany will be living proof that the “Green dream” of a good life powered by the sun and wind is possible. Possible in other industrial countries too; possible even as an alternative development path worldwide.

In 1999, a coalition of the Social Demo­crats (SPD) and Greens ran the country and passed the Nuclear Phase-Out Law, stipulating a 20-year nuclear shut-down, but — thanks to the pro-nuke faction in the SPD — it was full of loopholes. By last year, only one plant had actually been closed, and the nuclear in­dustry’s stalling was paying off, for Mer­kel’s conservative-liberal coalition, elected in 2009 passed a bill stretching the phase-out date to 2040 or even later, and raising the specter of “safe nuke” research. The movement responded with huge demonstrations, the Greens’ support soared, and the law was challenged before the Consti­tu­tional Court. And then came Fukushima.

Back came nightmares about the Cher­no­byl disaster. Again, pictures of smoldering, radioactive ruins that had once been reactors; again, refugees abandoning their villages; again, reports of workers being sent in to fight a battle that would surely mean their agonizing death in a few months or years. Merkel began to waffle, and, after losing a state election to the Greens in the key state of Baden-Württemberg, caved in and introduced the new law that is soon to come into effect.

But all has not gone smoothly. One objection is that Germany was “going it alone;” another, that it will end up importing French or Czech nuclear power. The first has been given the lie by a similar, but less forceful move by Switzerland, and by a 95 percent popular referendum vote against nuclear power in Italy, confirming a post-Chernobyl decision. Together with smaller countries that have long ago said “no” to nukes — Austria, Luxemburg, Denmark, Nor­way and Iceland (and maybe Sweden and Belgium, which have vacillated on the issue) — there is thus a big anti-nuke block in central Europe of up to 200 million people, with the ability to exert strong influence on the pro-nuke countries to the west and the east.

Yet it is true that nuclear power may in fact be imported sporadically, since the Euro­pean grid is integrated, and power flows to where it is needed. But the old SPD-Green government had also provided so much in­centive for wind and solar power that these resources are growing fast enough to replace nuclear. That policy has continued under Merkel, albeit not optimally; Germany’s powerful environmental NGOs have a catalogue of demands for improving the law, that would mean a much greater share of alternative production by 2020. But since wind power, concentrated in the northern plain or offshore in the North and Baltic Seas, will be the primary source, while Germany’s main population and in­dustrial centers are in the south and west, it is obvious that more long-distance power lines are needed — and they are highly controversial, often opposed by local Greens. The Greens are realizing they will have to bite the bullet and accept some projects. Another possibility advocated by local activ­ists is the use of underground high-voltage direct-current (HVDC) power lines, which provide point-to-point transmission of large quantities of electricity to high-use centers.

HVDC cables could also be used for the so-called Desertech project, for sending large quantities of solar power from the Medi­ter­ranean area to northern Europe. Backed by corporations like Siemens, and the Mor­oc­can government, it already boasts large-scale solar plants in Morocco and Spain, and is a major hope for the future of the “Arab awakening.” But it is highly controversial among left and alternative forces — including Greens.

Electorally, the Greens are at an all-time high. In six state elections last year and this, they rose from seats in only four legislatures, and government participation in only one; to representation in all six state houses, and in four governments — including for the first time ever, a state premiership. In the Berlin state elections, scheduled for Septem­ber, an SPD-Green government is a virtual certainty (currently, the SPD governs with the Left Party, the former East German communist party, which is going through a bad spell), and the only question is whether the SPD or the Greens will come in first.

If the Greens do, former Consu­mer Affairs Minister Renate Künast will run the nation’s capital. In Mecklenburg, a three-way coalition of the SPD, the Greens and the Left Party is possible, and next year, an SPD-Green win is likely in Schleswig-Holstein.

Moreover the Merkel government is floundering badly; under the German parliamentary system it could fall apart, which would mean a federal election long before the scheduled Sep­tem­ber 2013 date. For the past year, the SPD and the Greens have been running around 25 percent each in national polls — so here too, a majority is likely, and who comes in first is the question. For the first time, a Green chancellor is possible — most likely for­mer Envi­ron­ment Minister Jürgen Trit­tin.

Winfried Kretschmann, the new Green pre­mier of Baden-Württemberg, can now show that the Greens can function as senior partners in government as well. In the state that is home to both Mercedes and Porsche, he shocked the public by saying that “fewer cars are of course better than more cars.” At least, he wants more electric cars and more wind power in a state that has been Germany’s nuclear stronghold — although two plants have already been shut down. And he has raised the possibility of locating Germany’s nuclear waste dump in the massive layers of clay of the southwest, which are well suited to seal off the nuclear legacy. The conservative rulers of the big southern states have until now taken a NIMBY position here, supporting the demonstrably unsafe proposed dump in the leaky salt deposits at Gorleben, Lower Saxony (in the north) — or, as an alternative, exporting the stuff to Russia.

One big challenge to Kretschmer is the Stuttgart railway station project, opposed as expensive and unviable by a large citizens’ movement. The Greens have promised to block it, but their SPD partners support it; now, a special study is going on to determine its viability.

In both these issues, the Greens’ position in government has forced them into uncomfortable compromises. If for example, the Stuttgart station passes its viability test and also survives a popular referendum, the Green-led government will have to ensure that it is built — even in the face of massive demonstrations by its own supporters.

And the nuclear power compromise has already happened in the phase-out law, for the Greens had wanted to shut down the nukes within one electoral term — by 2017. But Merkel’s bill extended the phase-out for five years longer — largely because that’s when the last nukes will be amortized; probably, the corporations threatened to sue, should the law force them to shut down functional plants, which had not even paid for themselves.

At a quickly assembled national party congress in Berlin in June, the Greens leadership asked the party to abandon the 2017 promise and support he law, since they could not realistically change it again, even after the next election, and they wanted to send the signal that the Greens ac­cepted their own victory over the nuclear menace and were willing to work to implement alternatives. Opponents called for support only under the condition that the government change the bill significantly — which Merkel would not have done, leaving the Greens to, in effect, vote against a bill to shut down nuclear power. After a lengthy and heated debate, the proponents narrowly won the day, and the Greens voted for the bill in the Bundestag, while rejecting a number of ancillary bills — which they hope to change again after the next election. The question then will be how to design a long-term future for Germany — and Europe — without nuclear power, and with a clear commitment to the fight against climate change.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
1 Comment »

How I went about winning a campaign

July 22, 2011 in 2011 Summer

Anita Stewart runs a successful low budget campaign in Florida
by Anita Stewart, The Green Party of Florida

When a friend suggested I run for office as a Green in June of 2009 I thought, “No, definitely not me.” I wanted to serve, but not that way. “Why not?” he asked. “I have no money, no backers, no way to promote myself, not the right resume, not the right hair-do,” plus a myriad of other reasons that I listed for about five minutes. All excuses.

Friends said I could try for something “winnable” — a local seat. I found out the Hillsborough Soil and Water Conser­vation Board would have three seats available for the 2010 election. Even easier were the two ways to qualify: collecting 25 signed petition cards or paying $25. I chose the latter.

I won a seat on the board with 82,404 votes, which was 37.74 percent of the total votes cast, running against four opponents, in a non-partisan election. Less than $300 was spent on the campaign.

Here is how I did it. I found it was easy to file, to acquire a treasurer and to put to­gether a website on NING, which cost less than $25 a month. Sched­uling events and being in the public as much as possible was ac­tually better than going door to door in this county. I found balancing a work and personal schedule with a campaign schedule was possible by going to where the people were, rather than spending the time and money going door to door in a huge voting area. Going door to door may work in smaller voting areas and with campaigns that have the money to spend. But with gasoline prices becoming more expensive, going door to door is impossible on a small budget. Green markets and any other “green” event became places where I could show up, pass out flyers and actually meet lots of people face to face.

I had already set up my social networks and was interacting with lots of people. Many knew me previously from the work I had done on the Kucinich 2008 campaign and the Power to the People Committee, Cyn­thia McKinney’s presidential campaign. A Facebook site was a major necessity. My­Space used to be also, but the site has lost its steam, is not user friendly anymore, and few people use it to network. I revamped all my other social networking sites, which included NING, YouTube, Twitter, a writer’s page on www.op­ed­­news.com, a blog on www.blogspot .com. I created a new Face­­book Fan Page.

The way candidates use these sites is a crucial element in running low budget campaigns, which are the only type Greens can afford. In setting sites up, it is important to keep the branding (color, design, identifying elements) consistent, so that one’s pages and sites are easily recognized. But the key is keeping the sites CURRENT with new information, interactions with people, who visit the site, or with members, posting of articles, events, pictures, blogs and videos. It is a constant, daily task — to check into each site/ social network to post something or communicate with someone or answer inquiries. Allow people to ask questions or post a comment in response.

Coordinating events and actions with the social networks is a must. I started to work very diligently on these social networks around the time of the planning for the first event for Hands Across the Sand, a state­wide initiative meant to coordinate with the vot­ing on oil drilling legislation in Talla­has­see, which I started to organize in October of 2009 by putting up a Face­book Event Page and then creating links to it. (See www. handsacrossthesand.com).

Being associated with events that showed my concern for the environment helped people to remember me when they were voting for Soil and Water Board commissioners. A little more than two months later the Gulf Oil Spill re­minded them that I had been addressing the problem.

As fall of 2010 be­gan, I geared up to at­tend events, speak to people, be wherever the voters were, and answer questions from people who inquired through the social media or on the phone. Keeping these doors of communication open and actively organizing events through them, plus using them to let people know where one will be on a given day, one’s take on an issue, or any other information that a voter wants, were the key’s to my success as a candidate.

Less than $300 was spent on the campaign

Tags: , , ,
2 Comments »

Cynthia Santiago for California State Assembly

July 22, 2011 in 2011 Summer

Draws votes for first time campaign
by David MCorquodale, Green Party of Delaware

How do Greens go about building up recognition as a viable candidate? One ex­ample is what Cynthia San­ti­ago did in running for the 51st district seat of the California State Assembly.

Santiago says she was a Green from the young age of 15. Hav­ing grown up in Santa Monica, she met and was en­couraged by former Green Party Mayor, Mike Fein­stein and ran and was elected student body president at Santa Monica High School. Then after graduating from Wes­leyan College, she returned to the Los Angles area and attends law classes at South­west­ern in Los Angeles planning to specialize in criminal defense and immigration law.

As the 2010 election approached, the Dem­ocratic incumbent for State Assembly was still running unchallenged. Santiago de­cided to step up and although the area has few registered Greens, she found it easy to get on the ballot.

With little funds to spend, Santiago’s main campaign tool was social networking. She set up a Facebook page and attended a number of meet-and-greets at local social groups and businesses. “Because it’s im­portant to educate, I focused on three issues: green jobs; education; and public transportation,” said Santiago. “I didn’t attack my op­ponent. I talked about the issues I wanted them to think about.” She believes that being a young woman of color without any ties to a particular interest group gained her credibility.

Although the district is historically Demo­cratic-leaning, one factor seemed obvious in helping Santiago gain votes. “A lot of people were disappointed in Obama, especially in this district,” she said. Santiago received 15,486 votes or 18.3 percent. She noted, “voters were inclined to vote for someone different.” All in all, it was a good showing for a first-time candidate, who will hopefully be running again in the future.

Tags: , , , ,
1 Comment »

State Parties increase, more Greens run for office

July 22, 2011 in 2011 Summer

by David McCorquodale, Green Party of Delaware

Both success and setbacks have been experienced in recent years by the 44 existing state parties, which together comprise the association known as the Green Party of the United States. Nationally, the Green Party hit a high watermark with the candidacy of Ralph Nader for President in 2000.

But with the disinformation concerning Nader’s effect on the outcome of that election, with the “anybody but Bush” phenomenon in 2004, and with what has proven to be the false hope for change with Obama in 2008, GPUS’ presidential candidates have not attracted nearly as many votes since 2000. With widespread disillusionment in the Obama presidency, that could begin to change in 2012.

Many state Green Parties have thrived and grown tremendously, while others are still struggling to reach a cri­tical mass of party act­ivists necessary for a vibrant state or local party. Some state parties face tremendous bal­lot access obstacles as many state legislatures, controlled by Democrats and Republicans, make it more difficult for smaller parties to achieve bal­lot access even though it is relatively easy for the corporate parties to maintain their ballot status. While a few state parties, notably California and New York, have had strong organizations for years, others have had strong growth since 2006, especially in Illinois and Maine. In 2006 Illi­nois Green Party gubernatorial candidate Rich Whit­ney received over 360,000 votes, enough to give the party “major party” status, which allows it to participate in primaries and avoid difficulty getting its candidates into debates and forums.

Currently there are 133 Green officeholders in the country. The largest office currently held by a Green is that of Mayor of Richmond, CA., a port city of 90,000 on San Francisco Bay, held by Gayle McLaugh­lin. Other Greens are mayors of Marina City, CA, Ward, CO, the Village of Greenwich, NY, the Village of Victory, NY and New Paltz, NY. Many Greens hold city or town council positions, are members of school boards, or occupy seats on Water or Land conservation boards.

Although 2011 is an off-year for elections, there are 11 Green candidates running campaigns this year, including the governor election in West Virginia, three mayoral elections and two General Assembly seats in the New Jersey legislature.

All state Green Parties need more people to be actively involved. Since Greens are committed to not taking corporate contributions, either for the party itself or for its candidates, personal contributions are necessary to help the Green Party to become a vital force for democracy.

Don’t just vote — run for office!

Tags: , ,
No Comments »

2012 platform process has begun

July 22, 2011 in 2011 Summer

The Platform Committee has opened its 2012 cycle to update and amend the 2010 Platform and invites all Green State Parties and Caucuses to submit amendments beginning June 1, 2011. All proposed amendments to the 2010 Platform must be received no later than January 1, 2012.

All Platform amendments must be approved and submitted by state parties and caucuses through an inclusive process of democratic discussion, delib­eration and debate. Parties and caucuses are asked to facilitate this process and to appoint a liaison to the GPUS Platform Committee. The Committee can assist parties and caucuses in creating a process for such deliberation.

The general outline of the amendment process is: Platform Committee an­nounces opening of the 2012 amendment cycle to the National Committee (NC); GPUS-NC delegates notify state parties and caucuses; Parties and caucuses inform their membership down to the grassroots level of the submission process; Proposals from membership are received, discussed and revised by state and caucus platform committees; Proposals are approved by the grassroots membership of state parties and caucuses; Proposals are submitted to GPUS Platform Committee which will compile, edit and organize changes to the Platform; Proposals are submitted to the appropriate body of GPUS for approval; Proposals integrated into new 2012 Platform.

The Platform Committee has created a template for amendment proposals specifying the information that must be included. Contact the Committee, platformamendments@gp.org, for guidelines. Any proposed amendment that does not follow the required formatting will be returned to its author(s) for correction and will receive no further attention from the Committee until corrections are made.

Tags: , ,
No Comments »

← Previous Entries