Support grows for Minneapolis to rethink the way it draws election districts

Author: STEVE BRANDT; STAFF WRITER

Momentum is building at Minneapolis City Hall for devising a fairer process for drawing the ward and other election boundaries that govern for whom voters may vote.

The effort is being led by Cam Gordon, new chair of the City Council's Election Committee, supported by Elizabeth Glidden, that panel's chair for the last four years.

They've asked the Charter Commission to devise a fairer, more transparent process for drawing election lines that could be presented to voters as a charter amendment next fall. The commission agreed last week to establish a subgroup to work on a timeline for doing so. The next redistricting happens in 2012.

"I strongly believe this process could be improved," Gordon told the commission.

Some of the momentum for changing how political lines are drawn comes from a legal challenge by Green Party candidates and others to the boundaries drawn in 2002 by the city's last redistricting commission. That lawsuit alleged that the redistricting group lacked enough minority group or Green members to be representative, and that it treated minority voters unfairly.

A federal judge found the 2002 plan met legal standards. Nevertheless, Charter Commission member Andrea Rubenstein said, the lawsuit raised issues that deserve examination.

Gordon was a Green Party official and plaintiff in the legal challenge. Greens felt particularly aggrieved by the last redistricting because it put both of the party's council incumbents into wards where they were forced to run against DFL incumbents. Both lost.

The charter defines the makeup of the redistricting commission. One member is picked by the council's majority party , another by the rest of the council members, which currently would be Gordon, the council's only non-DFLer. The Charter Commission names two members from each political party that got 5 percent of the vote in the last statewide election -- DFL, Republican and Independence in the 2002 redistricting -- and two more from a minority party or unaffiliated candidates.

Despite the fact that Greens had elected two of 13 council members in 2002 and no party besides the DFL elected any others, Greens got only one redistricting seat to two each for Republican and Independence representatives.

Charter Commissioner Todd Ferrara, who served on the last redistricting panel, called the mapping process contentious and political.

Although some other cities allow their councils to draw political boundaries, there seems to be consensus at City Hall against that approach. St. Paul charges its charter commission with drawing city election lines. Charter commissions in both cities are appointed by the chief judges of their respective district courts.

Glidden said a better solution might not emerge for Minneapolis, but that the amount of criticism of the last process warrants a review. Mayoral policy director Peter Wagenius said that although the mayor plays no formal role in redistricting, "I think it's safe to say there's got to be a better way to go about it."

The drawing of political lines takes on more importance now because the school board will be partially elected from districts starting with this fall's elections. Its initial districts will follow the six Park Board districts, which also are up for revision next year after this year's federal census.

Copyright 2010 Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities

All Minneapolis council incumbents seeking reelection won.

Author: STEVE BRANDT;

Barbara Johnson has again claimed the Fourth Ward seat on the Minneapolis City Council thanks to second-choice votes, a development that means all 10 incumbents seeking reelection will return to the council.

Johnson hit nearly 53 percent of the vote with second choices made by voters for Grant Cermak and Marcus Harcus, two candidates dropped after trailing in the first round. The hand-counted results of ranked-choice voting were released late Monday by city election officials.

As in the neighboring Fifth Ward, the only other where the incumbent missed gaining a majority of first-choice votes, Johnson won even though the last remaining challenger, Troy Parker, picked up more second-choice votes than Johnson. Parker gained an additional 331 to her 194, but because she tallied nearly 47 percent of first-choice votes, Johnson needed fewer votes to win than Parker, who finished with 38 percent.

Johnson is the current council president, but that didn't keep her from becoming one of the two incumbents to fall short of a majority in the first-choice vote count. The other was Fifth Ward Council Member Don Samuels.

Parker and Harcus portrayed Johnson as out of touch with the changing demographics of her ward. She campaigned on the city's recent drop in crime, water quality improvements and her leadership in holding accountable landlords who rent to disruptive tenants.

"I'm really very pleased, and I just can't say enough to thank the volunteers and the professionals who helped me," said Johnson, who won every precinct.

Johnson has been an opponent of ranked-choice voting, the new balloting system in which voters rank up to three candidates. She said she thinks the election suffered without a primary in which voters could vet candidates. Parker could not be reached for comment.

The results are unofficial until the city's canvassing board meets next month, but other council incumbents haven't needed second-choices to win.

Nine DFLers and one Green Party endorsee, Cam Gordon, will return to the council. Three DFL endorsees for open seats -- Kevin Reich in the First Ward, Meg Tuthill in the 10th Ward and John Quincy in the 11th Ward -- came out on top. Only Reich, who was close to the required majority for election, still awaits the results of hand-counting. A count released Monday showed Tuthill had accumulated 72 percent of first-choice votes to win her seat handily, and Quincy last week had 64 percent in his ward.

The first Park Board race result to be released was in the Cedar-Isles area, where newcomer Anita Tabb won. She was unopposed, but there were 131 write-in votes.

Copyright 2009 Star Tribune

Do away with constituencies to end tribal politics

By Wangari Maathai

This country is threatened. And it is not because we have an unbearable Constitution or electoral boundaries. It is because we as citizens and micro-nations whose political, economic needs and interests are not being protected by the current Constitution and the electoral boundaries. That is why we are clamouring for a new political order.

Our politicians govern the country by mutilating and manipulating the Constitution and electoral boundaries as well as playing divisive tribal politics.

But every so often, we go through a ritual to collect and collate views from citizens even though we know eventually the constitution and electoral boundaries will have to be agreed on by tribal chiefs.

If politicians do not get the constitution or the electoral boundaries they want, they advise their ethnic communities to reject the document.

Unfortunately, we are doing the current exercise in the middle of long-standing deep ethnic divisions, suspicion and hatred. The post-election violence and the hovering ICC make the environment unfriendly. We are craving for a leadership that can provide security, equity and justice.

Some countries have created constitutions and electoral boundaries that have been protected from the greed and selfishness of politicians. Strong institutions have been put in place to prevent manipulation or mutilation of the constitution or gerrymandering the electoral boundaries.

The constitution of the US was crafted by leaders of vision. It has served them for more than 200 years.

The documents that will be crafted are not the problem. If there were selfless, committed and visionary leaders, they would have been improving on the independence constitution. Instead, the Constitution and electoral boundaries have been treated as a means to power and privilege. Therefore, they are constantly re-written to meet new aspirations, greed and selfishness.

What Kenyans have experienced is bad governance, ethnic-based politics, tribal clashes, massacres, gender violence, poverty, economic stagnation and impunity.

Legislators should compete along political party lines and parties should be forced to seek support on the basis of their agendas, not tribal affiliation. The number of MPs should reflect the capacity of the country so that MPs do not overburden citizens with taxes and debts. The party that will have the most number of MPs should form the Government and provide a Prime Minister.

Electoral commission

This will make every vote count and parties will work hard to ensure they get as many votes as they can from every part of the country. This would serve the principles of one man, one vote, and no taxes without representation. Every vote will be important to the party rather than to an individual MP.

To make representation fair and just, an independent electoral commission should look into other relevant issues such as geography, density and special needs. The number of MPs should be fixed. Parliament has already approved that constituency boundaries serve as administrative boundaries (districts) and be centres of local authorities for the devolved government. What is important here is to empower these local authorities, community leaders and interest groups by having their roles clearly defined and protected from interference. That way, they would be able to manage the day-to-day responsibility of the devolved government. The devolved government should create boundaries, guided by their capacities and resources.

Kenyans have clearly said they want to elect their President. The President should be sponsored by a political party, and like MPs, his constituency should be the Republic. Kenyans also want presidential powers devolved and to have a president who is popular and able to unite the country. The President should get 50 per cent plus one vote to be declared winner.

To eliminate transportation of votes or double voting, voters should be able to vote from any polling station as long as they have the necessary voting documents. This would also make gerrymandering of electoral boundaries an exercise in futility.

It is important to empower the three arms of Government by clearly defining their roles so there is clear balancing of power and responsibilities, and capacity to ensure they do not interfere with other organs of governance.

Eliminating electoral constituencies for MPs would put an end to tribal power bases (and warlords). Eliminating constituencies has the potential of detribalising politics and giving every vote the same respect and power.

Source

Suit seeks to restore political donors' refunds

Gov. Tim Pawlenty used his "unallotment" authority to cut the refund program, which focused on small donations.

Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities (Minneapolis, MN) - Saturday, July 25, 2009

Author: BOB VON STERNBERG ; STAFF WRITER

A Republican political activist filed suit Friday in an attempt to block Gov. Tim Pawlenty's "unallotment" of refunds for small donations to political campaigns.

Bob Carney Jr., of Minneapolis, filed the suit in Ramsey County District Court.

Pawlenty eliminated the refund program as part of his wide-ranging, unilateral spending cuts designed to close Minnesota's $2.7 billion budget gap.

The somewhat-obscure Political Contribution Refund program was expected to cost $10 million during the two-year budget cycle that began July 1.

Under the program, candidates who agree to abide by state campaign spending limits were allowed to seek contributions of up to $50 from individuals and $100 from married couples with the state reimbursing the full amount to the contributor.

Although some DFLers and nonpartisan groups have howled about Pawlenty's targeting of the refund program, none has filed suit to overturn it.

So it fell to Carney, who has filed to run for mayor of Minneapolis, to do so.

In his suit, Carney says he contributed $50 to the Fifth Congressional District Green Party on or after July 1, the day the budget unallotments kicked in.

His suit argues that the state revenue commissioner, acting on Pawlenty's behalf, violated state law by failing to give him his refund.

Pawlenty, he argues, has no statutory authority to eliminate the refund.

Carney also argues that his lawsuit should be considered a class action because of the potentially large number of political contributors who could be affected by the elimination of the refund.

Using the estimated $10 million in savings, his lawyers state that more than 100,000 Minnesotans could be affected.

Edition: METRO
Section: NEWS
Page: 2B
Index Terms: campaign ; finance ; lawsuit ; government
Record Number: 090725unallot0725
Copyright 2009 Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities

Senate race shows need for runoff system

By: Nick Hannula , Duluth News Tribune

As I write this, the 2008 election for U.S. Senate in Minnesota is, as of yet, undecided. Incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman and challenger Al Franken each won about 42 percent of the vote. Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley scored 15 percent. Coleman and Franken are separated by hundreds of votes, with Coleman holding a slim advantage. Per Minnesota law, ballots are being recounted to decide the race’s winner.

Whichever candidate prevails will have barely won a narrow victory to the dissatisfaction of the majority of Minnesota voters; 58 percent will have not voted for the winner.

This race and other recent elections underscore a need in Minnesota to reform election law.

Coleman also failed to meet the 50 percent threshold in his 2002 election. The last three gubernatorial elections — in 1998, 2002 and 2006 — were won with 37 percent, 44 percent and 46 percent of the vote, respectively. And this year, two Minnesota congressional seats were won without a majority of the vote.

The fact that most voters did not choose former Gov. Jesse Ventura, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sen. Coleman, Rep.-elect Erik Paulsen and Rep. Michele Bachmann in their respective races is problematic. Voters’ choices are not accurately being portrayed through the election results.

Third-party candidates have skewed results from whichever candidate is actually preferred by the voters.

The Independence Party and other third parties hold a strong place in Minnesota, and, as such, should not be disenfranchised in our system. Rather, they should exist within a system that allows a candidate, no matter the party, to win with a majority of the vote.

To solve the problem of the non-majority electoral victory, Minnesota should adopt either a two-round runoff system or an instant runoff system.

A two-round runoff system would mean that, if no candidate attains an absolute majority on Election Day, the top two candidates would proceed to a second round soon afterward. The winner at the second round wins the office. Similar systems are in place in states and localities nationwide, including Louisiana and Georgia.

The other choice is instant runoff voting, or IRV. In IRV, voters mark their choices for any given office in order of preference. If their first choice is not among the top two vote-getters, their vote is redistributed to their second choice. For example, in this year’s Senate race, a voter could have marked Barkley as their first choice and Franken as their second choice. As Barkley ended up in third place, his votes would have moved to Franken and Coleman, depending on how individual voters marked their ballots. The end result would have been a majority victory for either Franken or Coleman. This would result in a faster victory for one candidate or the other, but tends to be more confusing than the two-round system.

Whichever choice is made, electoral reform is needed in Minnesota. We cannot have our elected officials take office without the election results being anything but the best representation of the voters’ choice.

Nick Hannula grew up in Duluth, graduating from Denfeld High School in 2006. He’s a senior at Concordia College in Moorhead, Minn., double-majoring in political science and economics. He interned this summer in the Washington, D.C., office of U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar

forwarded to me by Michael Schaefer

10 Surprising Stories About Election 08 from FairVote

1. Electoral Reform on the Ballot – New Victories and Implementations for Instant Runoff Voting:

This November’s ballot measures showed that Americans are ready to transform our politics. Landslide majorities voted for spoiler-free, majority elections through instant runoff voting (IRV) in Memphis, Tennessee (71% - see www.yesonfive.org) and Telluride, Colorado (67%), which extends a nearly unbroken string of wins for IRV in ballot measures since 2002. Meanwhile, an opportunity to win the ranked choice form of proportional representation lost in Cincinnati (see www.eightisgreat.org) after a late infusion of opposition money and deceptive advertising dropped the majority support won among early voters down to 47%. Other FairVote-endorsed reforms won with more than 70% of the vote in Maryland (for early voting) and Connecticut (for 17-year-old primary voting), while redistricting reform won in California.

Instant runoff voting had a terrific first election in Pierce County, Washington, accommodating a full range of voter choice in a high-turnout general election. If early returns hold up, the system will elect the first women county executive in the state’s history, with her victory dependent on the preferences of the third and fourth place candidates that vaulted her from second into first. San Francisco also held its fifth set of IRV elections; local press lauded the impact it had in reducing the degree of negative attacks that too often dominate our politics.

Stay tuned for major reforms in the coming year that we expect can be won in legislatures and on the ballot. The nation had learned a lot about why we need to care about electoral rules and mechanics. Now is the time for action.

---

2. The 2008 Spoiler Effect – Key Non-Majority Winners (and non-winners):

Speaking of instant runoff voting, despite the decisive and incontestable victory of, the spoiler problem again showed the need for IRV. Minor party candidacies had a major impact on several races:

• Even with Barack Obama’s strong national numbers and the low vote totals for minor party and independent presidential candidates, electoral votes in three states and one congressional district were won over the opposition of most voters in that jurisdiction. Obama’s 49.9% of the vote in Indiana defeated John McCain by a margin less than Libertarian Bob Barr’s 1.1%. Obama won North Carolina with 49.7% of the vote (Barr won 0.59%), while McCain carried Missouri with only 49.4% of the votes (where Obama won 49.2 % and Ralph Nader 0.6%). Obama also looks likely to pick up an electoral vote by taking Nebraska’s second congressional district with less than 50%.
  
  
• Nine U.S. House seats were elected with less (and sometimes far less) than a majority of the vote, including Ohio’s Second district that was won with only 45%.
  
  
• The Senate had several non-majority results. In Oregon, Democrat Jeff Merkley will win narrowly with less than 49% of the vote, while Republican Ted Stevens looks likely to be re-elected in Alaska with a similar vote-share. In Minnesota, where fully 14 of the last 20 statewide races have been won with less than 50%, Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley won 437,377 votes (15%) and two other candidates won more than 20,000 votes in an election in which incumbent Republican Norm Coleman leads his Democratic challenger Al Franken by merely 326 votes – they are now going to a recount. IRV would have given the backers of Barkley and the other third party candidates a way in choosing between the frontrunners, both of whom won less than 42% of the vote.
  
  Meanwhile, Georgia requires its Members of Congress to win a majority of the vote, and incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss leads with 49.8% in a race where Libertarian Allen Buckley won 3.1%. Chambliss will face Democrat Jim Martin in a December 2nd runoff. Turnout is sure to plunge from Georgia’s record participation this week, and the candidates and their backers will spend millions. IRV would have given us a clean winner on election night.

---

3. Closer Than You Think – How McCain Could Have Won While Losing by Seven Million Votes:

Barack Obama apparently has won 365 electoral votes (if he picks up Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district), which is 95 votes more than needed to win. He also has won a comfortable majority of the national popular vote, defeating John McCain by more than seven million votes. But remarkably a shift of less one-third of a percent of all votes cast would have elected McCain.

Thanks to the current Electoral College system, our President is elected through 56 separate contests (50 states, five congressional districts and the District of Columbia), rather than a single nationwide contest. A shift of fewer than 398,615 votes in seven states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Indiana, North Carolina, Colorado, and New Hampshire) would have given Sen. McCain a majority of 273 electoral votes.

Indeed, in five of the last 12 elections, relatively small shifts of votes would have elected the second-place winner. In 1976, for example, shifts of 3,687 votes in Hawaii and 5,559 votes in Ohio would have resulted in a win for Gerald Ford despite Jimmy Carter’s 1.7 million national lead. Similarly, in 2004, a shift of 59,393 votes in Ohio would have nullified President Bush’s 3.5 million-vote lead nationwide and elected John Kerry.

---

4. The Electoral College Swing State Map Grew Smaller, Not Larger – The Real Presidential Partisan Geography:

Despite many pundits’ claims that the Electoral College map has been redrawn, this election in fact reduced the number of swing states in a nationally even year. A state is only a true swing state when it has a real chance to decide the election. This year, Barack Obama won by 6% nationally, allowing him to win states like North Carolina and Indiana that he didn’t need to win – and that he would not have won in a nationally even contest this year.

The biggest changes in the underyling partisanship of states have been states moving further into the non-competitive realm, with the number of competitive states (partisanship between 47% and 53%) dwindling. By our partisan measures that are remarkably accurate predictors of likely swing states four years before an election, only 11 states are now likely to be competitive in a 50-50 year in 2012, down from 13 after 2004,16 after 2000 and 33 after 1976. Of the 13 states with the most competitive partisanship, 11 are repeats from 2004, with Indiana and North Carolina moving into competitive range and Michigan and New Mexico shifting to a pronounced Democratic tilt. The great majority of states did not shift their partisanship definition by more than 3%; the biggest movers were two non-swing states, Hawaii (moving decidedly toward Democrats and their home state candidate Obama) and Arkansas (moving sharply toward Republicans)

Look for FairVote’s updated Presidential Election Inequality report to come out by early next year. We will also use information from our Presidential Candidate Tracker (www.fairvote.org/tracker) that showed that the candidates held 99% of their campaign events in 17 states.

---

5. Making History (or not) - Stagnant Representation of Women and People of Color:

In this year’s presidential election, the candidacies of African American Barack Obama, Latino Bill Richardson and women Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin captured the imagination of millions of Americans. Sen. Obama of course became the first person of color ever elected president. But that excitement did not translate into notable gains for diversity in congressional and gubernatorial races:

• African Americans if the Illinois governor does not select an African American to replace Obama. Two women won (Kay Hagan in North Carolina and Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire), but there is only a net gain for women of only one seat, making the Senate 83% male.
• In the House, there was a net gain of only two women – notching women up 0.5% to 16.5%. There were no gains for African Americans and an increase of one Latino, with Ben Lujan’s victory in New Mexico.
• Women defeated men in the two close gubernatorial elections, but there was no net gain for women in governor’s mansions.
• Women did win a remarkable seven statewide offices in North Carolina, while, according to the invaluable analysts at the National Conference of State Legislatures (http://ncsl.typepad.com/the_thicket) the New Hampshire state senate became the first woman-majority state legislative chamber in our nation’s history. On the other hand, the South Carolina state senate became the first legislative chamber to not have a single woman representative since 1991, and the share of women in state legislatures stayed flat at 23.7% -- less than 3% higher than it was in 1993.

---

6. Dubious Democracy – The Power of Incumbency Lives On in No-Choice House Races

FairVote’s Dubious Democracy and Monopoly Politics series of reports on congressional elections have played a key role in generating public awareness of the appalling lack of meaningful voter choice in U.S. House races and how partisan imbalance in districts is the key role in determining most winners. This year again showed the overwhelming power of incumbency, with only a handful of incumbent defeats despite “change” being this year’s campaign mantra. Most incumbents won overwhelming victories, with the average victory margin again sure to top 30% and be far beyond the impact of potential changes in redistricting practices or campaign finance laws. Indeed only one reform would give every voter a meaningful choice in House races in every election: replacing winner-take-all elections with a form of proportional representation, as has become the international norm.

As one measure of the frozen nature of U.S. House races, our Monopoly Politics model allows us to project winners in the great majority of upcoming U.S. House races as soon as we know the presidential and congressional results in each district in the previous election--- with our projections only modified by whether a seat becomes open and by what is projected to be the national two-party partisan division. This year our model projected 157 Members who were not expected to face serious challenges in either a strongly Republican year (55% Republican) or strongly Democratic year (55% Democratic). All of these Members indeed were re-elected, and only 11 did not win by landslides of at least 20%.

---

7. Voter Turnout and the Swing State Effect – Why Turnout Dropped in Many States:

For years, pundits have argued that young people don't make a difference in elections, but sure wasn’t true in 2008. The organization CIRCLE (www.civicyouth.org) estimates that young people made up a sixth of voters on Tuesday, with somewhere between 22 and 24 million voting – at least a 2.2 million increase from 2004.

This election had the highest overall voter turnout in an American election since at least 1964 -- with a lowball estimate of 62.6%, with ballots still being counted. But our turnout will still be lower than most other well-established democracies, and even that overall rise can be misleading. According to preliminary data, nearly a third of our states (16) experienced a decline in turnout this year. Fourteen of these states were ignored in the presidential race as non-battlegrounds; the only battlegrounds with lower turnout are Pennsylvania and New Mexico. These results are consistent with CIRCLE’s findings in 2004, when eligible voters under 30 were a third more likely to vote in the ten closest states than in the rest of the nation.

This fall, FairVote conducted field research throughout Maryland to determine the most effective tactics to increase youth participating. Results will be released this winter, but in the meantime you can find more information about FairVote's student voting curriculum at fairvote.org/learningdemocracy

. To find complete turnout information for 2008, visit George Mason University Professor Michael McDonald's website (elections.gmu.edu).

---

8. Winner-Take-All in the Northeast – A New Era of Democratic Domination:

In the last dozen years, Democrats have won sweeping victories in the Northeast, with the region’s Republican Party now on life-support. After the1992 elections, Republicans in New England and New York collectively held 20 of 54 U.S. House seats and held at least one House or Senate seat in every state. The intervening years for Republicans in the region have been devastating, especially in 2006 and 2008. New England’s last Republican House member, Chris Shays of Connecticut, was defeated this week, and Republicans now hold only 3 of 29 seats in New York and no Senate or House seats in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont.

The shift has affected down ballot races as well, in both New England and broader swathes of the Northeast. In 2006 Democrats took control of both chambers of the New Hampshire legislature, and this year took control of the New York Senate for the first time in four decades, gained monopoly control in Delaware and greatly expanded their margins in state legislatures throughout the region.

---

9. Cleansing Republicans from Democratic House Districts – The Roots of Polarization in Congress Lie in Voters and Winner-Take-All Rules:

Each federal election cycle, FairVote projects U.S. House results (www.fairvote.org/mp) based on the impact of incumbency and which party holds a partisan advantage in each Congressional district as determined by the relative performance of the major party candidates in that district compared to their national average. First developed in 1997, our measure of partisanship was adapted by Charlie Cook for his partisan index. Our initial report that year showed just how powerful the role of district partisanship held. After the 1996 election, of the 82 districts that were at least 59% Republican, Democrats held four. Of the 98 districts that were at least 59% Democratic, Republicans held only one.

Since that time we have seen just how powerful the role of partisanship is in determining which party wins open seats. This year, for example, out of 33 open seats with decisive results, there were 29 went to a candidate with the party that would be expected to win in a 54% Democratic year, including eight of the ten Democratic gains. We also have seen partisanship as the most reliable predictor of where incumbents will lose.

Today, after two consecutive strong elections for Democrats, the impact of partisanship can perhaps be most clearly shown by the steep decline in Democratic districts. After the 1996 elections, Republicans held 37 of the 189 districts with a Democratic partisanship, including more than a third of the 91 districts with a Democratic partisanship between 50% and 58%. Today, however, Republicans hold only ten of the 199 districts that now lean Democratic. Democrats indeed hold all of the 146 most Democratic districts, including every single district that is more than 55% Democratic, and hold all but four of the 177 districts that are more than 51.6% Democratic (with one of those seats still possibly shifting Democratic this year if Dave Reichert loses in Washington State). Of the 44 districts that Republicans held in 2005 in districts that were at least 47.4% Democratic, they now hold just 18.

Democrats today are doing somewhat better in Republican terrain, but watch out – if there is any comparable national toward Republicans in 2010, expect a wipeout of dozens of Democrats in such “red” districts. Republicans have the advantage over Democrats of being able to win a majority of the U.S. House without winning a singe district that is less than 52% Republican.

These numbers tell an important story for those seeking less partisan voting patterns in our legislatures. Many of the Republicans who have lost in Democratic districts were particularly respected by moderates, such ahs Maryland’s Connie Morella, Iowa’s Jim Leach and Connecticut’s Chris Shays. What overpowered them was the combination of winner-take-all elections and voters growing more consistent in their voting patterns. The fact is that the crosscutting representatives that some pundits like to extol are less likely to come from competitive districts as from the other party’s districts. And it is those representatives who are not surviving in today’s highly charged partisan climate.

The only remedy for electing people from the minority party in a majority party’s terrain is a form of proportional representation. One modest example had a highly positive impact in Illinois, where in three seat state legislative districts it took just over a quarter of the vote to win a seat in elections from 1870 to 1980. That system opened the door regularly to the kind of crosscutting representatives who are increasingly unlikely to win today.

---

10. Democrats Winning Control of the Process – A Near-Sweep of Secretary of State Races:

Throughout the 2008 cycle, FairVote has tracked Secretary of State races because of that office’s critical role in most states in proposing and administering election policy. This year, six states' chief election officials were up for election, and it’s likely that Democratic women candidates will win five of them. The results are as follows:

• West Virginia -- Natalie Tennant (D)
• Oregon -- Kate Brown (D)
• Montana -- Linda McCulloch (D) leads incumbent Brad Johnson (R) 49%-48% in a raced still too close to call
• Missouri -- Robin Carnahan (D)
• Vermont -- Incumbent Deb Markowitz (D)
• Washington -- Incumbent Sam Reed (R)

FairVote hopes to work with these (and other) officials throughout their term to debate and implement electoral reforms and improve election administration throughout the country. For more on Secretaries of State and our surveys this year of county election officials that were published in five reports on local preparedness and uniformity in election administration, visit www.fairvote.org/sosresearch

---

Cam Gordon on Minneapolis School Board Accountability

I am encouraging folks to vote for the ABC/Establishment of School Board Election Districts Referendum
The ballot question reads "SCHOOL DISTRICT BALLOT QUESTION 2 – ESTABLISHMENT OF ELECTION DISTRICTS FOR SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. Shall the Board of Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis Public Schools consist of six members elected by district and three members elected at-large for a total of nine members? Board of education members elected on or prior to November 4, 2008 shall complete their terms. The six districts shall be of equal population and shall initially coincide with the six park board districts for the Minneapolis Park Board. Three districts shall be given even numbers and three districts shall be given odd numbers."

This would create a board with some members elected at large and some from districts assuring that more families and all areas of the City are represented on the Board. Currently, 48% of school districts nationally elect some or all of the Members from districts. Over the last three years the majority of school boards that received awards for their quality of governance, relations with their communities, and progress on closing the achievement gap from the Council of Urban Boards of Education where boards that were elected by districts. Eleven School Boards in Minnesota currently elect their schools board by some sort of District including the state's largest- Anoka-Hennepin.

As a parent, I have had children in the Minneapolis Schools for over 20 years and it has been a persistent problem connecting with and getting effective and responsive representation from the School Board members, however talented and wonderful they may be. The at-large structure appears to make it most likely the board members will listen to staff and listen to each other and less likely that they will spend time attending and listening to residents at PTO, neighborhood association or other community meetings. Additionally, given the large number of schools throughout the City, it has never felt like anyone on the school board had the kind of in depth knowledge about the particular community, neighborhood and schools near where I live that would lead to me to believe that the particular concerns of those schools and neighborhoods were being reflected and represented well on the School Board.

As a City Council Member I know how valuable it is to have Colleagues on the City Council who do understand, and are accountable to, the residents in their particular part of the City. It helps me understand problems better and find solutions to them that serve the interests of the entire City. I also see how having a Park Board member, state legislators and a County Commission from particular parts of the City also helps me be part of a team or teams, who can work together to serve the neighborhoods we represent. There is no one from the School Board, however good they maybe, who I can turn to and work with in the same way. This was particularly clear earlier this year when schools in and near my ward were fighting for survival. Geographic representation has advantages. Don't get me wrong. I also believe that at-large representation can be valuable too and have often wondered how City Council decisions might be improved if we had one, two or three people, besides the mayor, representing the City as a Whole.
They are both valuable and with its blend of geographic and at-large representation I think that the re-structuring offered by this referendum provides the balance we need to make our school system work better for everyone.

At-large plurality elections are known for being the very hardest for minor party, independent and grassroots candidates to win. Running city-wide forces candidates to depend on doing well in the areas of our City where voter turn out is the highest and not to be as concerned with those areas where there are fewer voters. It also means that candidates typically need more money and/or the endorsements of major parties or well funded groups in order to campaign city-wide.

I believe that this amendment (that is endorsed by both the Green and DFL parties) will improve the School Board's responsiveness and accountability to the people of Minneapolis. It will ensure that every part of the city has a representative, which the current at-large election cannot do, and that there would be at least one board member able to develop a deeper understanding about each area of the City that they will be able to bring to the table during important school board policy decisions. Equality of geographic representation will help the public trust that tough decisions that can sometimes pit neighborhoods against each other are being made with equal concern about the fate of all Minneapolis neighborhoods. This new election method will provide more opportunities for diverse cultural and political voices to gain a seat at the table.


Cam Gordon

Seward neighbor and
Minneapolis City Council Member, Ward 2

Democrats' Collaboration at Republican National Convention Exposed. Secret meetings authorized excessive use of force.

We know the stories of police abuse, mass arrests, targeting journalists, street medics, use of rubber bullets, plastic bullets, wooden baton rounds, mace, tear gas, tasering and other differently lethal methods of crowd control in St Paul and Minneapolis this week. What is not known is how the local Democratic Party and other so called progressive elected officials collaborated with authorities in the past weeks and months before the RNC Convention in St Paul, giving them legal authority for their excesses and abuses of power.

This is your Independent Journalista's on-the-ground account of what happened and how local elected officials collaborated with the authorities and again abandoned their Oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution from All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic. This is the news that you will not hear from the corporate media, Air America, the Nation magazine or other so called progressive, alternative media outlets. This is true, muckraking journalism that honestly speaks truth to power, no matter how uncomfortable it makes some folks.

Now, before we get to the facts surrounding how our elected officials betrayed us and the Bill of Rights, a truth must be stated. No matter what the local City Councils of St Paul and Minneapolis did, the authorities would have done what they did.

This story is not about that. It is instead about how the local government knowingly collaborated with them, with no input from citizens and finally passed a Resolution granting them legal authority to use rubber and plastic bullets, wooden baton rounds, tasers and chemical weapons that were deployed against peaceful protesters, journalists and street medics treating the victims of their brutality in a secret meeting with no public allowed.

In the months before the Republicans came to town, there had been a flurry of activity. Local activists were keeping a close eye on their local elected officials. Initially, there had been a so called Free Speech Committee set up, supposedly to look at how authorities could allow free speech during the RNC and keep order.

However, local activists immediately developed some serious concerns. We found out that the Free Speech Committee did not allow any members of the public to add our input. Only City Council members on the committee and lawyers were allowed to speak. There was no free speech allowed at the misnamed Free Speech Committee.

Nonetheless, activists followed the Committee's actions closely and were present during each meeting. The City Council of Minneapolis is almost 100% Democratic. In fact the only real opposition in Minneapolis is the Green Party which currently has one Green on the City Council, Cam Gordon, who was a small light in a very dark room. But, we were to discover, even that light was to be extinguished.

The so called Free Speech Committee would change the time and locations of its meetings, in an obvious attempt of loosing the local activists who were closely following their intents and actions. During this time, Councilman Gordon kept the local activist community appraised of when and where these meetings were being held, including last minute changes. There was much talk of using the Washington Model of crowd control versus other Models. The Washington Model was touted as being a little less restrictive.

There was also discussion on protest groups being required to register themselves and even their members, to be "allowed" to protest. At these times, Cam Gordon spoke eloquently on behalf of the community and in opposition to these repressive measures. When he spoke, he drew cheers from the activists present. We also waved our protest signs in agreement each time. We would also boo when the head of the Committee, Paul Ostrow, would make an especially egregious remark. That was the extent of public participation and free speech at the so called Free Speech Committee meetings.

This went on for moths at a time. Then suddenly we found out that the Free Speech Committee had their last meeting, July 16th. The meeting itself was unannounced, unlike the other meetings which at least had a pretense of openness and public inclusion. At the next Minneapolis City Council meeting July 25th, the recommendation of the misnamed Free Speech Committee was announced. The Free Speech Committee Resolution passed unanimously, even by our one small light, Councilman Cam Gordon.

The Minneapolis Police were given "legal" authority to shut down any protest or group of 25 people or greater. They were also authorized to use rubber bullets, mace and the other array of non-lethal weapons on innocent, peaceful demonstrators, practicing our First Amendment Rights. Also violated repeatedly was the Fourth Amendment Right protecting us citizens against illegal search and seizure. Police violated the laws of assault and battery and destruction of evidence of their crimes, as evidenced by their targeting journalists. All talk of the Washington Model was removed.

As this Resolution was passed by the large Democratic majority Minneapolis City Council july 25th, another protest broke out. Local activists presented each member of the Minneapolis City Council, including Mayor RT Ryback with a Statement of Reprobation, condemning them for this betrayal of our most precious right to Free Speech, Assembly and Peaceful Petition of Our Government.

One of the main organizers, Michelle Gross of Communities United Against Police Brutality, presented the Statement of Reprobation to both Councilman Cam Gordon and the head of the Free Speech Committee, Councilman Paul Ostrow. Another was handed to Mayor RT Ryback.

During this presentation, a young man, Jude Ortiz with Coldsnap Legal Collective, read aloud the charges against the Minneapolis City Council. When he did so, he was bundled off the podium by Minneapolis Police and brought to the Hennepin County Jail. He was later released uncharged.

All Minneapolis City Councils are taped and shown on local Public Access TV - all except for this one, which has never seen the light of day. Clearly, the "progressive" City Council had something to hide.

Since then, Michelle Gross was arrested twice, during peaceful protests that were targeted by police.

Many of the examples of excess and police brutality and thuggery were practiced by Minneapolis Police. But, all of these actions and betrayals were mirrored by the 100% Democratic City Council of St Paul. Both Mayor RT Ryback and Mayor Chris Coleman, who laud themselves as "progressive" held a Press Conference, calling the RNC Convention a "success."

Ironically, we now have a number of the very City Councilpersons who gave our rights away, without a fight, now engaging in tough talk and rhetoric. This includes my own Councilwoman Elizabeth Glidden and Councilman Gary Schiff. Covering Your A** with tough talk will not make up for your betrayal of the citizens of our country, Council members and Mayors. Not even close.

I ask the question again. What do we do about it? I leave the answer up to you.

Michael Cavlan , RN, was an Official Green Party Observer for the 2004 Ohio Re-Count. He was the Green Party Candidate for US Senate 2006.

Why We Were Falsely Arrested

by Amy Goodman

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Government crackdowns on journalists are a true threat to democracy. As the Republican National Convention meets in St. Paul, Minn., this week, police are systematically targeting journalists. I was arrested with my two colleagues, "Democracy Now!" producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, while reporting on the first day of the RNC. I have been wrongly charged with a misdemeanor. My co-workers, who were simply reporting, may be charged with felony riot.

The Democratic and Republican national conventions have become very expensive and protracted acts of political theater, essentially four-day-long advertisements for the major presidential candidates. Outside the fences, they have become major gatherings for grass-roots movements - for people to come, amidst the banners, bunting, flags and confetti, to express the rights enumerated in the Constitution's First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Behind all the patriotic hyperbole that accompanies the conventions, and the thousands of journalists and media workers who arrive to cover the staged events, there are serious violations of the basic right of freedom of the press. Here on the streets of St. Paul, the press is free to report on the official proceedings of the RNC, but not to report on the police violence and mass arrests directed at those who have come to petition their government, to protest.

It was Labor Day, and there was an anti-war march, with a huge turnout, with local families, students, veterans and people from around the country gathered to oppose the war. The protesters greatly outnumbered the Republican delegates.

There was a positive, festive feeling, coupled with a growing anxiety about the course that Hurricane Gustav was taking, and whether New Orleans would be devastated anew. Later in the day, there was a splinter march. The police-clad in full body armor, with helmets, face shields, batons and canisters of pepper spray-charged. They forced marchers, onlookers and working journalists into a nearby parking lot, then surrounded the people and began handcuffing them.

Nicole was videotaping. Her tape of her own violent arrest is chilling. Police in riot gear charged her, yelling, "Get down on your face." You hear her voice, clearly and repeatedly announcing "Press! Press! Where are we supposed to go?" She was trapped between parked cars. The camera drops to the pavement amidst Nicole's screams of pain. Her face was smashed into the pavement, and she was bleeding from the nose, with the heavy officer with a boot or knee on her back. Another officer was pulling on her leg. Sharif was thrown up against the wall and kicked in the chest, and he was bleeding from his arm.

I was at the Xcel Center on the convention floor, interviewing delegates. I had just made it to the Minnesota delegation when I got a call on my cell phone with news that Sharif and Nicole were being bloody arrested, in every sense. Filmmaker Rick Rowley of Big Noise Films and I raced on foot to the scene. Out of breath, we arrived at the parking lot. I went up to the line of riot police and asked to speak to a commanding officer, saying that they had arrested accredited journalists.

Within seconds, they grabbed me, pulled me behind the police line and forcibly twisted my arms behind my back and handcuffed me, the rigid plastic cuffs digging into my wrists. I saw Sharif, his arm bloody, his credentials hanging from his neck. I repeated we were accredited journalists, whereupon a Secret Service agent came over and ripped my convention credential from my neck. I was taken to the St. Paul police garage where cages were set up for protesters. I was charged with obstruction of a peace officer. Nicole and Sharif were taken to jail, facing riot charges.

The attack on and arrest of me and the "Democracy Now!" producers was not an isolated event. A video group called I-Witness Video was raided two days earlier. Another video documentary group, the Glass Bead Collective, was detained, with its computers and video cameras confiscated. On Wednesday, I-Witness Video was again raided, forced out of its office location. When I asked St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington how reporters are to operate in this atmosphere, he suggested, "By embedding reporters in our mobile field force."

On Monday night, hours after we were arrested, after much public outcry, Nicole, Sharif and I were released. That was our Labor Day. It's all in a day's work.

© 2008 Amy Goodman

Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 700 stations in North America.

ST. PAUL GREENS DEMAND INVESTIGATION OF EFFORTS TO INTIMIDATE PROTESTERS AND SUPPRESS CIVIL LIBERTIES AT RNC

It is with deep sadness that St. Paul Greens have seen our city become an armed camp during the past week. The presence of the RNC gave St. Paul an opportunity to set a shining example of a community where diversity of opinion and freedom of expression are welcomed and where civil disobedience is handled firmly but with restraint. The result would have been trust and respect for law officers and a long step toward realizing our vision of St. Paul as one of the world's greenest cities.

Instead we have seen a virtual army of anonymous, heavily armored and armed
troopers take control of our streets. We have seen how helpless and
compliant our local authorities are in the face of such a quasi-military
occupation. And we have experienced a sense of violation as our homes and
meeting places have been invaded on the flimsiest of excuses, our roads and
bridges closed to traffic without warning, and our jails packed with people
who were rounded up brutally and indiscriminately. Some are angry young
protesters, some are journalists who were seeking to do their jobs, and some
are citizens who simply ventured to ask questions.

We were told it would not be this way. We feel misled and betrayed. We ask
that our city council and county commissioners authorize an independent
investigation along the lines suggested in Minneapolis by council members
Cam Gordon and Gary Schiff.

Rules Must Bend to Allow McCain, Obama on Texas Ballot with Barr

Republicans and Democrats clearly miss Texas deadline

Though Texas election law sets an Aug. 26 deadline for political parties to file their candidates for president and vice-president, John McCain and Barack Obama must work around the law to get on the ballot alongside Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr.

"Agents of the GOP are twisting the law to have Bob Barr thrown off the ballot in Pennsylvania," says Russell Verney, campaign manager for Barr and a former campaign manager for Ross Perot, "while the law has to be twisted for them to get on the ballot in Texas. Rules are rules, except when they inconvenience those who make them."

According to Texas Election Code § 192.031 , a political party is allowed to have their candidates on the ballot if "the names of the party's nominees for president and vice-president" are submitted before "5 p.m. of the 70th day before" the presidential election.

Given that neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party nominated a candidate before Aug. 26, it would be impossible for either party to file under Texas law.

"Third parties are never given second chances when it comes to getting on the ballot," says Verney. "And third parties are often thrown off the ballot for the most minor infractions of ballot access laws. In Texas, we have a clear deadline that was not met by the Republicans and Democrats, but it is all but certain that some way, some how, the establishment candidates will find a way on the ballot. Some people are just above the law."

A spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State's Office claims that both parties "filed something" on time, despite the fact that neither party had nominated a candidate by the deadline as required by Texas law.

"We agree that unreasonably early deadlines are absurd," says Verney. "We've run into them in states like Oklahoma, West Virginia and Maine during our fight for ballot access across the nation. But if third parties are required to adhere to the law, then we expect the same for the candidates of any other party. Maybe this will show Republicans and Democrats what it is like to be on the wrong side of ballot access laws."

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.

The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

Please send comments to the Texas Secretary of State at: secretary@sos.state.tx.us

General: (512) 463-5770 Fax: (512) 475-2761

Building a Movement for REAL Change

By LARRY PINKNEY


Something magnificent and truly extraordinary happened at the 2008, Green Party Presidential Convention in Chicago, Illinois. Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente; two dynamic, highly intelligent, experienced, and politically committed women of color were chosen by the Green Party of this nation to be its nominees for President and Vice President respectively, of the United States of America. Former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney who demonstrated the guts and integrity to leave the politically opportunist and bankrupt Democratic Party has, for quite some time now been yet again demonstrating her guts and integrity by crisscrossing this nation and informing people in every nook and cranny about the "Power To The People" Campaign. Now Sister McKinney has been joined by Puerto Rican people's grass root activist / journalist / and intellectual hip hop artist Sister Rosa Clemente in this ever growing campaign and people's movement and struggle. Indeed, something extraordinary has happened and there is yet more to come.

While CNN, ABC, C-SPAN, etc. did give some limited coverage of and to this incredibly momentous event; none of the pundits of these so-called "main stream news" media outlets dared elucidate to the "American" people the enormous present-day and historical significance and opportunities of what just happened in Chicago. None of these pundits dared explain and emphasize the revolutionary aspect of what had just happened in Chicago: That the Green Party and the Reconstruction Movement this past weekend, in selecting Cynthia McKinney as their primary standard bearer, is a stinging rejection and rebuke of the Democratic and Republican Parties [i.e. the Republicrats] with their putrid, hypocritical, corporate / military apparatus-fueled politics of dishonesty, subterfuge, smoke & mirrors, and unending wars abroad and increasing economic disparity and social misery at home. The sleeping dragon, consisting of the rank and file, everyday woman, man, and child in this nation, has finally begun to awaken once again.

The Empire, including its Democratic and Republican Party surrogates, has been put on notice by politically conscious Black, Brown, Red, Yellow, and White peoples of this nation of who are sick and tired of being hoodwinked, manipulated, and politically blood sucked. What happened this past week end in Chicago is a wake up call to all persons of good will: Black, White, Brown, Red, and Yellow!

By supporting the candidacies of Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente we are supporting a people's movement -- our movement for real, fundamental, "systemic" change, not mealy-mouth meaningless / feel good rhetoric. We are self-actualizing our hopes and dreams, not allowing others to pimp and manipulate us by playing on those hopes and dreams. We are supporting the very best in ourselves. We are laying the foundation in 21st Century "America" for a genuine and ongoing people's movement that says NO to the corporate / military / prison apparatus of the U.S. Empire at home and abroad.

We are supporting so much more than only candidates for political office -- we are supporting our commitment to the building of an uncompromising, unswerving, people's movement that is unhindered by this system's Democratic and Republican [i.e. Republicratic] Party election time lines and political machine. We are refusing to collaborate with this Empire's system of oppression. Rather, we are working to dismantle it and build a fundamentally and systemically different system that addresses human needs, not human greed. We are emphatically stating that we will not sit back and allow principled, intelligent, revolutionary / politically progressive, honest, and for-real women to be by-passed and ignored any longer by this system in "America."

By supporting the Cynthia McKinney / Rosa Clemente "Power To The People" Campaign we are making it crystal clear that we will intensify the struggle the dignity and human rights of all people: women, men, and children -- Black, Brown, Red, White, and Yellow -- all peoples.

To be sure, the U.S. Empire's corrupt and biased news media disinformation machine can be expected to go into high gear in an effort to discredit and neutralize the McKinney / Clemente ticket and the "Power To The People" Campaign. Indeed, these slimy tactics have already begun. However, such tactics merely confirm the absolute importance of what we are committed to and what this movement is all about.

For those who may not have seen and heard Cynthia McKinney's acceptance speech on C-SPAN at the Green Party Convention this past July 13, 2008; it is urged that you turn on your computer's speakers, view her presentation, and hear her remarks and those of Rosa Clemente on the internet at C-SPAN.org under the heading Green Party Presidential Convention (July 13, 2008).

The "Power To The People" Campaign is the only one to boldly and seriously address not only the issues of militarism, economic disparity, social and environmental inequities, single payer health care, government malfeasance and neglect, corporate greed, equal opportunity and education, racism, reparations, gender parity, and homelessness, etc; but just as importantly, this campaign is about building an ongoing movement to fundamentally address the root causes of these pressing concerns. The twin demons of the Empire, i.e. the Democratic and Republican Parties [increasingly known as the Republicrats] and their accomplices, are in opposition to any real systemic change. Thus, every conceivable means will be utilized to deter this campaign, its ultimate movement, and objectives.

We must get out into our towns, cities, and municipalities of all kinds with one fundamental objective: Getting and putting the "Power To The People" Cynthia McKinney / Rosa Clemente Green Party ticket on the ballot in high numbers in every viable state of this nation, while simultaneously building and nurturing this people's movement. Let us start voting right now by organizing to support Cynthia and Rosa in the streets, the back woods, the schools, on the reservations, in the barrios, ghettos, and every possible nook and cranny and community of this nation. WE ARE NOT COLLABORATORS AND WE WILL NOT COLLABORATE WITH THE EMPIRE IN OUR OWN OPPRESSION OR THAT OF OTHERS. Organize, organize, and organize some more!

We are the people and it is WE ourselves who are the essence of, and motivation for, real change. Let us call out to our sisters and brothers in Haiti, in Venezuela, in Bolivia, in Cuba, in Palestine, in Myanmar, in the Congo and throughout the entire world. Let us send them a message of comradely greetings and let them know that we are reawakening from slumber here in the belly of the Empire. We have seen their examples and are emulating them for the mutual betterment of all our peoples.

We must build coalitions that serve the interests of the people. We must pry open the systemic, strangling, amoral death grip that the Democrats and Republican Parties [i.e. the Republicrats] have around our proverbial necks and minds. We must work together with the Reconstruction Movement which began around the despicable U.S. Government criminality of both the Republicans and Democratic Parties re hurricane Katrina (and subsequently hurricane Rita). Being Green is just the beginning. We must keep in mind that there are also other progressive peoples out there in parties such as the Peace & Freedom Party, and we must work together with them to the mutual advantage of the people's movement. We must remember that "no one of us is as smart or as strong as all of us."

We must remember our sister and brother political prisoners, liberation fighters, and exiles such as Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Reverend Edward Pinkney [no relation], the San Francisco 8, Assata Shakur and so very, very many more. We must remember why we are waging this struggle. This is about more than votes. This is about our very survival and that of Mother Earth - this planet.

This is about saying NO to the Empire and its collaborators, and YES to a NEW DAY a NEW SOCIETY, a NEW WORLD. This is about struggling to be that NEW PERSON who self-actualizes and addresses human needs, not human greed, lies, and hypocrisy.

Viva Cynthia McKinney! Viva Rosa Clememte! Long live "The Power To The People' Campaign! Let's get busy brothers and sisters. "Each one reach one". There is much work to be done!

Onward then

----------
BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board Member, Larry Pinkney, is a veteran of the Black Panther Party, the former Minister of Interior of the Republic of New Africa, a former political prisoner and the only American to have successfully self-authored his civil/political rights case to the United Nations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In connection with his political organizing activities in opposition to voter suppression, etc., Pinkney was interviewed in 1988 on the nationally televised PBS NewsHour, formerly known as The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. For more about Larry Pinkney see the book, Saying No to Power: Autobiography of a 20th Century Activist and Thinker , by William Mandel [Introduction by Howard Zinn]. (Click here to read excerpts from the book). Click here to contact Mr. Pinkney.

An Unreasonable Mandate

Ralph Nader, Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney find common ground: state laws designed to keep third parties off the ballot

By Andy Bromage

Vic Lancia's phone rang. It was Ralph Nader asking for help gathering signatures to get him on the presidential ballot in Connecticut.

Lancia, a loyal foot soldier for third party political campaigns, didn't believe it was Nader. He hung up. Nader called back. Lancia still didn't believe him. "Stop fucking with me," Lancia said, and hung up again.

So Nader called Ken Krayeske, who's running his state campaign. "What are you doing giving me a guy who hangs up the phone on me?" Nader asked. Krayeske made a quick phone call to explain, and before long Lancia was outside a Middletown supermarket sweet-talking shoppers into signing for Nader.

The Nader campaign submitted 17,000 signatures to state election officials in Hartford last week—twice the number needed to secure a line on the ballot this fall—but they didn't do it alone. Nader had help petitioning from Libertarians and the Greens, who in turn got help from Nader.

In a rare show of third party unity, the campaigns of Nader, Libertarian Bob Barr and the Green Party's Cynthia McKinney, the last two former Congress members, are joining forces across state lines to overcome ballot access rules designed to keep minor party candidates out. The camps are sharing workers, swapping petitions and urging voters to sign up for another third party candidate along with their own. They've joined forces in Maine, West Virginia, Hawaii, Pennsylvania and now Connecticut, where Barr submitted 13,000 signatures and McKinney turned in "close to the necessary number," a Green Party boss says.

Libertarian petitioners were instrumental in getting Nader on the ballot in the all-important state of Pennsylvania last month, so Nader's team repaid the favor in Connecticut, dispatching his clipboard-equipped raiders on sidewalks and town greens. Not because the campaign especially loves Bob Barr, though.

"I couldn't care less about Libertarians," says Krayeske. "The hurdles to democracy that the two parties put out in front of you are so onerous that third parties are learning to cooperate."

Sidewalk petitioning can be thankless work: Campaigns pay workers $1 to $1.50 per signature to stand on baking asphalt, asking irritated grocery shoppers to sign in support of a candidate they've often never heard of, or might consider a "spoiler." Nader's national ballot coordinator, Christina Tobin of Illinois, arrived in Hartford last week to turn in the fruits of their labor.

In true Nader fashion, Tobin used the occasion to agitate rather than celebrate, telling reporters that petitioning onto Connecticut's ballot is a "tedious" and "ridiculous" process designed to "make our lives more difficult." For example: State law requires petitions be certified by local officials in Connecticut's 169 towns, even though federal law requires states maintain a centralized list of all registered voters.

That means petitioners must carry a form for every town—Andover to Woodstock—which the state then mails to those towns. Another law says petitioners must be state residents, which poses a problem because the most reliable workers are the few paid national staffers who travel from state to state, not local volunteers. Beyond that, requiring 7,500 valid signatures when other New England states require a fraction as many (1,000 in Rhode Island, 3,000 in New Hampshire) disadvantages small-dollar grassroots campaigns, Tobin says.

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, the state's top election official, is unsympathetic. She says town officials must validate petition signatures because only they have the original signed voter cards. If something looks suspicious—say, several signatures in the same handwriting—officials need to check the source documents.

On requiring circulators to be state residents, Bysiewicz says it's perfectly reasonable. "You ought to be able to have support in the state you're running in if you are going to have a real candidacy," Bysiewicz says. But third party campaigns are modest endeavors, often relying on a few dedicated staffers to do heavy lifting over huge geographic areas. Besides, can't voters just register their support at the polls? Is luring state residents away from their jobs to spend a full day collecting signatures for $1 a pop the only way to demonstrate ballot-worthy support?

Bysiewicz is unmoved. "You ought to have people in the state willing to go out and get petition signatures."

Mike DeRosa, the state Green Party chair, disagrees. "Not everyone can just go out and petition. Some people are too shy. The two major parties will create all kinds of barriers to full participation in the political process."¦

Send your comments to editor AT hartfordadvocate DOT com

An open letter to Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner

by Ed Felien
published August 4 '08


Dear Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner:

George W. Bush will be within your jurisdiction on September 1 as he speaks to the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. As you know, as President of the United States, Bush ordered military action against the Iraqi government on the false premise that Iraq represented a direct threat to the security of the United States. There have been two significant books published recently that detail the culpability of George W. Bush: Elizabeth de la Vega was a federal prosecutor. Her book, U S v Bush, details the case she would make against Bush before a federal grand jury. Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor of the Manson family, has published The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. His book further documents the legal case to be made against George W. Bush.

I would welcome an opportunity to meet with you and discuss this matter, and at that time I would like to present you with copies of both books.

Young men from Ramsey County died in Iraq as a direct consequence of the lies that were told by George W. Bush: Army Spc. Jacob Vanderbosch, 21, of Vadnais Heights was killed October 3, 2005 in Haqlaniyah, Iraq, when a roadside bomb exploded; White Bear Lake resident Pfc. Elden Arcand's fuel supply truck overturned on a road on August 21, 2005 in Mosul--officials say he was thrown from the vehicle, and it rolled onto him; Army Specialist Gregory Rundell of North St. Paul was killed Wednesday March 26, 2008 while manning a guard tower in Iraq. The crime of reckless endangerment of these young men happened in Ramsey County when they were told they had to serve in Iraq.

If a person in legitimate authority told a lie to someone and that person acted on good faith in believing that lie, then the person who told that lie is guilty of reckless endangerment and must be held accountable for the death of that innocent. If the Chief of Police in St. Paul were to tell someone that they could speed at 95 mph on Highway 35, and that person were to die in an automobile accident in Iowa, then the St. Paul Chief of Police would be guilty of reckless endangerment, and that crime would have occurred in St. Paul. In a like manner, Jacob Vanderbosch, Elden Arcand and Gregory Rundell were lied to in the jurisdiction of Ramsey County. The crime of reckless endangerment or Murder in the Third Degree happened in Ramsey County.

Because Bush committed troops of the Minnesota National Guard to tragic danger and fatalities in Iraq for the sole purpose of enriching his family's business, Halliburton, and, thereby, causing the death of Minnesota citizens, he is guilty of committing murder in the third degree: Section 609.195: MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE: whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years on each count.

As you may know, I appealed to Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman to bring charges against George W. Bush. He was extremely cordial but he refused. I filed a writ of mandamus with the 4th District Court asking the judge to order County Attorney Mike Freeman to bring charges. The County Attorney responded, and I answered his response. Finally, Judge Gary Larson denied my writ agreeing with the County Attorney's office that they had discretion in the matter of whom to prosecute. I agree that, generally, the County Attorney's office should have discretion on whom to prosecute, however, exception to this absolute authority can be seen in Minnesota Statute 388.12: "Attorney to Assist. The judge of any district court may by order entered in the minutes at any term of court appoint an attorney of such court to act as, or in place of, or to assist the county attorney at such term, either before the court or grand jury. The person so appointed shall take the oath required by law of county attorneys and thereupon may perform all duties at such term of court, but shall receive no compensation where the county attorney is present at such term, except by the county attorney's consent, and to be paid from the county attorney's salary."

I have attached my Appeal, writ of mandamus, their response, my answer and Judge Gary Larson's order to this email.

I would most sincerely appreciate an opportunity to discuss this matter with you at your earliest convenience,

Ed Felien

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Response from Susan Gaertner

August 1, 2008
Dear Mr. Felien:
Thank you for contacting me via email about your desire to have President George W. Bush prosecuted for various crimes.

I respect the passion and sincerity of your deep concerns about the actions of President Bush and the war in Iraq. You argue eloquently and forcefully for your point of view and desired course of action. Although I have not read Mr. Bugliosi's book, I know and admire Ms. De la Vega and have her book at home.
Many people share your conviction that President Bush should be held accountable, and there are various ways in which that might occur. I do not believe, however, that a criminal prosecution by a county attorney and/or an individual appointed by the court to assist the county attorney is the appropriate way to seek to hold a president accountable for the actions you describe-regardless of the merits of the arguments that might be presented. On the legal issues, I also come to the same conclusions stated in the brief filed by Mr. Diamond and the order issued by Judge Larson.

Even though I have not come to the conclusion you might favor, I appreciate the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of the arguments you presented.
Thank you again for contacting me, and best wishes.
Sincerely,
Susan Gaertner
Ramsey County Attorney

Fairvote joins IRV Lawsuit

FairVote Minnesota to Intervene in Lawsuit against Instant Runoff Voting

Minneapolis, MN (July 31, 2008) - Today, FairVote Minnesota, the organizational anchor of the Saint Paul Better Ballot Campaign, announced that it will seek to intervene as a defendant in an on-going lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of instant runoff voting (IRV). In 2006, Minneapolis voters and its City Council authorized the use of IRV in city elections, with implementation planned for 2009. The lawsuit that FairVote Minnesota seeks to join opposes IRV in Minneapolis and was brought by a small group of activists who support the return of partisan local elections.

"Joining this lawsuit as a co-defendant is the most logical and efficient manner for us to resolve the constitutional question," said FairVote Minnesota Board member and Saint Paul IRV Campaign Coordinator, Ellen Brown. "We will help dismantle the St. Paul City Council's cover for blocking this important reform."

Both the plaintiffs and the City of Minneapolis have indicated that they will support the intervention request.

"Intervention is the right of a third party when it feels it can be of assistance to the court in arriving at a just decision," said former Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi attorney and FairVote Minnesota board chair, Tyrone Bujold. "Our plea will be to expedite the case so a decision can be reached as soon as possible."

On July 2, the St. Paul City Council blocked a certified petition submitted by more than 7,000 voters. The petition would have placed a charter amendment on the ballot this November to authorize use of IRV in future municipal elections. The block was justified in the eyes of the Council leadership based on a city attorney opinion that raised questions of constitutionality. After blocking the initiative, the Council voted unanimously to put the measure on the ballot once the constitutionality of IRV is resolved in the Minneapolis case.

The St. Paul Campaign does not believe the Council may legally block petition initiatives except in cases of "manifest unconstitutionality." "The Council, with the exception of Ward 6 member Russ Stark, had chosen to interpret the muddled attorney opinion as providing legal cover for their action. In doing so, the St. Paul Campaign believes that the Council has overstepped its legal authority," said Brown. The St. Paul Campaign considered suing the City to force a court interpretation of "manifest unconstitutionality" but decided this route was not likely to produce a decision in time to allow for sufficient voter education before the 2008 election, and might not have resulted in a definitive conclusion to the matter.

James Dorsey of the Fredrikson & Byron law firm and Keith Halleland of the Halleland, Lewis, Nilan and Johnson law firm will serve as lead co-counsel in the matter. Assistance will be provided by Jay Benanav, Alan Weinblatt, Weinblatt and Gaylord; Steve Kelley, Humphrey Institute Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy; David Schultz, Hamline University; Tyrone Bujold, FairVote MN chair; Aaron Street, Center for Law and Politics; Gena
Berglund, National Lawyers Guild; Cecily Hines, retired attorney; Andrea Rubenstein, attorney at law; and Teresa Ayling, Mansfield, Tanick and Cohen P.A.; and Jane Prince, attorney at law.


FairVote Minnesota
PO Box 19440
Minneapolis, MN 55419-0440
info@FairVoteMN.org
(763) 807-2550