AZ: Tucson Greens Prepare for Historic Primary

Green party candidates are running in a number of noteworthy contests this year.  Among them is the Tucson mayoral election.  From last week's column at AZIVN:

In June, Democratic party activists successfully purged all Republican party and Independent hopefuls from the ballot in this year’s mayoral election in Tucson, ensuring a two-party race between the Democrats and Greens, as reported here at AZIVN late last month.  Following the Green Party’s first ever primary election for Tucson mayor in August, Democrat Jonathan Rothschild will square off against either Mary DeCamp or David Croteau in the election for the city’s highest office this coming November.  The city’s current mayor, Republican Robert Walkup, is not seeking re-election. 

Last Friday, the two Greens sat down for the first in a series of candidate interviews with Christopher Conover and Andrea Kelly from Arizona Public Media.  The cordial discussion began with a consideration of what this primary means for the Green party.  Mary DeCamp, a teacher and lifelong activist originally from Nebraska, stressed its historic character. 

“This is historical. This is the first city-wide [primary] election that the Green party has run,” said DeCamp. “We have only been in Pima County for 20 years. So we’re as young as some of our youngest voters . . . to offer a new way of approaching politics is very exciting,” she continued.  DeCamp stressed that she and her primary opponent David Croteau are good friends.  “We’re bringing the message to the public that politics can be civil, respectful, engaging and fun,” she concluded. 

David Croteau, a self-employed craftsman and also a longtime activist, stressed that voters are clearly looking for real alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans.  “I believe that the two-party system is broken,” he said.  “The largest voting increase seems to be in Independents, and that suggests to me that the two major parties aren’t giving choices that people are willing to stick with,” he continued.

Read the rest.  Independent voters now outnumber Democrats in Arizona.  The Green party's primary in the Tucson mayoral election has the potential to significantly raise the party's profile throughout the state.  If Greens and progressives nationally are looking for a local campaign to bolster in an off-year election, this one should be on the top of their list.

AZ: Democratic Party's Ballot Purge Provides Opening for Tucson Greens

When Democrats and Republicans seek to dissuade others from engaging in third party and independent political activism, one of their primary arguments is that third party and independent campaigns for office are a fool's errand because it is so difficult for them to achieve ballot access.  Let's put aside the fact that such ballot access hurdles are erected by Democratic and Republican lawmakers themselves in order to cement their hold on power at all levels of government.  Even despite the fact that third party and independent candidates face biased and discriminatory rules and regulations when they seek to run for office – for example, having to collect anywhere from two to ten times more petition signatures than their Democratic and Republican counterparts –, these candidates often still fight their way onto the ballot, and they do so by gathering many more signatures than are required by law.  Why?  Because their petitions are challenged by professional partisans in the major parties, often on the basis of the most absurd technicalities.  Taken to its logical extreme, the ideal outcome of such a process is an election in which there is only one candidate on the ballot or perhaps even none at all.  However, sometimes it can also inadvertently provide a strategic opening for opponents of the two-party state. 

The Tucson mayoral race provides us with an interesting case in point.  As it now stands, only two candidates are assured ballot access: a Green and a Democrat.  There would have been at least four, but in recent weeks the Democratic party successfully purged an Independent and a Republican party candidate from the ballot by petition signature challenges.  From the Arizona Daily Star:

Democratic attorney Jonathan Rothschild may be the only major-party candidate left standing in the mayoral race after today.  Superior Court Judge Paul Tang bounced independent Pat Darcy from the ballot Monday after the Pima County Recorder's Office found he came up 106 signatures short on nominating petitions.

A short time later, Republican Shaun McClusky attempted to withdraw his nominating petitions before facing his own court challenge this afternoon, where Democrats will argue he didn't obtain a sufficient number of signatures to get on the ballot . . . 

Darcy offered no court defense of his petitions, beyond noting there is a built-in disadvantage for independent candidates, who need far more signatures than party candidates. As an independent, Darcy needed 2,596 valid signatures. Republicans, meanwhile, needed 1,060 and Democrats needed 1,642.  [Emphasis added.]

He said he was dismayed the Democratic Party challenged him at all. "What are they afraid of?" he asked, saying that if the tables were reversed, he would have welcomed a contest rather than try to kick all of the challengers out of the race. "You want to compete. You don't want it just given to you," he said, adding it is a drain on the courts, as well as the city and county staffs.

City Clerk Roger Randolph acknowledged in court that the number of challenges this year is unprecedented, saying the last challenge in a city race came in 1999.

The Arizona Green Party attained ballot access in 2010 and, under a new law, are assured access through 2012.  Currently, there are two Green candidates vying for the party's nomination in the race, both of whom apparently survived the Democratic party's push to purge the ballot of all competition.  From Ross at Green Party Watch:

That Green will either be Mary DeCamp, a City Council candidate in the past, or Dave Croteau, a past mayoral candidate.  There will be a primary to determine who will be on the ballot for the general election.  Another candidate who was running for the Green nomination dropped out of the race in order to support and work on sustainability issues with the now-former Republican candidate.

Though the Republicans could still nominate a write-in candidate, the Green party has an excellent opportunity to gain attention from the media and wider recognition in the state, especially given the fact that they will be holding a contested primary.  If they can successfully capitalize on the marginalization of the GOP, the Greens may even be able to score a major upset.  Greens across the country should be paying close attention to this race, and lend their support in whatever way possible.

Public Access Politics

New York is one of just a handful of states that allow fusion voting.  Under fusion voting, a candidate for a given office can be nominated by a number of parties.  Cross-endorsement allows third parties to have more influence over those major party candidates who seek their formal support, but, in this way, it also functions as just another means by which the major parties co-opt third party groups and rob them of their political independence.  Not infrequently, it happens that Democrats and Republicans cross-endorse the same candidate – in which case, unless there is a viable third party candidate in the race, the general election is transformed into a mere formality or a farce.  It is obviously also possible, however, that a coalition of third party groups could cross endorse their own candidate to oppose an incumbent Democrat or Republican who might otherwise run unopposed.  Just such a plan appears to be in the works in Suffolk County on Long Island.  At On the Wilder Side, Kimberly Wilder relays a message from a local public access television producer who's taking the initiative to take the county government back from the party bosses.  Excerpt:

Disgruntled democrats and disgruntled republicans, both women and men, who are willing to wage a coalition of primaries in the 2011 upcoming election for 19 elected seats at the Suffolk County legislature. Zabby will help you run a primary campaign on Public Access Television to defeat the hand-picked choices of the Republican Party bosses and the Democratic Party bosses.

Disgruntled third party enthusiasts (Conservative Party, Independence Party and Working Families Party), tired of the way party bosses encourage cross-endorsements of the same old democrats and republicans? Then you too can run primaries for your line against the same.

Together, we will fight the extended history of corruption, cronyism (pay to play), corporate welfare, tax evasion, fraud, local bank bailouts,  and business as usual behind closed doors.  Once in office, the new coalition can enforce the law, to start. Also, we can use home rule to self-determine and customize law in our own local neighborhoods on social, economic, ecological and political issues independent of burdensome General Law — one size fits all state law.

We will stand up, assume power and secure local governing authority to fight the corporatocracy and plutocracy operating against us. We have a natural right to good self-governance. There can be no hope, no change without action. Those now in office are derelict in their duties and responsibilities to oversee and enforce the law. The incumbent politicos avoid transparency and accountability. The Suffolk County Legislature holds meetings during the day, which circumvents the Open Meetings Law (Section 100)*  They are afraid to have the public witness their deliberations and decisions in the making of public policy.

We, the coalition of good democrats and republicans, can run primaries by getting petitions signed in June to obtain ballot access.

Read the rest for more details.

NY: Majority of Voters Cast Ballots for Third Party Candidates in Mayoral Election

At Ballot Access News, Richard Winger draws attention to a noteworthy result from the recent special mayoral election in Rochester, New York: a majority of voters cast their ballots for third party candidates.  From BAN:

Rochester, New York, held a special partisan election for Mayor on March 29, 2011. The official results have been released. They are: Thomas S. Richards, Democrat, 49.05%; William A. Johnson, 32.03% on the Working Families line and another 10.18% on the Independence Party line; and Alexander J. White, Green Party, 8.74%.

This was a special election to fill the seat vacated by former Mayor Robert Duffy, who was elected to the position of Lieutenant Governor of New York as current Governor Andrew Cuomo's running mate in 2010.  Thomas Richards, who won the special election on the Democratic ballot line, briefly served as Deputy and interim Mayor after being appointed to the position, from which he quickly resigned in order to run in the special election.  Richards was opposed by former Rochester Mayor Bill Johnson, who was the first African American elected to that position, which he held from 1994 to 2005.  Johnson is a Democrat, but after the Democrats nominated Richards, he ran with the support of the Working Families Party and the Independence Party.  New York has a fusion voting system in which multiple parties are allowed to nominate the same candidate for a given office.  The upstart campaign of Green Party candidate Alex White was viewed as a relative success by third party activists.  Independent Political Report observed:

although he lost, Green mayoral candidate Alex White ran a strong campaign, building up his own reputation and that of the Green Party in Monroe County, New York.

From a local media report relayed by IPR:

While he won’t rule out another campaign in the future, White was quick to say, “I would hope that thre are other candidates that are as strong or stronger than me running on the Green Party line in the future.”

The percentage-results from the mayoral election are revealing, but they do not tell the whole story.  According to the Monroe County Board of Elections, only 25,726 voters cast a ballot in the contest.    Unfortunately, eligible voter and registered voter statistics for the city are not readily available online, but, contacted via phone, Maureen Dauphinee from the county board of elections says "turnout was 27% based on 25,726 voters out of 95,269 eligible to participate in the City of Rochester Special Mayoral Election on March 29, 2011."  Thus, Democrat Thomas Richards won the election with the support of just 13% of eligible voters!  Every mayor of Rochester since 1974 has been a Democrat, so it is not surprising that the GOP would not have run a candidate in the special election.

The Democratic and Republican parties thrive on low voter turnout in non-competitive elections, understanding the latter as elections in which there is only one major party candidate, or in which there is virtually no contest between the candidates of the major parties.  What the mayoral election in Rochester shows is that these two conditions provide a strategic opening for third party and independent candidates.  The race could have been won with the support of just one out of six eligible voters.  The question is: how does one mobilize non-voters who have been brow-beaten into unquestioningly accepting Republican-Democrat party rule, probably even against their better judgment in a large number of cases? 

The ideological prison guards of the two-party state and duopoly system of government never tire of reiterating the argument which states that alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans just cannot win.  "Like it or not, it's a two-party system," they say, ignoring the fact that in many, if not most districts, the two-party system long ago degenerated into a one-party affair.

In many Republican-leaning districts, the Democratic party is not seen as a viable alternative to the GOP; similarly, in many Democrat-leaning districts, the Republican party is not seen as a viable alternative to the Democrats.  In such cases, third party and independent candidates literally represent the only alternative to one-party rule.  The Rochester mayoral election proves the point: a majority of voters cast their votes on a third party ballot line.

NY: The Alliance Party and the Rule of Reaction

A new third party movement appears to be taking root in Schenectady New York to challenge the ruling click in the mayor's office and city council.  The new group is attempting to form a trans-partisan coalition of Democrats, Republicans and Independents under the banner of the Alliance Party. The Times Union reports:

Citing political miscues by the current mayor and the dangers of one-party rule, former Union College President Roger Hull announced plans to seek the city's top elected office in 2011 with a nonpartisan Alliance Party slate. . . . Hull, who retired after leading Union College for 15 years, said he got the idea of running for mayor back last year after listening to fellow residents standing in long lines to challenge their property taxes. From there, he huddled with others and those meetings ultimately gave birth to the Alliance Party. The group of Democrats, Republicans and independents, some of whom stood behind him Thursday, was formed 18 months ago. Hull said they would be recruiting and interviewing prospective candidates for City Council and announcing a full slate in February. . . . Mayor Brian U. Stratton and the entire City Council are Democrats. Four council seats are up for election in November.

Naturally, those interested in maintaining the political status quo have begun to parrot the standard set of talking points against any form of political organization that does not allow itself to be confined by the political straitjacket of the Democrat-Republican two-party state.  The article continues:

Schenectady County GOP Chairman Tom Buchanan lamented that Hull had not reached out to Republican leaders, surmising that a third-party campaign without any crossover backing might prove counterproductive. "It would be a shame because he would be a spoiler in a close election," said Buchanan, noting that Republicans plan run a full slate of candidates

It appears this particular party hack isn't the only person who objects to independently-minded political activism.  Long-time readers of Poli-Tea will surely remember Michael O'Connor of the Rotterdam Windmill, who wrote a number of guest posts here detailing his experience running for town council while petitioning to establish an independent ballot line to run on.  Last month, Michael posted some initial thoughts at the Windmill on the Alliance Party effort and the reaction to it:

. . . . I think it can work.  Not surprisingly, the effort is already the subject of scoffing from several quarters. Once again, the same people who claim to want a different approach that yields results are reluctant to embrace this initiative. The same old arguments of splitting the vote, ulterior motives, or sheer impossibility are being recycled. There even seems to be some jealously from former independent hopefuls that have offered some similar thinking on some subjects! Sorry, but in my mind, no one owns a monopoly on previously expressed ideas that get us better government . . . I’m excited to see this effort unfold . . .

I wonder if there are any new developments on this front.  Anyone from upstate been following this story?  

NJ: Rogue Councilman Resigns, Calls for Independent Campaign Against Party Control of Town Government (Update)

There's an intriguing story coming out of New Jersey regarding a councilman in Englewood Cliffs, Martin Asatrian.  The Republican was elected to the office in 2009 and served as the commissioner of the police until last week when he abruptly resigned.  Apparently highly conflicted about the decision, he rescinded his resignation the next day, and then later on tendered his resignation once more.  Now he is reportedly determined to serve out his term, which would have ended in 2012, and has begun maneuvering to retain the seat, but not before launching an aggressive broadside against the town's two-party system and calling for the creation of a third party and/or independent alternative to the false choice between the town Republicans and Democrats.  Some of his language sounds strikingly familiar here at Poli-Tea. A detailed report at North Jersey.com quotes from an email recently composed by Asatrian:

"Partisan politics is a poison that runs deep in the veins of partisan dead-enders and needs to be drained and reinjected with independent blood," Asatrian said in an e-mail. He added that neither party in Englewood Cliffs has the ability to improve the borough's quality of life.

But he doesn't stop there.

"The two party system is the problem, they are too busy scoring political points against one another and forgetting they were elected to govern the borough in a mature contemplative and intelligent fashion," said Asatrian. "Although it makes for great theater, the residents will not be so entertained when their property values plummet, when their taxes increase and the prestige of the borough ends and starts to become a punch line," he said.

Interestingly, despite their political differences with Asatrian, none of the other Democratic and Republican councilman quoted in the article disagree with the rogue councilman's fundamental critique of the two-party state:

Democrat Councilman Ilan Plawker . . . agrees that the two party system does not make sense at the local level because it is not about party affiliation . . . Council President Robert Agresta, a Republican . . . also noted the two party system is not perfect.

Asatrian concluded his letter with a call for a third party and independent alternative to the false choice between Republicans and Democrats:

"The good people of Englewood Cliffs need a third choice, an independent voice, a voice for the voiceless," said Asatrian. He asks the residents to "consider the independent choice and reject the other parties — they are blinded by hate for each other, if not, the consequences are devastating to the community."

Apparently he is now planning a campaign to completely transform the body over the next two years by ensuring the election of Independents and the defeat of the Democratic-Republican machine:

"My agenda is to overhaul the governing body over two years and have all independent candidates gain seats." He wants to focus on "the party apparatus," not the individuals. "There is an urgency here, otherwise, the parties will engage in the blood sport of governance and fail to focus on the fact that the borough is in trouble," said Asatrian. "Instead of pointing fingers, we need to roll up our sleeves and solve problems — this will never be achieved through the politics of personal distraction and deep-rooted hate among the parties."

That's not bad, the "politics of personal distraction."  Is it possible Asatrian is a Poli-Tea reader?  Weren't we talking about the necessity of this precise sort of bottom-up strategy just the other day?  Or does it just seem so, since, in a way, that's what we're always talking about?

Update: Asatrian's action has led to calls for non-partisan elections in Englewood Cliffs.  From North Jersey news:

An Englewood Cliffs councilman resigned from his seat recently saying he was fed up with the borough's two-party system's focus on political victories rather than serving the community efficiently. While the borough's Democrats and Republicans have argued about who is causing the problems, this brings up a point.

Political parties may play a role in setting the government's agenda on the national level, but town councils do not need Democrats and Republicans. They need open-minded leaders to responsibly deliver their communities a good quality of life.

There are certainly examples of mayors and council members working across the political aisle, but there are just as many instances of block voting by party members.

Voting on ordinances shouldn't be done by party line. It should be done on what the person thinks is best for the residents.

You'd think that we would want elected representatives voting in favor of what is best for constituents, rather than some party, at all levels of government.  Our state legislatures, governor's houses, the US Congress and White House don't need Democrats and Republicans either. 

Political Independence: the Anti-Party

The Republican Herald reports on the independent candidacy of Dennis Baylor, who is running for the Pennsylvania state legislature as an independent under the banner of the "No-Party Party":

The field of candidates seeking the state 125th Legislative District seat grew this week. Dennis Baylor, running under the No-Party Party banner, got the required 308 signatures to appear on the General Election ballot. He'll challenge incumbent Democrat Tim Seip and Republican Ettore G. DiCasimirro in November. . . .

The 60-year-old retired engineer, who resides in Tilden Township, also said he sees "systematic" problems in Harrisburg, with pressing issues often overshadowed by partisan bickering. He said he has watched major national debates continue to go without resolutions as Republicans and Democrats spend the vast majority of their time fighting with one another. "I think we're getting to that point in Pennsylvania," he said.

Specifically, Baylor stressed cutting state spending. He supports the downsizing or outright elimination of some programs, including pre-kindergarten programs paid for with taxpayer money. He said such programs aim "to turn government into some ad hoc babysitter."

Baylor also supports major overhauls to Pennsylvania's criminal justice system, which has become the third-largest expense to taxpayers. "There are some issues in this country that have gotten to the point that they aren't even topics of discussion anymore. That is one of them," he said.

Baylor's campaign slogan, featured at his website: "Stop the most extravagant state government in America."

Groundhog Day Politics: a Libertarian-Republican Two-Way Contest in Missouri

I have stated before that as the two-party system continues to deteriorate into a one-party state in polities across the country, we will likely witness a rise in viable third party or independent forces, counter-intuitively, where the major parties appear strongest. An upcoming special election for an open seat in Missouri's House of Representatives perfectly illustrates this point. At the KY3 Political Notebook, David Catanese wrote last September:

Although the special election isn't until February, Stone and Taney county voters will likely know who their next state House representative will be on Saturday. That's when the District 62 GOP legislative committee will meet and vote on the candidate who will carry the Republican banner next year. The public meeting is set for 1 p.m. Saturday at the Branson West City Hall, according to District 62 GOP chair Layne Morrill. A Democrat has never held a legislative seat in Stone County, Morrill noted. . . . there will be between 19 and 21 total committee votes. The winner would need to secure at least 11 for victory.

Thus, in this way, yet another election would be decided by the local politburo of the ruling party. As All Politics is Local reported in late December:

This could have been an interesting race after Democratic governor Jay Nixon named Republican legislator Dennis Wood to be Commissioner of Stone County, but it wasn’t to be when the Democrat dropped out.

Arguably, however, it is for this precise reason that the race has become interesting. It is now a two-way contest between Republican Nita Jane Ayres and Libertarian Patty Tweedle. Ironically, Patty Tweedle's candidacy demonstrates that not all elections need be contests between the Republican Tweedledum and the Democratic Tweedledee. The Libertarian Tweedle announced her candidacy in mid-December. A news item I recently relayed at Third Party and Independent Daily from the Branson Tri-Lake News quoted Tweedle, saying:

“I am running for the 62nd district House seat because the Libertarian party has a lot to offer,” Tweedle said. “If I can get the conversation going about liberty and less government involvement in people’s daily lives, then I’ve accomplished something. The two-party system has shown itself to be unsuccessful in promoting healthy, thriving societies all across America.”

If elected, Tweedle said she would work to stop the Real I.D. Act. Tweedle said the act would require all citizens to carry a national ID card, restricting people’s movements and cataloguing their activities.

At her website, Tweedle writes: "don't forget to vote on Groundhog Day 2010! Grounded in Liberty for All."