|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Elections & Legislation |
|
Prairie Greens Step Towards Filing Suit Against Champaign County Clerk |
Current rating: 0 |
by Ken Urban
Email: kenurban (nospam) kenurban.com (verified)
Phone: 217 356-7987 |
23 Dec 2003
|
|
Four members of the Prairie Green Party of East Central Illinois are making preparations to file suit for ballot placement against the Champaign County Clerk. The clerk refused to accept the petitions to place the candidates on the ballot for the March 16 primary. |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday, December 23, 2003
Prairie Greens Step Towards Filing Suit Against Champaign County Clerk
Contact: Ken Urban, phone: 217-356-7987, e-mail: kenurban (at) kenurban.com
Four members of the Prairie Green Party of East Central Illinois are making preparations to file suit for ballot placement against the Champaign County Clerk. The clerk refused to accept the petitions to place the candidates on the ballot for the March 16 primary.
Ken Urban, Al Weiss, John Paul Schmit, and Jennifer Walling each submitted petitions on December 15 to run for Green Party precinct committeemen in Champaign County. Urban also submitted petitions to stand in the primary for Green candidate for county board in District 7.
County Clerk Mark Shelden rejected the petitions, arguing that the Green Party is not established in Champaign County. The candidates counter that the 2002 Congressional candidacy of Carl Estabrook established the party at the county level. Estabrook earned 8.7% of the vote in Champaign County, far more than the established party threshold of 5%. The legal question revolves around whether a Congressional campaign can establish a party at the county level.
"The election code makes no mention that the 5% threshold must be from the political subdivision for county level established party status," says Weiss. "Indeed, the code explicitly states that established party status in the county is based on the highest vote getter of the party in the county irrespective of the office sought."
Established party status allows a political party to have precinct committeemen and a central committee in the relevant jurisdiction. The party is able to participate in the March primaries, and the central committee has the ability to slate candidates for offices within the jurisdiction, eliminating the "new party" requirement for extensive petition drives for ballot placement.
"Established party status provides far greater ballot access to candidates who wish to affiliate with that party," says Weiss. "By reducing the restrictions for ballot access, the Green Party would be able to more easily recruit candidates and spend its resources on elections rather than on merely gaining
access to the ballot. We believe such an outcome is desirable to provide more substantive debate on issues in local elections."
"Ballot restrictions against third parties in Illinois are notorious across the country, so we’re not surprised to come up against this," adds Walling. "In 2002, we demonstrated that we have significant support in Champaign County, and in 2004, we intend to build upon that."
The Prairie Greens are a local affiliate of the Illinois Green Party, an accredited state party of the Green Party of the United States. For more information on the Prairie Greens, visit http://www.prairiegreens.org.
###
|
Related stories on this site:
Prairie Greens File Suit Against Champaign County Officials
|
Comments
|
Re: Prairie Greens Step Towards Filing Suit Against Champaign County Clerk |
by thorn
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Dec 2003
Modified: 10:05:16 PM |
Right on, Ken!
Glad to see you still holding up the ideals that matter most! I'm sick to death of watching our local Republican cronies exploit CU for personal/party gain. They've been doing it for way too long already.
We're long overdue for a change (or changes!), and I'm overjoyed to see Ken Urban sticking up for what is right and fair, and good for the health of our tiny planet and precious future generations.
Thank you, Mr. Urban! You Sir, are a true citizen of the world, and a tireless advocate for positive change in Champaign County.
For the record, Ken Urban was an intructor of mine at Parkland in the late 90's, and little did I know then, how he would find his voice in local politics today.
He was a righteous and kind soul back in school, and obviously brings the same heartfelt concern to the Champaign Country Greens now. Ken is not just a money-driven, self-serving "politician" like most of our local "leaders". He's the real deal.
A kind and intelligent human being who cares more about others, than about his own wallet. People like Ken, willing to stand up for what is right, are few and far between.
You Go, Ken Urban! |
|
Re: Prairie Greens Step Towards Filing Suit Against Champaign County Clerk |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -5
25 Dec 2003
|
Hey Greens,
It's your old friend Jack. Perhaps you have misunderstood Mark Shelden's motivation here. I am certain that he will do everything in his power to get you and every Green on the ballot. Is there a petition that I can sign? I know Mark, how can I help.
I want to see everyone of you have a voice (regardless of how nutty) because you split the nutbag vote in Urbana.
On a national note, where and when will R. Nader declare again. I don't think, we conservatives will need him this time, but hey, you never know. I don't think Dennis K and his 2 to 3 percent nationally will draw enough of the "dirt eater vote" to get us a majority in the Senate.
I am sincere, I will assist you in your goal. As I have stated in the past, I am connected. I know and have worked with Shelden in the past. I am posistive he sees this issue my way. How can I help?
Jack |
|
Re: Prairie Greens Step Towards Filing Suit Against Champaign County Clerk |
by thorn
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Dec 2003
|
|
Surprise, "Jack's" talking about "nutbags"... |
|
Re: Prairie Greens Step Towards Filing Suit Against Champaign County Clerk |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
27 Dec 2003
|
Surprise, I was referring to "Nutbags" and Thorn responded!!! Way to be on top of things dude.
Your Friend,
Jack |
|
Re: Prairie Greens Step Towards Filing Suit Against Champaign County Clerk |
by True American
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Dec 2003
|
I also would like to throw my name in the hat as a Greens supporter. I firmly believe in their views to help mother Earth (snicker). I also feel that corruption and lying in the Democratic party need to be weeded out (no pun intended) and the Greens are just the party to do it (chuckle).
Keep going guys! You have the support of a True American! TA |
|
Re: Prairie Greens Step Towards Filing Suit Against Champaign County Clerk |
by FDR
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Jan 2004
|
I've always wondered if members of the Green Party were naive dupes or brilliantly evil conservatives who hide their true political beliefs behind pony tails and tie-dyed T-shirts. At the end of the day, it probably doesn't matter much. Did Ralph Nader and his supporters mean to hand the reins of our government over to George W. and his breathtakingly right-wing cohorts? Or were they genuinely surprised by an outcome predicted by every Democrat in the country (and Karl Rove, too)? The question is academic, at this point. It was easy to sniff at Al Gore and other national Democrats, and dismiss them as no different than Republicans. But anyone who still clings to that absurdity hasn't lost a friend in Iraq, hasn't heard about the PATRIOT Act, and doesn't mind a federal judiciary made up of Antonin Scalia clones.
(By the way, did you hear that Nader isn't running as the Green Party nominee this time, but may consider an independent bid for President? National Green Party leaders are upset, claiming he'll dilute their vote in '04 if he runs as an independent. Is that funny? Or pathetic? Or both?)
As for our local Green Party, one is tempted to ask the same sort of question -- are they dupes being played by Mark Shelden and local Republicans, or are they playa's themselves, hoping to undermine actual progressives in Champaign County? I don't know Mr. Urban personally, but I do know the Democratic incumbent he's running to unseat on the County Board. Her name is Janet Anderson, and she's been working for progressive causes in this community for decades. A former nurse, she is most passionate about health care issues and was one of the activists who helped create our County Public Health District by voter referendum in 1996. She ran for County Board in 2000, largely to end Republican stonewalling on the issue. As a former president of the League of Women Voters, she's also spoken out against repeated attempts by Mr. Shelden and friends to discourage voting on campus. Heck, she still won't wear red, because that was the color opponents of ERA wore back in the late-70s and early-80s in a successful effort to stop constitutional guarantees of gender equity (Jan and the supporters of ERA wore green, ironically).
Jan won her election to the County Board in 2000 and joined the first Democrat majority in Champaign County history. Since taking control local Democrats have taken public health off the chopping block, adopted a Living Wage for County employees, put environmental concerns at the forefront of land-use decisions, and successfully fought against efforts to privatize our County Nursing Home.
Mr. Urban is not running against a good ol' boy Republican or a holier-than-thou Christian Coalition-type. He's running against a grandmother who's spent decades fightin' conservatives and successfully advancing a progressive agenda. Is he doing it because he doesn't know Jan and doesn't know about what she and local progressive Democrats have actually accomplished? Or, is he somehow in cahoots with Mr. Shelden and local Republicans who want nothing more than to see a Green candidate take 10% of the vote away from a Democratic incumbent, handing victory to whatever Republican they eventually run in that district?
Again, the question seems academic at this point. If the Greens win their suit, the result will be the same, regardless of his intentions. To use a phrase from the recent War in Iraq, this is just the "tip of the spear" -- local progressives will be shut out of office, as Republicans divide and conquer with the help (unwitting or not) of Greens like Mr. Urban. It's not funny, but it sure is pathetic. |
|
Re: Prairie Greens Step Towards Filing Suit Against Champaign County Clerk |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
06 Jan 2004
|
Dear FDR,
You figured us out. We are completely behind the "Green Nutbags". Hey Ralph and Carl, did you get my Christmas Card? (The irony there was it was not printed on Recycled Paper)
You wrote: Jan won her election to the County Board in 2000 and joined the first Democrat majority in Champaign County history. Since taking control local Democrats have taken public health off the chopping block, adopted a Living Wage for County employees, put environmental concerns at the forefront of land-use decisions, and successfully fought against efforts to privatize our County Nursing Home.
Well truthfully, the Democratic Board has increased Public Health Spending 116% in 2000 from prior year and that was the last time I checked. All this to insure that car seats are installed properly. They have taken a huge county surplus and blown it. Now we have a tax and fee increases combined with the broken promise not to spend the 1/4 cent tax revenue. Oh well, it was just their word.
They have installed socialism to determine wages rather than let the market determine wages. This already has been a budget buster and has not increased employee satisfaction, nor productivity. They got something for nothing.
Finally, they have put a wacko environmentalist on the drainage board, in an effort to control the private property of the farmers.
The board majority is for a short time only. Will win that back too, with the help from the Greens.
Keep "Standing Up" for what you believe in FDR. Oh Sorry, bad choice of words.
Jack |
|
Reasons to Hope: Bush Catalyzes a Nascent Progressive Movement |
by Cynthia Moothart
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jan 2004
|
Our commander-in-chief has reason to celebrate this holiday season as his politics of utter failure cede territory to marginal gain: U.S. military personnel captured Saddam Hussein; the Dow hit 10,000 the first time in 18 months, and a recent flash poll showed his disapproval rating dip by 1 percentage point.
But this issue of In These Times (http://www.inthesetimes.com/) is dedicated to hope, specifically progressives’ hope, that the nation can reverse course on the punitive and injurious stands now defining our polity. And there’s cause for celebration here, too: Progressives are engaged in the largest grassroots operation in U.S. history; liberals have formed a new political think tank, and studies show a preponderance of Americans share our values.
Yet our biggest reason for optimism in 2004 may be the man himself.
“Bush has galvanized the left and enabled the political activists to lay down their differences and figure out how to work together. And they have a very singular goal—and that is to un-elect George Bush,” says Ellen Miller, publisher of tompaine.com (http://tompaine.com/), an online public interest journal. “There’s no question in my mind that this is the beginning of a progressive movement that has disparate elements but a single goal. Bush has united the people.
“I’ve been part of the process for 30 years now, and I just see in the various views—whether it’s the environment or campaign finance where I come from—tremendous cooperation, people willing to do what needs to be done instead of just what they want to do.”
United we stand in opposition
The sectarianism that for decades bedeviled the left even now rumbles in its reaches. But a dawning understanding that this tendency has marginalized the movement—and abetted the right’s rise to power—has many progressives moving beyond their entrenched camps.
“The attitudes of progressives toward the Democratic Party have sometimes approached religiosity—with some liberals seeing the party as their savior and some leftists seeing it as a satanic trickster that needs its throat cut,” says Norman Solomon, founder of the Institute for Public Accuracy and a Ralph Nader supporter in 1996 and 2000. “But in the real world, the party isn’t an angel or a devil. Its national leaders are routinely problematic and often serve as corporate flunkies. But there are compelling reasons to support some Democratic candidates who are clearly preferable to the right-wing crazies now running Washington. In 2004, the imperative of dislodging the far right from the White House requires that we build a united front to defeat Bush. Like it or not—and I don’t—the obvious electoral tool for accomplishing that goal will be the Democratic presidential nominee, and that’s who we should support in 2004.”
Historian James Weinstein, founder of In These Times and, most recently, author of The Long Detour: The History and Future of the American Left, says progressives ought to take their cue from the religious right and encamp in the Democratic Party rather than back protest or third-party candidates who remain largely irrelevant within a national context.
“People have to understand that the major parties are not political parties in the European sense,” Weinstein says. “They are coalitions of parties and provide an arena in which people can operate and express themselves. That’s what the Republican right did. They represent only about 20 percent of Republicans, but they have organized and pushed their ideas and their organization and now have effective control of the Republican Party. That is why it makes sense to run in a Democratic primary instead of staying on the outside until that whole process is over and then run as a third party. That way you won’t be totally ignored—and appropriately.”
Viewing the Democratic Party as a coalition—and evolving beyond the age-old left-right division—holds enormous potential for engaging Americans who share progressive principles but don’t identify with the left. These are the people who politicians like Bill Clinton incorrectly classify as the “mushy middle” and mistakenly also argue hold “centrist” positions.
Studies in the last decade show that this middle bloc represents an estimated 36 percent of all adults and 45 percent of likely voters. The group skews favorably toward national health coverage (93 percent), ecological sustainability (78 percent) and feminism (74 percent), among other issues. More than 80 percent oppose big business and 50-plus percent reject social conservatives, yet only 18 percent define themselves as left. Their numbers far outdistance the 12 percent of Americans aligned with the liberal left and the 19 percent who view themselves as social conservatives. And yet, no one is engaging this potential bloc.
The New Progressives
“The data shows that if you look at people’s values and positions, what amounts to a progressive position is held by a good 55 to 60 percent of the voters,” says Paul H. Ray, who has conducted applied social research for 40 years and is co-chair of the Forum for a Wise Civilization in San Francisco. “They’re not a ‘mushy middle.’ They’re just fed up with conventional politics. They’re fed up with the conventional left-right rhetoric. We discovered that the people who really wanted to be active were very active locally where they could see some result, but they had withdrawn from national politics because they felt it had been bought by big-money interests. Now this is not a neutral position, this is not a muddled position. They were saying, ‘We are totally pissed off.’ They choose to, in effect, stay out of the game because they see it as crappy and dirty.”
The rise of the New Progressives, as Ray calls them, contravenes the commonly held position that America’s political landscape resembles a bell-shaped curve, in which small numbers occupy the fringes and the bulk of citizens reside in the passive center. He offers a new configuration represented by a compass, in which north and south are added to right and left. Although the New Progressives don’t identify with either side, they willfully and knowingly stand in opposition to the southern station—“Big Business Conservatives,” responsible for 80 percent of campaign contributions but comprising only 19 percent of voters. According to Ray’s research, New Progressives deeply internalize political struggle—that is, they view it in terms of what threatens our planet and our children’s future, such issues as global warming, educational spending, diminishing quality of life and worldwide violence.
Conventional political messages—both in their delivery and in their delivery system—clearly fail to inspire New Progressives’ participation. Television ads that reduce discourse to inflamed charges lack the nuance, personal engagement and authenticity these people seek. What does work—and where progressives already are heading—is door-to-door retail politics. But establishing commonality between progressives and this group requires updating metaphors and routines that appear tired and dated.
“Given the size of these numbers and the issues represented, this suggests that our recent history has been not just a failure of the left with voters, but also a substantial success—at the level of change in political culture,” Ray says. “There has been a change in the hearts and minds of many Americans to accept many viewpoints the left wants to claim. However, I also want to suggest that while the broad progressive constituency has evolved into more sophisticated interests, many progressive leaders are often trailing behind with obsolete rhetoric, perspectives and political culture.”
Massaging the message
The right suffers no such crisis of message. After getting their collective butt kicked in 1964, Republicans gradually regrouped and reframed their core issues—and in the intervening years, with think tanks churning out thousands of position papers, massive direct mail campaigns reaching millions of voters and political demagogues dominating the public sphere, their message has been loud and clear.
Democrats responded from a defensive crouch—first modulating their message then seemingly lacking one altogether, ceding all terms of the debate to the other side.
“The reason I think Democrats have done so poorly in the last few election cycles is they didn’t really know what they wanted to accomplish,” says John Nichols, who writes extensively on national politics and is associate editor of the Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. “They just wanted to maintain a hold on the White House and get the House and the Senate back. Just clawing your way back to power is not a very attractive thing. Republicans offer something real. And at this point the Democrats have had several cycles of offering nothing more than saying, ‘We’re not Republicans.’ ”
Backing away from radical rhetoric even as the left seeks fundamental change also is a nonstarter because it’s correctly read by voters as fearful, insincere and patronizing: All too often, progressives’ attitudes seem to be “We know the truth and you can’t handle it.” A New York Times poll after the WTO protests in Seattle, for example, showed that 52 percent of Americans agreed with the demonstrators, despite persistently muted critiques from Democratic leadership.
“I think it’s a loser from an organizing point,” says Robert Jensen, associate professor of journalism at the University of Texas and author of the upcoming Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity. “If you’re trying to offer a milquetoast alternative to the radical right, which may be completely evil and corrupt but has a very clear and powerful message, then you’re fighting clear and powerful with milquetoast. You’re not going to get the dominant majority by talking this way.”
Recent shifts in mainstream thinking prove that progressive principles—defined in genuine and positive ways—can prevail in the marketplace of ideas.
“I think it’s really significant that a lot of the things the left has been saying for a long time are being proved true,” Nichols says. “We always believed what we said. But now it’s being quantified. For instance, we said a corporate model for free trade would be bad for American workers and would do nothing to raise the standard of living for workers in other countries. We said NAFTA was a terrible idea. And for years we were dismissed, even many Democrats like Bill Clinton said we were wrong. But now our argument has become a very mainstream argument, and we’re able to go into this discourse and say ‘Look, we were right about this.’ I think we should be hopeful. It’s absurd to be anything else.”
A failed presidency. A unified left. A predisposed constituency. Hope.
Cynthia Moothart< is an associate editor at In These Times.
© 2004 In These Times |
|
Re: Prairie Greens Step Towards Filing Suit Against Champaign County Clerk |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
06 Jan 2004
|
Dear Cynthia Moothart,
Very interesting theory. Let's see, if we can repackage the same tired, old, and reckless ideas that are liberalism and rename it The New Progressive movement Americans will flock to you in droves. I think you may be on to something. The latest poles in Iowa have Dennis Kucinich up to 3%. This from 2%.
Face it my dear, the only time that Democrats are successful is when they run as Moderates with Conservative ideals (Remember Clinton's Middle Class Tax Cut that he ran on) and govern as flaming liberals.
Your message of abdication of American Leadership in exchange for the UN is a hot seller.
Your support for repeal of the tax cut allowing all Americans who pay taxes to retain more of their hard earned wealth is most popular. It may be hard to get by the fact that the economy grew by 8.1%. But hey, what are facts?
Scissors jammed in the skull of a living baby, who could be against that?
The confiscation and the end of property ownership in the U.S. when even the Chinese Communist adopt such things is brilliant.
The problem is not that Americans are not getting your message, but rather, they are finally seeing it for what it really is.
Better Luck in 2008. Hope
Jack |
|
Re: Prairie Greens Step Towards Filing Suit Against Champaign County Clerk |
by MAD AS HELL
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jan 2004
|
ML or whoever,
Can't you do something to get this guy, Jack Ryan, off this site? He makes fun of everything we believe in. I am MAD AS HELL and I am not going to take it anymore. |
|
Re: Prairie Greens Step Towards Filing Suit Against Champaign County Clerk |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jan 2004
|
Dear Mad As Hell,
Interesting response. I have'nt been silenced yet, but your commitment to Freedome of Speech is admirable.
Jack |
|
