We need the help of Green Party activists to organize anti-war teach-ins. The Green Party Peace Action Committee (GPAX) is looking for people to reach out to peace and student groups and progressive faculty. This effort coincides with national and local peace actions. We are developing background materials and are looking for Green Party members who can be speakers. Please contact me or other GPAX members. Thanks.

I have proposed that the Green Party help organize anti-war teach-ins on “From Yemen to Venezuela: US Aggression Must End”. We should be able to organize quite a few if we put a major effort into it, setting a goal of 20 to 25 teach-ins (nationwide). It is possible to organize 4 to 5 teach-ins here in Ohio. Targeting college campuses should be a priority. I believe this effort would help to build the peace movement and at the same time build the Green Party.

Anti-War Teach-Ins: “From Yemen to Venezuela US Aggression Must End”

There is a great need for peace education and outreach. Most Americans have little understanding of why we are at war and are fatigued by how long these wars have been going on. The peace movement needs to reach out to new constituencies.

I propose that we encourage peace groups to organize anti-war teach-ins on college campuses and in communities in the coming months.

For Jobs and Peace,
Logan Martinez
loganmartinez@hotmail.com
Green Party Peace Action Committee (GPAX), Dayton,Ohio

The United States takes pride in calling itself a “democratic” republic, with “free and fair elections.” Yet Illinois election laws are fixed to give a huge advantage to the candidates of just two political parties, stifling all other competition. Such a system cannot justly be described as “democratic” or “free and fair.” That is why the Illinois Green Party urges Illinoisans to speak up and take a strong stand in support of Senate Bill 141.

Illinois has one of the most repressive, restrictive and grossly unfair ballot access laws in the United States. For example:

• When a Democratic or Republican (established party) candidate wants to get on the ballot for statewide office (president, governor, senator, etc.), that candidate must gather 5,000 petition signatures from registered voters. A Green, Libertarian, or other minority party candidate must gather five times as many — 25,000 signatures.
• Similarly, when an established party candidate wants to get on the ballot for State Senate, they are required to gather 1,000 petition signatures from voters in their district. For State Representative, the number is just 500 signatures. A candidate of any other political party must gather a number equal to at least 5% of the total number of persons who voted in the district in the last election. In 2018, depending on the district, that number was between 1,711 and 5,756 signatures for State Senate, and between 1,330 and 3,103 signatures for State Rep.
• The law is more complex for congressional candidates but the disparity between established party and other candidates is even more extreme. Taking the First Congressional District as a typical example: A Democrat running for Congress in 2018 had to collect 1,230 signatures, a Republican had to collect 408 signatures — but a candidate of any other party had to collect at least 16,640 signatures.
• Established party candidates gather their petition signatures in the Fall preceding the March Primary election. Other candidates cannot even begin gathering the required signatures until late March — after the Primary. In both cases, the candidate has just 90 days to gather signatures. That restriction is ridiculous in both instances, but it accentuates the advantage of the established party candidates, who already enjoy the advantage of greater institutional and monetary support. For other candidates, the barrier is near-impossible, requiring a huge commitment of volunteer time and/or money — just to get on the ballot.
• After filing their signatures, minority party candidates frequently must defend their petitions against legal challenges filed by an objector from one of the established parties. This again consumes time, money and many volunteer hours. Typically, the candidates won’t even know whether their name will appear on the ballot until late Summer. Meanwhile, established party candidates can devote their time, money and volunteer support to actual campaigning, with a head start of several months.

During the objection process, election authorities frequently discount large numbers of petition signatures gathered by minority party candidates on dubious or highly technical grounds. As a result, minority party candidates must plan on gathering about 50 percent more signatures than the minimum required in order to ensure that they survive the challenge.

Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans support having third (or fourth) party choices on the ballot. Yet their desires are frustrated by unfair ballot access laws like those in Illinois.

The excuse given by the established parties to justify these laws is that they are needed to avoid having “too many” parties or candidates on the ballot. In court, they have defended these laws as necessary to avoid “ballot clutter” and “voter confusion” (yes, they have actually used those terms!) — as if voters would get hopelessly “confused” having to choose between more than two options. This argument is not only contrary to the public interest, it is an insult to Illinois voters.

Far from avoiding “ballot clutter,” the actual result of these laws is to have extremely uncompetitive elections, with many incumbents not even having to face any challenge at all. For example, out of Illinois’ 118 State Representative races in 2018:

• There were 53 districts in which only one party had a candidate in the Primary Election. As a result, in the November General Election, there was only one candidate on the ballot in those 53 districts — 45 percent of the total!
• In 87 State Rep districts, the Democratic candidate in the Primary ran unopposed. In 57 districts, the Republican Primary candidate ran unopposed.
• There was not a single third-party or independent candidate on the ballot in any State Representative District. This was not for lack of trying. There was only one third-party candidate for State Senate. Only three independent candidates and one Green Party candidate (who had major-party status from prior elections) were on the ballot for Congress.

Senate Bill 141 will take a giant step toward solving this problem and making Illinois’ ballot laws fairer — simply by making the petition signature requirements equal for all political parties. This is not a complete solution. Democratic and Republican candidates will still have the advantage of being able to petition sooner and securing their ballot position sooner. However, making the petition signature requirement equal is the single most important step that could be taken to create a more equitable and democratic system in Illinois.

Here’s what you can do to help get SB 141 passed:

1. Contact the offices of the co-sponsors — Sen. Andy Manar and Sen. Jason A. Barickman — and thank them for sponsoring the bill and let them know you want to see it passed.
2. Contact the members of the Senate Executive Committee, and especially the sub-committee on election law — and let them know of your support and that you would appreciate their “yes” vote on SB 141 to get it on the Senate floor. You can use the points made here as talking points.
3. Contact your own State Senator and ask him/her to support SB 141 and consider joining on as co-sponsors. (If you are not sure who your current Senator is, you can check your voter registration card for the district number, or look it up by checking your registration status here.)

Please take a stand today and do what you can to help get this important pro-democracy bill passed!

Other Illinois Green Party News

We are also asking for your support on a number of anti-fracking bills this legislative session. We will follow up with more information soon, but meanwhile, you can view this summary at the website of the Illinois Coalition Against Fracking, a coalition supported by the Illinois Green Party.

Save the date! Our Spring Conference will be held on Saturday, April 13th, at Citlalin Gallery, 2005 S. Blue Island, Chicago. This will be a one-day conference with an emphasis on discussing strategy for 2020; it will also include election of officers for the next year and other important party business. There will also be a fundraising dinner. Details to be announced.

Reminder: If you have not already done so, please become a dues paying member of the Illinois Green Party. Becoming a duespaying member is a requirement for participating in our decision-making. We are a grass-roots party and we rely on member contributions — no corporate funding allowed — to finance our activities. This is the party that fights for you, but we ask you to support it. A political party is only as strong as its members make it, by what they do or fail to do. For “us” to succeed, you need to be an active part of “us.” We are not asking a lot — standard dues are just $60 a year, and only $12 a year for persons of low-income — but we do ask you to make this modest contribution to help our efforts to build a better future for all Illinoisans.

Illinois Green Party Outreach
http://www.ilgp.org/

TONIGHT: Facebook Live Town Hall at 8:00 p.m. (Thursday, March 14)

Join us tonight at 8:00 p.m. EDT to discuss the first draft of our 2019 Platform in a Facebook Livestream Town Hall.

If you haven’t been participating in our online forum to discuss platform ideas then this is your first look at how things are coming along.

But there’s still plenty of time to submit your ideas for the platform! The next deadline for feedback and revisions is March 30, and then we will circulate and take feedback on a 2nd draft in April before finally ratifying the platform at our May 11 statewide meeting.

Check out the complete platform timeline and how you can get involved here.

We hope you join us tonight at 8:00 p.m.

News Coverage of Upper Hudson Green Party’s Green New Deal Forum AND Video!

A forum on the Green New Deal organized by the Upper Hudson Green Party (UHGP) drew a crowd of 50 to Albany to hear from 2018 Green Party statewide candidates Howie Hawkins and Mark Dunlea, and Meghan Marohn of the Green Sanctuary Committee of the Albany Unitarians and Extinction Rebellion.

WAMC radio covered the forum and we are also grateful to the UHGP for sharing video of the speakers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGHEgkR1kHo

State Dems’ Budgets Show That Even With Total Control of NY Gov’t They Aren’t Delivering On Healthcare, Marijuana Legalization, Economic Justice

We had a few things to say about the proposed budgets from the NY Assembly and Senate that came out this week.

State Democrats are dragging their feet or actively walking backwards on New Yorkers’ demands for a Medicare-For-All style healthcare plan, bail reform and other measures to mitigate mass incarceration, and legalizing Marijuana in a way that ensures safe cannabis production and reparations to victims of the drug war.

Join us as we keep Demanding More for real changes in our communities and across New York!

Thanks and Solidarity,
Gloria and Peter
Green Party of NY Co-Chairs
http://www.gpny.org/

Augusta, ME — The Green Independent Party has taken a position opposing a Central Maine Power (CMP) proposal to create a 145-mile transmission line corridor that would deliver electricity from Canada to Massachusetts.

Central Maine Power, which would distribute power provided by Hydro-Québec, has failed to provide evidence that the proposal would reduce climate-changing emissions and has admitted that it does not know what the sources of energy will be.

The Green Independent Party is an ecologically-focused political party that has been on Maine’s ballot for more than 20 years and initially formed in 1984.

In addition to redistributing electricity from greenhouse gas-producing sources and adversely impacting the development of clean renewable energy, the corridor would damage hundreds of miles of Maine’s natural environment and lead to the seizure of personal properties.

The states of New Hampshire and Vermont have both rejected proposals for a transmission line corridor.

“CMP is not listening to the will of Maine’s people, towns and businesses,” said Niomi Larrivee, co-chair of the party. “CMP is trying to buy us out. We are on the losing end. Property rights would be lost via eminent domain. This will impact our tourist trade: destroying valuable trusts, sanctuaries, ancient Native American treasures, parks and our personally owned land.”

John Rensenbrink, a co-founder and advisor of the party, said the proposal is an example of a corporation failing to work for the public good. “The top leadership of Central Maine Power has consistently put their own money and control ahead of what is good for the company as a whole and well ahead of what is good for the people of Maine,” Rensenbrink said.

Kimberly Pfusch, chair of the Lewiston Green Independent committee, said, “Residents are asking why a foreign owned company can do this. We want our power to be owned by local citizens.”

The proposed corridor would cut through Lewiston and more than 30 other Maine towns and cities.

As well as opposing the corridor, the party endorses “An Act to Create the Maine Power Delivery Authority”.

Jon Olsen, senior co-chair of the party, said the bill would benefit Maine because revenue would remain in Maine instead of being “siphoned off to Spain for the benefit of CMP’s parent company.”

Olsen said the newly-created power delivery authority would be “accountable strictly and only to the people of Maine,” and would be created without an additional tax burden on ratepayers if CMP were purchased over time with a bond.

“The new entity, which can be run nearly non-profit if desired, would be far more willing to invest in alternative, sustainable energy not dependent on foreign-sourced fossil fuel products, provided that this entity has the authority to deliver and produce electricity for the use of Mainers,” Olsen added. “This means more good jobs.”

Maine Green Independent Party
mainegreens.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 14, 2019

For more information:
Jon Olsen, MGIP co-chair, joliyoka@gmail.com, (207) 549–7787
Niomi Larrivee, MGIP co-chair, nlarriveemays@gmail.com
John Rensenbrink, MGIP co-founder and advisor, john@rensenbrink.com
Kim Pfusch, Chair, Lewiston Green Independent Committee, Member, MGIP State Committee, pfuschphotography@hotmail.com

We just returned from nine days in Iran with a 28-person peace delegation organized by CODE PINK. It is clear that people in Iran want two things:

1. To be respected as an independent, sovereign nation
2. To have peace with the United States without threats of war or economic sanctions seeking to dominate them.

The path to those goals requires the United States to change its policies toward Iran as the US has a long history of interference in Iranian politics with disastrous results. The US must stop its belligerence and engage in honest, respectful dialogue with the government of Iran.

One of the highlights of the trip was a visit to the Tehran Peace Museum. On the way to the Peace Museum, we passed the site of the former US Embassy, now called the “US Den of Espionage Museum.” This was where the US ruled Iran through the Shah until the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The US installed the brutal Shah as a dictator after it worked with Great Britain to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 in a coup that was one of the greatest foreign policy mistakes of US history.

At the Peace Museum, we were welcomed by the director, a veteran of the Iraq-Iran War, which lasted from 1980 to 1988 and given a tour of the museum by two other veterans. The war, which began shortly after the Iranian Revolution in 1979, would not have been possible without US encouragement and support in the form of money, naval assistance and weapons. More than one million people were killed and 80,000 people were injured by chemical weapons in that war.

Two of our tour guides had been victims of a chemical attack and they still suffer from the exposure. One was injured by mustard gas, which impacts the nerves, eyes, and lungs. Eye drop medications are not available because of the US sanctions; so this veteran uses onions to make himself cry tears to alleviate the symptoms. Listening to his persistent coughing, we felt ashamed that the US both provided Iraq with the ingredients needed for the chemical weapons and now punishes people further by sanctions that deny essential medicines.

At the Peace Museum, our delegation gave the museum books on war and peace activism. One gift was a beautiful, hand made book by Barbara Briggs-Letson of California that was written in memory of the 289 Iranians killed when a US missile shot down a commercial Iranian airliner in July 1988. The entire Peace Delegation signed the book and made statements of remorse. The book contained the names of every person killed written in Farsi as well as Iranian poetry. Fmr. President George H.W. Bush is infamous for saying, “I will never apologize for the United States — I don’t care what the facts are… I’m not an apologize-for-America kind of guy,” so our delegation apologized.

Led by Sandy Rea, we sang Dona nobis pacem (Latin for “Grant us peace”). This brought the room together sharing powerful emotions calling for peace, with tears and hugs between the Peace Delegation and the Iranians who run the Tehran Peace Museum.

The delegation next visited the largest cemetery in Tehran where tens of thousands of Iranians are buried. We visited a section of several thousand who were killed in the Iraq-Iran War, all known as martyrs. The graves contained headstones, many with etched photographs of the war dead and information about their lives. They also contained the wish or lesson they had for others noted in a small booklet the soldier created to be shared in the event of death. There was a section for the unknown soldiers killed in the war and one for civilian casualties –mostly innocent women and children killed in the war.

The cemetery was filled with people visiting gravesites of loved ones from the war. One woman approached the group to tell us that her only son died at twenty years of age in the war and she visits his grave every day. A guide who was traveling with us told us every family in Iran has been impacted by this war.

A highlight of the trip was an extraordinary meeting with Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who painstakingly negotiated the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated between China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States plus Germany and the European Union and Iran for more than a decade. He explained that negotiations began in 2005 and were completed and signed in 2015. Iran complied with all the requirements of the agreement, but the US did not lift sanctions, as promised, and exited the deal under President Trump.

Zarif, a long-time diplomat holding many important roles in Iranian affairs, was very generous with his time spending 90 minutes with us. He first asked us to speak about what questions we had, then spoke for 60 minutes and answered more questions.

Zarif explained the root cause of the problems between the United States and Iran. It is not about oil, Iran’s form of government or even about nuclear weapons, it is about Iran’s 1979 revolution which made the country independent of US empire after being under its control since the 1953 coup. Iran wants to be respected as a sovereign nation that decides its own domestic and foreign policy, not dominated by the United States. If the US can respect the sovereignty of Iran as a nation, then there will be peace between our nations. If the US insists on domination, the conflict will continue threatening the security of the region and undermining peace and prosperity for both nations.

It is up to us. Even though US “democracy” offers the people of the United States limited power, as we are forced to choose between two parties funded by Wall Street and both supporting a militarist foreign policy, we need to impact our government so it stops threatening nations, undermining their economies with illegal sanctions, and respects people of the world. Iran shows us the urgency of becoming a world beyond war.

By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers
March 8, 2019

Edwin Starr, in his 1970 hit single asked “War, what is it good for?” His catchy answer was “absolutely nothing!”

On the face of it Mr. Starr’s point seems obvious. But if so why has the United States engaged in seemingly endless war in places like Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan and Iraq, since Mr. Starr’s song hit the charts? Why are policy makers in Washington D.C. fomenting for more war in Venezuela and Iran? Apparently, war is good for something as the U.S. continues engaging it.

Perhaps our policy makers, being graduates of Ivy League schools, know something of war’s benefits of which mere commoners are unaware? Perhaps they believe endless war is a means to maintaining and sustaining the affluent lifestyle we enjoy in the Unites States?

One argument may be jobs. Isn’t it true the defense industry is a major source of jobs for Americans? After all, President Trump was willing to turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s murdering of journalist Jamal Khashoggi to keep an arms deal in place to “save American jobs.”

While it is true that companies like Raytheon, Boeing and Lockheed Martin make many billions of dollars manufacturing and selling their weapons to the Pentagon and countries like Saudi Arabia, profits are concentrated in the hands of the 1% — the CEOs and shareholders. War is “good” for them. Not so much for the rest of us. Certainly not for people on the receiving end of those weapons, like the war-torn victims of Yemen.

Professor Heidi Garrett-Peltier, in a 2017 study published by Brown University’s Watson Institute, found that “federal spending on domestic programs in health care, education, clean energy and infrastructure creates more jobs, dollar for dollar, than military spending.” The reality, as David Swanson of World Beyond War notes, is “spending those same dollars on peaceful industries, on education, on infrastructure, or even on tax cuts for working people would produce more jobs and in most cases better-paying jobs.”

So it turns out, while war may be “good for” CEOs and shareholders of war profiteering corporations, it’s not for the rest of us. Taxpayers would get a bigger bang for the buck if we funneled money away from the Department of Defense and instead poured that money into funding Medicare for all, free college education, repairing and replacing our nation’s crumbling infrastructure, and enacting a “Green New Deal.” It would produce more and better jobs. And best of all, no more bombs ripping through school buses in Yemen.

Okay, but surely Americans are wealthier and happier because of our bellicose belligerence, right? Surely we enjoy lower “prices at the pump” and have a greater sense of security because of our endless wars?

In a word, no.

The U.S. contains roughly 5% of the world’s population but consumes nearly 30% of the world’s natural resources. If the rest of the world consumed like us we’d need several more planets to sustain all that consumption.

Even with all this consumption, the United States did not make the top 10 list of the World Economic Forum’s “happiest countries in the world.” in 2018 (we were 18th). That honor went to Finland, followed closely by Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

Oddly, these countries aren’t making war on anyone at present. Perhaps the adage is true — “Anything war can do, peace can do better.”

The U.S. did lead the field in one area — anti-depressant use. Clearly endless war isn’t making us happier or more secure.

In fact, the imperialist policies of the United States make Americans less secure. It may seem strange but most people resent invading armies, drone strikes in the middle of the night, and covert CIA operations toppling their elected governments. That tends to make enemies, not friends.

Imagine the friends the United States would have the world over if we spent even a third of the trillion dollar (yes, with a “T”) defense related budget to provide medicine, food, shelter, roads, bridges, and education to countries we presently bomb or occupy with military bases? Rather than being viewed as the most threatening country to world peace, the United States would be the most loved.

Bloated “defense” budgets and endless war does not produce “good jobs,” does not make us wealthier or happier, and does not make us more secure.

So, back to Edwin Starr’s question — “War, what is it good for?”

He was right. “Absolutely nothing!”

R. Keith Brumley, March 10, 2019
Brumley is the State Secretary of the Wisconsin Green Party; is active with Veterans for Peace, Chapter 102 and is a member of the Peace Action Committee of the Green Party of the United States

Joint statement from the Baltimore County Green Party and the Maryland Green Party on Del. Lisanti

The Baltimore County chapter of the Green Party and the Maryland Green Party call for the resignation of Del. Mary Ann Lisanti following her use of racist language to describe Maryland residents.

It is simply unacceptable for a person who works on behalf of the citizens of Maryland to casually describe Marylanders with racist language the delegate used.

It is no coincidence that a person who would use such racist language would also put forth policy that would continue to disproportionately harm people of color. Specifically, the economic harm that she seeks to inflict would keep thousands of Maryland workers from earning anywhere near a living wage for years to come. Discriminatory, substandard wages that disproportionately impact people of color have never been acceptable, nor has the language and policy put forth by Lisanti.

Around the same time that the Washington Post was planning on revealing Delegate Lisanti’s racism she was suggesting amendments to the state’s $15/hr minimum wage legislation which would have exempted a majority of the workers making less than $15/hr. She has clearly demonstrated, through word and deed, that she cannot adequately serve the interest of her constituents, nor the residents of Maryland that would be impacted by her hateful political agenda.

While it is important to point out her policy positions, we make this call regardless of how she legislates. The language itself should be reason enough for Delegate Lisanti to resign, and as a value based party we would make the call even if she were fully in line with our policy. Nonetheless we think it is important to point out the way that words translate into work.

We acknowledge that Del. Lisanti is not alone in this, nor is she alone in unacceptable behavior that can and should merit resignation or expulsion. The Baltimore County and Maryland Green Party call upon all those who are aware of these behaviors to bring them out of the backrooms and smoke filled clubs of Annapolis and into the light of public scrutiny. We condemn the sexual abuse (i.e. Del. Curt Anderson who also should resign or be expelled), financial improprieties, and sexist, racist, and other demeaning language we know is often used in our state capitol. The policy that follows those heinous acts and language does real harm to real people.

While resignation is warranted in this situation, we ultimately believe that the people, not the Central Committee should have the ability to remove and replace legislators who defy the public trust.

We call on the Maryland General Assembly to allow for elected officials to be recalled, and to end the process of allowing the Central Committees of the same parties responsible for the culture of putting profit over people to simply appoint an unelected person to fill the vacant legislative seats. We call upon the MGA to initiate and pass legislation to require special elections to fill these vacant seats in a democratic process.

PA Governor Tom Wolf (Democrat) and PA Senator Mike Folmer (Republican) have announced proposals to reform Pennsylvania’s antiquated, expensive, and daunting election system. The Green Party of Pennsylvania (GPPA) reviewed these proposals and found that both include some excellent changes which would eliminate obstructions and make voting easier and more accessible. However, both proposals also have some concerning issues and are missing some key elements of a fair and inclusive system.

Jay Sweeney, auditor of Falls Township and GPPA delegate from Wyoming County, said, “The Wolf and Folmer proposals contain goals the Green Party can support, including making voting more fair, more secure, and easier. They also contain specific ideas the Green Party can support, such as Wolf’s independent redistricting, automatic and same-day voter registration, as well as Folmer’s early mail-in voting and no-excuse absentee ballots which both support.”

“Unfortunately, neither of these proposals includes recommendations which the Green Party deems essential to strengthen democracy,” explained Sheri Miller, co-chair of the PA Green Party. “While I applaud the efforts to improve our system, which is in much need of reform, the most concerning aspect of both proposals is what they are missing. Neither includes the comprehensive recommendations which the Green Party deems essential to strengthen democracy in our Commonwealth.”

The GPPA calls for the following:

Voter’s Choice Act. This would make elections fair by granting ‘third party’ and Independent candidates the same nomination signature requirement to gain ballot access as Democrats and Republicans. This would also make it easier for ‘third parties’ to be recognized by basing party status on lower registration requirements.

“I support the Voter’s Choice Act,” said Chris Robinson, a GPPA delegate from Philadelphia, “because it would open the door for qualified candidates who are Independents or from ‘third parties.’ In addition, the Voter’s Choice Act would give minor party status to any ‘third party’ with membership of 0.05 percent of all registered voters.”

Voter Verifiable Paper Ballots. Paper ballots are necessary for recounts as well as random audits. Voting systems must employ open source, not proprietary, software.

“They told my parents’ generation, ‘You can’t simply waltz in here and have a say, you gotta count how many jellybeans are in this jar, first,’” recalls Co-chair Alan Smith of GPPA. “The message to me today is, ‘You have to navigate a bunch of hurdles and election procedures in order to have a say.’ Voting should not be stifled. The current system is institutionalized voter suppression. The act of voting should not only be as easy as possible, but also should be voter verifiable.”

The GPPA Platform demands same-day voter registration, an election day holiday, and a voter-verified paper ballots for all voting machines. These changes are essential in order to increase participation and to guarantee the integrity and veracity of our elections.

Ranked-Choice Voting. Voting for candidates in order of preference assures a result that most people can support as well as eliminating the “spoiler” charge against “third parties” and Independents.

Garret Wassermann, vice-chair of the Green Party of Allegheny County, explained the proposal this way, “Voters should not feel pressured to choose a ‘lesser evil.’ Our antiquated electoral system should be replaced with ranked or score voting that encourages votes for consensus-building candidates and for the platform that best represents most voters, rather than pushing voices out of the debate with charges of ‘crowded primaries’ or ‘spoiler.’”

“During my 2018 campaign for U.S. Senate,” related Neal Gale, chair of Montgomery County Green Party, “I met countless voters across Pennsylvania who wanted to vote for me, based on my stand on many issues, but who told me they couldn’t do so for fear the Republican candidate would win. It is time to move to an electoral selection system that allows for ranking the voters’ choices for candidates. Ranked Choice Voting solves the problem of our citizens’ inability to vote for who they REALLY want to vote for, without fear that their vote will be wasted or will allow an unwanted candidate to be elected. It’s time!”

Public Financing of Elections. This would make elections truly a contest of ideas and eliminate negative, smear campaigns.

Beth Scroggin, chair of Chester County Green Party, remarked, “In our current system, the winner of the election is often the candidate who raised the most money. As a result, candidates feel pressure to accept corporate contributions. While they may initially claim that the corporate contributions will not influence the decisions they make in office, the candidates soon come to rely on corporate contributions for reelection, at which point they allow those corporate donors to have a hand in how they govern. With publicly-funded elections, elected officials will be free to serve the public.”

Emily Cook, a member of Montgomery County Green Party, said, “Small-donor matching is an innovative reform that uses public funds to amplify small private donations. PA would provide qualified candidates with $6 in public funds for every $1 raised from small donors. Other locations have used such a method of public funding of elections. It has diversified their donor pool, helped candidates of modest means run for office, and allowed elected officials to spend more time talking to their constituents instead of dialing for dollars.”

Open Primaries. The two corporate parties’ primary elections are paid for by all citizens of the Commonwealth, yet, many voters are shut out. Until such time as primary elections are open to all, they should be paid for by the Democratic and Republican Parties, not by the taxpayers of the Commonwealth.

“Today Independent and ‘third party’ voters make up 14 percent of the total,” explained Shane Rielly, a member of the GPPA steering committee from Lackawanna County, “but those taxpayers are shut out of the democratic process even as their tax dollars pay for the cost of primary elections. Allowing all the voters to have a voice in the political process is the decent, American thing to do. Preventing people in your neighborhood from making decisions about their elected leadership is simply wrong, and yet this happens year after year. As more Pennsylvanians leave the corporate-funded parties to register as Independent or ‘third party’ voters, this issue becomes especially relevant to our political climate.”

The Green Party of Pennsylvania supports all measures to insure free, fair, open elections and promote strong democracy. The Green Party is an independent political party that stands in opposition to the two corporate parties. GPPA candidates promote public policy based on the Green Party four pillars: grassroots democracy, nonviolence, ecological wisdom, and social justice/equal opportunity. For further information about GPPA, please visit www.gpofpa.org. Follow GPPA on social media: Facebook and Twitter.

Green Party of Pennsylvania
www.gpofpa.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 20, 2019

Contact:
Chris Robinson, 215–843–4256, chrisrecon@netzero.net

New York — Members of the Green Party of New York (GPNY) came out in full force to demand immediate and comprehensive action to address the planetary emergency of climate change at New York State Senate hearings held the week of February 10, 2019. Greens called for the elimination of new fossil fuel infrastructure, particularly the building of new gas pipelines and gas-fired power plants, and moving to a carbon-neutral, 100% clean, renewable energy economy by 2030. They emphasized the need for a just transition for workers and frontline communities most affected by climate change.

The hearings were convened by the Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation to discuss how to strengthen and improve the Climate and Community Protection Act (CCPA, A3871/S2292). But Greens were quick to point out the bill’s shortcomings and to go on record in support of the Off Fossil Fuels Act (A3565 OFF Act — A5105 / S5908) and the recently released Green New Deal for New York Act (A5334/S2878A). They called for a climate bill that incorporates the strongest and best provisions of all the climate bills that have been introduced, noting that climate legislation should be combined with economic justice legislation as part of a broader Green New Deal.

“The CCPA as it is written now has some good provisions but is essentially the re-packaging of climate policies over the past few years with too long a time frame, not enough detail and too little monitoring of targets and progress. A plan based on outdated targets will have New York standing still while extreme weather events and toxic emissions overtake us,” said GPNY co-chair Gloria Mattera. Mattera also called for stopping the proposed fracked gas Williams pipeline slated to run under the seabed floor just beyond New York Harbor.

“I also urge the legislature to combine climate legislation with economic justice legislation as part of a broader Green New Deal,” said 2018 GPNY gubernatorial candidate Howie Hawkins. Pointing to the recent congressional resolution for a Green New Deal announced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey, and the Green New Deal for New York Act announced by State Senator James Sanders and Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, Hawkins emphasized the linkage between climate safety and economic justice that Greens have long been advocating.

“Beyond the necessary provisions in a climate bill for environmental justice and a Just Transition for workers and communities most directly impacted by the energy transition, we need other legislation to secure the economic rights to employment, income, housing, health care, and education. These public guarantees will assure everyone that they will be economically secure as we convert to a 100% clean, renewable energy economy,” said Hawkins.

Speaking as chair of the Green Education and Legal Fund was Mark Dunlea, the GPNY comptroller candidate in 2018. “The United Nations recent IPCC report warned that the world has 12 years to take dramatic unprecedented action to avoid climate destruction,” said Dunlea. He called on the State Senate “to combine the best of the provisions of the NY OFF Act, the CCPA and the Governor’s proposal into the strongest climate legislation possible.”

Green Party leaders Jim Brown and Joseph Naham from Nassau County also testified at the hearings. To view the testimony of all Greens at the hearings, visit http://www.gpny.org/climate.

Green Party of New York
www.gpny.org/

For Immediate Release
February 20, 2019

Contact
Gloria Mattera chair@gpny.org
Peter LaVenia chair2@gpny.org

Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Green New Deal is not the eco-socialist approach the Green Party has had in mind in gubernatorial and presidential campaigns since 2010. The Greens’ version is an economic justice program like the original New Deal. It aims to revitalize the public sector in order to secure universal economic rights to a living-wage job, an adequate income, decent housing, comprehensive health care, and a good education. It includes public job and income guarantees, expanded public housing, improved Medicare for all, and free public education from pre-K through college. It’s a Green New Deal because it would also build a zero-carbon, 100 percent clean energy economy by 2030 to provide the economic stimulus and sustainable foundation for economic rights for all.

Cuomo’s Green New Deal is limited to energy policy. Its headline goal of 100 percent clean electricity by 2040 covers only 20 percent of New York’s carbon emissions. To eliminate the other 80 percent of emissions in the transportation, buildings, industrial, and agricultural sectors, Cuomo defers indefinitely to a study by the Climate Action Council he has had since he took office in 2011. Cuomo’s 2040 goal cannot even happen because he supports new fracked-gas power plants that will emit greenhouse gases well beyond 2040.

The Greens helped draft the New York Off Fossil Fuels Act, which was introduced in the state Legislature in 2017. It would halt new fossil fuel plants and achieve 100 percent clean energy by 2030. The Greens chose 2030 for clean energy in all sectors based on studies by climate scientists like NASA’s James Hansen who conclude that in order to avert dangerous climate change, carbon emissions must be zeroed out by 2030 in developed countries.

A 2009 study by Mark Jacobson and colleagues showed that with existing technologies, the whole world could be run on 100 percent clean energy by 2030. Jacobson and colleagues followed up with a 2013 study of New York showing that 100 percent clean energy by 2030 is not only feasible, it would create 4.5 million construction and manufacturing jobs during the build-out and cut electric rates in half.

Jacobson put the capital cost for a New York clean energy system at $460 billion. The $14 billion clean energy loan guarantee program in the 2009 Obama stimulus leveraged 47 times more in private investment. Using a conservative 10-to-1 leveraging ratio, a state investment of $46 billion would generate the $460 billion in private investment.

Another bill for a progressive state carbon tax would generate $7.1 billion a year, more than enough to invest $4.6 billion a year for $46 billion over 10 years. The carbon tax will enhance the leverage of public investments by creating predictable market prices for calculating break-even points for private clean energy investments. A state public bank could extend the credit for public and private clean energy investments at lower cost than borrowing through Wall Street, with the interest and principal returning to the state for public purposes.

The Greens also propose public ownership of electric generation and distribution utilities. By operating at cost for public benefit instead of at cost-plus-profits for absentee owners, a public energy system would make the clean energy transition at lower cost and enable effective planning without obstruction from the vested interests of the incumbent utility, fossil fuel, and nuclear industries.

These democratic socialist measures may seem radical, but they are not unprecedented. The War Production Board nationalized a quarter of U.S. manufacturing plants during World War II in order to turn industry on a dime into the “arsenal of democracy” that defeated the Nazis. We need nothing less now to defeat climate change.

Times Union
By Howie Hawkins
February 14, 2019

Howie Hawkins is a longtime Green Party leader, its candidate for U.S. Senate in 2006 and for governor since 2010.