CALL FOR A VOTE: Amendment to membership eligibility

[Annabelle Backman]

Hello Bylaws Committee members,

In order to close on the membership eligibility issue, I am putting three options up for a vote. Unlike the previous votes, this will be a ranked choice vote. Each member of the committee should reply with the three options listed in order from most preferred to least preferred.

The options up for a vote are:

A - Require US Citizenship or Permanent Residence

Amend 2.1(a) to read "is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident aged 16 years old or older" and insert at the beginning of 2.2(b) "is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident; and (c)".

Pros/Cons: This probably opens up membership as much as we legally can (FEC seems to say that), but it's new ground and none of us are lawyers, so we could be wrong.

B - Revert the Change

Revert the changes made to 2.1(a) and 2.2(b) in the committee's recommendation.

Argument: This is "safe" in that it puts us back where we were, but it doesn't open up membership at all, and 2.2 actually allows for foreign nationals to become non-voting members.

C - Stick with Current Recommendation

Make no changes to the bylaws beyond what is in the current recommendation.

Argument: This opens up the membership, and foreign nationals are prohibited from joining because we can't accept their membership dues. However, it would be easy for someone to make a mistake and not enforce that restriction.

Remember, this is a Ranked Choice Vote. I will hold the vote open until 5:00 PM Monday, February 18th, 2019.

–

Annabelle Backman

Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats

https://www.43rddemocrats.org/

[Tara Gallagher]

Assuming “revert the changes” means keeping the existing bylaws requirement of being a registered voter to be a voting member

B

B again

A

I understand that this is not how ranked choice works, but can’t accept C at all.

Tara

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "43rd District Democrats Rules and Bylaws Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 43rd-bylaws...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 43rd-...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CABRLSOu6pwCoxauyG74mVR8_6p_YOSw1cfiygWr2Og%3D%2BjJ3CCg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Scott Alspach]

I'm for:
A
B

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/54E8CF9A-704D-45C6-9085-01C9D7769549%40tara-jamie.net.

[Angyl]

B

(but patch 2.2 to FEC compliance because that’s a pretty big deal actually and should be solidly in Bylaws)

If y’all who would be the ones getting sued feel comfortable with the unknown risk under the current Morgan adversarial environment, I’ll support A. But that support would upgrade to enthusiastic consent if you check with some more lawyers/experts to get clear on a lack of risk and bring that next month or later. I’m still not convinced this needs to be rushed.

Hard No on C.

- Angyl

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

[Bradley Bell]

A

C

B

I am confused and a little frustrated about the continuing pushback on this. 

If we based every rule on “unknown risk” there would be no point in even trying. Do we have to specifically ban someone donating stolen money? How about blackmail? Do we check ID before voting on resolutions now?

The intent of our recommendation was clear. B completely violates that intent for no real reason. 

-Brad

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/k3v9x5UvoEZO99llVodiFqyOaz3TQ4S26txsfoopaI5BQtMBS8zU4XB7Vi3ftOjajhwvkNuMc1MC7XNsY6viZ2LydRVWTe5ckTj1g0RQiWc%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Angyl]

The org has ceased to be a PAC, given $10K away, and is to the most recent I’ve heard (August 2018) still in court with Glen Morgan right now. This is the same Glen Morgna who tested closed PACs by attempting to make donations to them, and added that to his case where it was successful.

So yeah, I really firmly think “unknown legal risk” is an extremely important thing to be concerned about right now.

- Angyl

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

[James Williams]

B

A

- James

[Amy Madden]

A

C
No on B, but I'm drafting an email asking for feedback from David McDonald (DNC Rules Committee and parliamentarian), Julie Anne Kempf (Chair of the 46th and parliamentarian), and Martin Chaney (Chair of the 5th), and hope to get a response asap.

There has been mention in a few places that this change in eligibility would be "hypothetical" or "symbolic." I want to restate that I have politically active people in my precinct who are green card holders or who have not yet had their rights restored after a felony conviction. My mother is a green card holder who will not be becoming a U.S. citizen; it's not an easy process for many people. Also, I'd like us to keep in mind that miscarriage of justice (e.g. wrongful felony convictions or stripping of voting rights) in our country disproportionately impacts people of color.

I have one neighbor in particular I'm thinking of as I advocate for this change in our bylaws. I talked with him last summer about Democracy Vouchers, and he told me he was excited about finally having a way to participate in the political process, since he can't vote. I'd really like to be able to invite people like him to become members of our org.

I would support using the exact language of the Democracy Voucher program. Part of the criteria for eligibility includes that people be "...either a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, or lawful permanent resident ("green card holder")."

Suggested language for the full section:

“Member” means and includes any individual who is (a) a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, or lawful permanent resident ("green card holder"); (b) at the age of 16 or above; (c) resides within the 43rd Legislative District; (d) declares themselves to be a Democrat; and (e) has paid applicable dues or is a PCO or is a Precinct Coordinator.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CAPBWWq%2Brjv3RhDyDEnAyiroAhbMZX5irptLr_ocGPtT%3Dx_AVkQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Annabelle Backman]

I vote: A, B, C.

–

Annabelle Backman

Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats

https://www.43rddemocrats.org/

[Tara Gallagher]

My pushback is based on the idea that a political party organization can reasonably limit voting membership to registered or pre-registered voters (we could change the 16-17 language to that). There are LPOs that limit voting membership to PCOs, the 43rd is far more open than that.

And yes, the more open we make voting membership, the more risks. 

As for basing every rule on risk:

We can have bare minimum legal-requirement bylaws—list of officers, voting membership, quorum, minimal number of meetings, the end OR we can have bylaws outlining functions in more detail, and pretty much the main reason to have those, and the main impetus behind most amendments of the bylaws, is identifying and addressing potential problems and risks.

Tara

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/96ECB7AD-F9C6-4F99-9410-7CF6CBFAB276%40gmail.com.

[Brad Bell]

I understand that we may decide to limit membership to the nth degree if we want, but I didn't think that was our goal. For instance nobody has asked to remove the exception for 16-year olds, yet the "risk" that entails is absolutely identical to the "risk" of allowing other non-registered citizens and permanent residents. Changing it to anyone who will be registered in two years is a slight improvement (still the same risk) - but two years is not anywhere close to long enough for most people on probation or for permanent residents applying for citizenship (the application alone takes two years to process)

I've also read up more on the foreign national ban, and it seems to me that despite some of the more vague language in the summary, it in reality only applies to the activity we haven't traditionally engaged in, and can not engage in, in Washington, without a PAC that reports to PDC. If we did restart a PAC, I agree with the sentiment that it should be a separate entity anyway:

[https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/] 

In a decision that was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the foreign national ban “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting process—providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.” Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 290 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d 132 S. Ct. 1087 (2012).

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/6D47B26B-FD38-47D6-9B89-159937563878%40tara-jamie.net.

[Annabelle Backman]

“...providing money for a candidate or political party...”

From your FEC quote (bolding mine). I am pretty confident we fall under the definitions of “political party” or “political party committee” even if we do not have a PAC.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CACOE%2BxZmwPQ6Dy%2B%3DnK8KmoO0eXpWx9xpg2ULB0xH0tCRePVAeg%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[Bradley Bell]

 I was reading that as “parties who spend money on these election activities, but I think that you are probably right after all. 

-Brad

[Annabelle Backman]

A is adopted with four 1st place votes.

[Brad Bell]

Hi everyone,

Thank you all so much for helping us get so much done on this. You all had great ideas and valid concerns. I want to apologize for getting a little too fiery the other day. I think the exhaustion got to me and I vented in a way I shouldn't have, and I'd like to take more care with that in the future.

Brad