There is more: I have received another call from the Elections
Department stating that the Director of the DOE is also reviewing the
ballot argument against Prop C, with the thought of sending it to the
City District Attorney. The rules quoted to me over the phone are:
1. We can eitheir strike the challenged text or substantiate it.
2. We cannot correct the text, or add new words. This can be done
only if we go to court and the court rules it is OK for us to correct.
Regarding the filing fee for this argument ($458, less $104.50 which
will be refunded to us for submission of signatures), I do not
believe we will get back, ("The Department willl not refund.....if
the argument is withdrawn after the deadline for submission.")
Jawj suggests an ExCom conference call to decide what to do. If that
call happens, I will vote to withdraw the argument, unless I get
input from this list sufficient to make me think the majority of
activists desire to wait and see what happens.
--- In email@example.com, "Acree, Michael" <acreem@o...>
I was planning to deposit tomorrow the $550 in checks received so
including Denny's; perhaps I'll wait till this gets sorted out.
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Mike Denny
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 3:25 PM
Subject: RE: [lpsf-activists] Ballot Argument Challenge / Update
Perhaps changing the text from "providing well-paid jobs for the
to "providing a bureaucratic path to inside jobs in government"
it or something like that.
As a donor, I trust you folks to work it out. If you decide to pull
that's OK....we can put the money in a war chest to fight another
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Amarcy D. Berry
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 2:23 PM
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Ballot Argument Challenge / Update
Thank you so much to Francoise for helping with the ballot argument
challenge. Thanks also to Starchild for telephoning and offering
help. Here is an update:
Jawj (who authored the argument) and I (who signed as submitter and
contact) visited the DOE this morning. My original idea was to
strike out the one sentence which I enterpreted bothered the
challenger. This morning the DOE handed me a letter stating that
challenger's objection now (?) included the second paragraph of the
argument also. The challenge now *seems* to be an attempt to get
argument withdrawn, not simply to correct one particular mis-
The DOE has no authority to change our argument, and has at this
no intention of seeking a court order to get us to change
The challenger can seek an injunction by noon Tuesday.
Jawj will not change her argument and stands by it. I would have
perfectly happy to overrule Jawj (since I am listed as the
had this still been the case of one misleading sentence. However,
I authorize the DOE to strike out all the wording that is now being
challenged, our argument would not make sense at all.
The challenger can probably name anybody he wishes if he goes to
court. However, if I am interpreting the California Election Code
(Section 9295) correctly, the party of interest is the author, in
case probably the LPSF.
I do not wish to withdraw the argument without input from the
donors, etc. So, if you are concerned about the challenger suing
SPEAK UP PRETTY FAST!!
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Francoise Fielding"
> I called the Ethics Commission (581-2300) and asked about
> Apparently the Commssioners do not get paid, though under certain
> circumstances (that the person I spoke to did not know) they may
> get health benefits.
> Charles Marsteller is a former head of Common Cause.
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: