The Green Party of California, and the Peace & Freedom Party, have agreed to a unified 2022 campaign for statewide offices. This means that the parties will support each other’s endorsed statewide candidates. The Peace & Freedom Party has endorsed Greens for three statewide offices, and the Green Party has endorsed PFP candidates for three other statewide offices.
The Green candidates are Gary Blenner for Secretary of State, Dan Kapelovitz for Attorney General, and Laura Wells for Controller.
The PFP candidates are John Parker for U.S. Senate, Meghann Adams for Treasurer, and Nathalie Hrizi for Insurance Commissioner.
Further meetings of the two parties will probably make endorsements for Governor and Lieutenant Governor.
It is extremely unlikely that any of these candidates will qualify for the November ballot, due to the top-two system.
The Green Party acted in its October 26 meeting, and PFP acted at its November 14-15 meeting. These endorsements have no effect on the appearance of the June 2022 primary ballot, but this cooperation enhances the chances that each party will poll at least 2% of the vote in the June primary, and thereby retain their ballot status (although each party now has enough registrations to retain qualified status, regardless of the vote totals). Of course, there is nothing stopping other members of those two parties from also running for the various statewide offices, but such other individuals would not have the endorsement of either party. Thanks to Kevin Akin for this news.
PR – partisan legis
AppV – nonpartisan execs/judics
Both pending Condorcet with AppV tiebreaker.
CA – 1 of the 18 States with voter pets for state const amdts.
They should just get married, already.
None of them will get many votes under Top Two Primary.
The California commie demon rats are so far left there’s really not much space left for these extreme ultra far left freaks.
Top elites of small parties making their oligarch deals
— just like the D/R oligarchs (mainly internally — but jointly to crush third parties and independents ???
Duh.
They are both c0mmunist so it makes sense.
You would think these WASTE OF BALLOT SPACE of “third parties” would put their efforts into GETTING RID OF the “top two” system that prevents any of their candidates from advancing past the primary elections! That, and advancing the “Instant Runoff Voting/Ranked-Choice Voting” option!
Someday, when they start using LOGIC, one of them MIGHT get elected to an ACTUAL PARTISAN OFFICE IN CA!
Top Two is good. Top One (Trump) is better.
Top Two is BAD and a secretive Cabal of Greens and PFP “leaders” screwed up the RUBIN v. PADILLA lawsuit by filing it in Alameda County Superior Court and taking it all the way to the United States Supreme Court where they lost again.
This final decision by the United States Supreme Court doomed these Know Nothing plaintiffs who in their arrogance and ignorance should never have brought the suit in a California Superior Court, let alone in a county like Alameda which is so dominated by Democratic politicians that RUBIN was doomed the moment it was filed.
Another critical mistake was the choice of some of the plaintiff’s who had lackluster or worse backgrounds as to their party affiliation and their personal histories. There were plenty of candidates from either of two parties who had actually effected the outcome of certain partisan elections, yet these office seekers were not considered to be included or given preference over the vary weak pre-selected slate.
Lastly, the RUBIN case ought to have been filed in a United State District Court which would have followed precedence in federal case law ,insuring at least a chance at victory over Top Two.
try to contact michael finstine the former mayor of santa monica he was a green party guy who is against the 2party deal.
Dim oh craps and leftists admit it – they are all about the J.O. 👌🍆
… B.S.🐂 💩
Lock em all up
More 3rd parties need to start working together like the green and peace and freedom party. They may start winning more elections.
These endorsements bring an additional benefit to the candidates. Each candidate will be listed in the sample ballot material sent to each voter by each county as being endorsed by the Peace and Freedom Party, and being endorsed by the Green Party. This is one of the few ways to reach all 20 million California voters with such information. It is also expected that each candidate will include membership in the Left Unity Slate in statements in the statewide ballot pamphlet.
And then they still wouldn’t win jack shit. Speaking of not winning jack shit, beta male O’Rourke has announced he’s running for governor.
Left Unity Slate? LUSers?
I am so happy to see so many positive messages about defeating Top Two and supporting smaller, non-corporate parties. But, even at the risk of bringing negativity to such a positive announcement, I feel a responsibility to offer a correction to this post.
Green Party of California (GPCA) did not vote to endorse or support a “Left Unity Slate.” Though it’s true that GPCA did “endorse” all the candidates mentioned, we did not hold a vote for “a slate.” The GPCA delegation was called for a very early vote, before campaigns started, and before nearly any of the now-endorsed candidates had even filed any paperwork to run. It is believed by some that the vote was intentionally held early, in order to lock in endorsements before any other candidates could compete for the Green Party endorsement.
This post states that GPCA had acted on this at an October 26th meeting, and this is completely false. The only relevant decision made in this General Assembly meeting was to endorse a GP candidate for Governor, Luis Rodriguez.
In December of 2020, a group of two individuals formed a subcommittee, against Green Party rules, and they are the ones who arranged meetings with Peace and Freedom Party (PFP) members. It was these two Greens who, under no legitimate authority, entered into an agreement to arrange this slate. The GPCA delegation did not consent to this by vote, and the state Coordinating Committee has no authority to make such a policy or decision.
The “Green Party” did not agree to a unified campaign. GPCA delegates voted on individual endorsements of candidates- and only the “Left Unity” candidates were listed on our ballots. The presenter of the proposals for endorsements refused to acknowledge the two Greens who were running for two seats in which our only choices were the PFP candidates presented. And though the concept of “Left Unity” was mentioned in the introduction to proposals, it is only ever the text of a proposal which is voted on. No mention of the slate was included in the text of the proposals.
As a delegate, I spoke up on this, and asked for amendments to include the Greens who were also running, so that the party may choose between the two for each of the seats in question. My requests were ignored, and during the discussion period, I was moderated and banned from the discussion list for one year, without warning. I have been serving our county Greens as a delegate for almost six years.
To be clear, neither I, nor anyone else in Green Party who is concerned about this, blames Peace and Freedom for this, in any way. I am also not a judge of which candidates are “better,” and truthfully, I like them all. I led votes this term for our county to endorse three PFP’s, and one NPP who was endorsed and recommended by them. I have voted to endorse PFP’s in the past, as well. My primary responsibility, though, is to promote Green Party, its values, and its candidates. I do not support endorsing another party’s candidate when one of our own is running for the same seat.
I had emailed Kevin Akin about my concerns on November 2, 2021, thirteen days before the publishing of this post, and my impression has been that the Greens who worked on the slate with PFP may have already preemptively come up with justification for what I had complained about almost two months prior, during the voting period. The following quote in this post even seems like a direct response to my concern- “…there is nothing stopping other members of those two parties from also running for the various statewide offices, but such other individuals would not have the endorsement of either party.”
There is nothing stopping the two aforementioned Greens from running for these seats, but there certainly was something, or someone, stopping them from getting their party’s endorsement.
Of course, we have no say in who decides to register and run under the Green Party name, but we can endorse one candidate for a single seat where multiple Green candidates are running. It can be the case, sometimes, where some not-really-green Greens run, and our best defense against this is to endorse the “real” Green, so that voters can distinguish who we do and do not support. In this upcoming election, the impression will likely be that the Greens not endorsed for two seats where we endorsed PFP’s, are in that category of whacky random people who happened to register and run Green. This is not the case, though. Both candidates who were shutout from endorsements are exceptional Greens who have both been registered with the party for many years- Henk has been registered Green since 1991!
Party rules state that we may only endorse another party’s candidates when no Greens are running for the same seat.
Please read my post regarding this situation (link below), where I have embedded links to documents and other sources which lay out the whole progression. I want to close in saying that my big concern is with GPCA “leadership,” not Peace and Freedom. I appreciate the close relationship our county Greens have with our PFP locals, who consistently include us in important events, and always show up to collaborate on co-sponsoring candidates and legislative positions, and have even mentored me through the years as I learn the ropes with county central committee work! I don’t want this to read as a bashing of them or their work- it is a criticism of my own party’s leadership. In this post from our website, I include links to contact us, and I encourage Greens to do so, because, as I mention in it, I feel the solution to our problems is to have much broader and diverse party participation than what we currently have, so that there may be a chance for accountability. https://greenpartysacramento.org/updates/f/gp-sacramento-does-not-support-the-left-unity-slate
Thank you,
Nicole Castor
Co-Coordinator, County Council of the Green Party of Sacramento County
Delegate, Green Party of California General Assembly (Sacramento County)
Member, Green Party of California Coordinating Committee
Go away communist.