On August 25, the Socialist Party of Michigan asked for reconsideration in its ballot access lawsuit, Socialist Party of Michigan v Land, in Ingham County Circuit Court. On August 18, the judge had ruled that the party had filed the case too late. The brief for reconsideration points out that Michigan can’t start printing its November ballot yet anyway, because the lawsuit over whether the Tea Party should be on the ballot is still unresolved.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
The Great Lakes Super-state Parliament Circuit #7
Indiana, Michigan and Ohio
http://www.usparliament.org/ss7.htm
Dave Thayer [United Society of All], Ashley Buck [Independent], Eric Smith [Republican], Joel Harris [Independent], Jeff Herman [Third], Mable Kovach [Democratic], Marie Phillips [Democratic], Dennis Davidsmeyer [Democratic], Michael A. Cluley [America First], Austin Post [Independent], Mark Steele [Discordian], Gigglebear [Pot], Dan Calson [American Pot], Aleah Smith [Pot], Nick Watson [Pot], Paula Leikari [Democratic], Patricia Grimmett [Independent], Paul Marcel-Rene’ [LDS], Ed Blythsly [Pot], James Tipton [Pot], Cody Allen Jenkins [Pot], Katherine Nivens [Republican], Cody Priest [Pot], Pamela Brett Albers [Republican], Nate Wien [Pot], Luke Pfister [Pot], Joyousone [Democratic], Shawn Brown [Pot], Arthur Miller [No Illegal Alien], Roberta Gottlebe [No Illegal Alien], Anonymous [Republican], Michal McKay [Pot], Erica Wells [Pot], Jeremiah Freedom [Michigan Top Rep.], Casper Leitch [Independent], Michael Davis [Communist]
“Peter M.” wrote on a previous page:
Peter M. Says:
August 29th, 2010 at 11:18 am
@ Phil Sawyer #5:
Well, there is a bit of history behind PFP and SP-USA merger relations. Back at the 2007 national convention, a resolution to open discussions with the PFP with aims of a merger in mind was brought (I believe by the SPMI.) I personally supported it, but because of having to deal with more immediate issues, it didn’t get to the floor. In principle, I still support closer cooperation between the SP-USA and the PFP, but there are some issues that I think would make a full merger difficult. Primary among them is the PSL comrades who are also PFP members. As the SP’s bylaws currently stands, it bars dual membership with groups that claim to practise “democratic centralism,” which would mean that if the PFP merged with the SP, PSL members could not be part of the new organisation unless that bylaw was overridden. Personally, I think the rule barring dual membership in “democratic centralist” organisations is a fairly silly blanket ban to have (though I can understand a need for prohibiting dual membership in specific organisations,) but as of yet the votes haven’t been there to change the rule, and just going around ignoring rules that we don’t like is not a recipe for a healthy organisation.
The issue with dual membership in DSA has been simmering for a long time, and the issue here seems primarily political. From the perspective of the people who argue for prohibiting dual membership between the SP and DSA, DSA’s political strategy routinely involves support for Democratic Party candidates in elections, whereas the SP-USA takes a strong stand for political action independent of the Democratic Party. The question follows to dual DSA/SP-USA members: if you support working within the Democratic Party, you cannot be a member of the SP; if you support independent political action, why are you a member of DSA? Personally, I think it is a little more complicated than this- and considering DSA doesn’t “officially” rule out independent political action gives some people an argument for wiggle room, despite that DSA’s practise is almost always to support Democrats- but it is a fairly legitimate question to raise, in my opinion. As to dual membership in general, it’s intertwined a bit with merging with the PFP (as I mentioned earlier).
I do admit I don’t know what you mean about not recognising locals or state parties in some areas. I suppose it might be the case that there are areas where people do meet as a “local of the Socialist Party USA,” engage in organised activity, and have all the structure of a local. Nevertheless, to be a recongised SP-USA local, it needs to fill out some minimal paperwork and send it into the national office (as per Article IV of the SP’s constitution: http://socialistparty-usa.org/constitution.html ). If that doesn’t happen, then there’s very little way of knowing that the local actually exists. If there are cases where the requirements have been completed and sent in, but the local still isn’t recognised, I do grant that is a problem, but I can’t think of any time that’s happened during my tenure as a member (since April 2005.)
Hopefully this clears up some things, or at least is base for further discussion.
Phil Sawyer responds:
Well, due to time constraints (related to work, mostly), I am afraid that I have gotten over my head in this. I appreciate your comments and they point out how complex all of this stuff really is. I am going to take on just one part of it this evening: the attitude of the Old Guard Leaders of PFP-CA. It is common to hear from some of these leaders that the Peace and Freedom Party strives to be a broad-based coalition type of party. On the other hand, though, they have (and complain about having to have done so) spent enormous amounts of energy and time fighting off take-over attempts by the little left parties that they allow to participate in the process. The can not have it both ways! That contradiction has made for a very dysfunctional Party, in my humble opinion. (In my revisionist manner, I have often mentioned that a couple of takeovers or so would probably have done some actual good for the Party.)
You mentioned the PSL and that, indeed, would be a problem right now with a merger of SPUSA and PFP-CA. The fascinating thing, though, is that before the involvement of PSL, there have been so many other little parties in play: NAP, DWP, CPUSA, SPUSA (which is still active in the process, I think), WWP (of which PSL used to be a part), and IWP – to name some. The drama never ceases.
It is hard to say what is going to happen now. I am just trying to keep faith to all of the confusion by trying to shed a little light on things.
Pingback: Socialist Party of Michigan Asks for Reconsideration in Ballot Access Case | Daily Libertarian
Hi “Peter M.”:
Regarding the ban on dual DSA/SPUSA memberships, I think that it needs to be tossed out. The two organizations need to initiate merger discussions and it would to help to facilitate that by getting rid of the ban. After my thirty-six years of involvement in independent and/or “third party” politics (but currently registered Democratic), it is not clear to me that either group’s main approach is necessarily the correct one. Due to this serious question that we all face, I think that an “inside/outside” approach makes the most sense right now and that the groups should proceed with caution about this situation. I think that there should be room for compromise. Since I am not a member of either organization right now, I guess that the weight of my opinion should be somewhat limited.
There is one minor correction that I need to make to my comments above (#3). I did send in an application for readmission (with a check) to DSA in December of last year. I never heard back from the organization and the check was never cashed. It seems probable to me that the letter was lost somewhere in the postal system along with a payment to one of my creditors (not cashed yet either). So, I guess that I am an “unofficial” member of DSA through the end of this year.