Are the MassDems trying to fix up Gabrieli’s spot at the Convention? Mass Marrier has the scoop. According to Sec. of State Candidate John Bonifaz, the party is trying to bend the rules by trying to include unelected delegates in a potential Gab500:
“I have no issue if people want to play by the rules. Party rules allow for a previously undeclared candidateâs name to be placed before the convention for statewide office provided that a petition for such purpose is signed by at least 500 of the âelected convention delegates.â But, here, we have party insiders trying to subvert the process just after the completion of the statewide caucuses. This kind of action should be opposed by anyone who believes in fairness and transparency in our primary election process.
“Last night, members of the Democratic State Committee supporting this move tried to mask it as merely an âopinionâ interpreting the existing rule. That dog wonât hunt. The phrase, âelected convention delegates,â by the literal meaning of those words, refers only to those delegates elected to the state partyâs convention at the caucuses. It does not refer to ex-officio members, such as members of the Democratic State Committee, who are non-elected designated delegates. I urge the Democratic Partyâs rules committee to come clean and reverse this action. The integrity of our election process must be protected.”
Is this for real? MM can’t find any backup, and I can’t even find Bonifaz’s original press release.
UPDATE: OK, just got the press release; it’s real.
Anyone want to cite chapter and verse here?
The party decided that ‘elected convention delegates’ means anyone who goes to the convention by virtue of winning an election. That includes elected officials, and elected DSC members, along with those elected at the caucuses.
Wayne Woodlief wrote this today:
I am telling you. Insiders are not going to allow Patrick to win.
<
p>
It is a club and only one of them will be allowed to win.
<
p>
It is sad.
So Gabrieli can go 0-3 ?
<
p>
This Deval supporter will NEVER EVER again have anything to do with Gabrieli again after this attempt by him to have the rules “bent” to get his name on the ballot.
<
p>
It’s a waste of time and money on his part. And it says to the rest of the electorate that the DEMS are disorganized
<
p>
Call an end to this now Chris.
<
p>
You may be liked by a lot of Dems today – but pretty soon a LOT of grassroots DEMS are going to be mighty ticked at you. MIGHTY MIGHTY ticked.
forgot to mention as well that all this does is further cement the idea in voters heads that Gabrielli is NOT an independent voice/person and will be beholdin’ to ALL the kingmakers on Beacon Hill – which in turn will drive a LOT of Independents into the arms of Healey or Mihos…
<
p>
Gabrielli should never have toyed with Reilly in the first place. He should have run for Gov if that’s what he wanted.
If this is true, this is hardly befitting someone who said specifically (2/6 interview) that a “debilitating primary” would be the worst possible thing to happen to the Democratic Party in the 2006 Governor’s race. Gabrieli needs to do the honorable thing and put a stop to this nonsense immediately. If this isn’t “debilitating” I don’t know what is.
<
p>
Are we trying to hand the Governor’s office to the Republicans on a silver platter?
The vote last night on the additional delegates was one that probably needed more discussion and consideration among the members at large than they got last night. I voted “no” in the voice vote for that reason. It was also unclear as to where the various camps are on this — would Reilly have more of a problem with this than Patrick? Unclear and unexpressed. (Patrick buttons and stickers far outnumbered Reilly shows of support last night, BTW)
<
p>
While the other delegates certainly expand the universe, are they really a treasure trove for Chris G? Are we talking about the elected officials, many of whom support the AG? State Committee members? Add ons? (who may favor DP). If we were talking about a Tom Birmingham type four years ago, who could get senators, labor, some progressive, etc, that would make the numbers work. Gabrieli comes from a different angle, w/o constituency groups flocking to his banner, so it will be harder for him to pick up support in bulk, but rather one by one.
Phil Johnston does not want to annoy Chris. Chris is one of the dems largest contributors. Johnston has guaranteed the signatures with his typical, in-side baseball ruling.
<
p>
More insider power plays…let the old boy network have Chris in the wings for the next Reilly-ruption!
I was at the state committee meeting last night when James Roosevelt (party legal counsel/parliamentarian) explained the discussion that the rules committee had over the language.
<
p>
Part of the discussion related to the history of changes that had been made to the language. Roosevelt explained those changes and that seemed to satisfy the members of the state committee (who, you must remember, are a mostly pro-Patrick group). As town chairs, ward chairs, and state committee members are all elected, they qualify under this provision. It’s not clear whether this provision has ever been used before, so there’s not a lot of precedent here.
<
p>
Basically, John Bonifaz doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and the rules were never changed.
<
p>
Opinion seemed to be split as far as what the Gabrieli campaign would mean. Many people signed the Gabrieli papers.
<
p>
John Bonifaz may be just a little upset, as he had his hat handed to him by Secretary of the Commonwealth Bill Galvin. As both candidates for Secretary were invited to speak, Bonifaz got up and blasted Galvin for not doing his job, and Galvin got up and refuted point-by-point, showing up Bonifaz as someone who didn’t do his homework. I’ve never been fond of Galvin, but he was impressive last night.
I never saw the Gabrieli papers, but I’m sure PatrickA is correct when he says they were there. Attendance was not at its peak last night, partially due to the fact that the printed agenda contained mainly committee reports.
<
p>
I do agree that Bill Galvin was at the top of his game last night. Very tough presentation and very tough to beat.
I am not sure what points you think Secretary Galvin refuted.
<
p>
In my remarks last night, I talked about the fight to defend the Massachusetts Clean Elections Law, a fight that I led in the state courts on behalf of a broad coalition of voters, candidates, and public interest organizations. The Massachusetts Clean Elections Law, as we know, was passed by 67% of the voters via the ballot initiative process and aimed to overhaul our state’s campaign finance system, ending the dominance of big money in our elections and opening up the electoral process to candidates and voters lacking access to wealth. We won a major state supreme court ruling. Entrenched power on Beacon Hill, threatened by the public financing law and the new competition it would bring, refused to comply with the court’s ruling. Where was Secretary Galvin, the state’s chief elections officer, during this constitutional crisis? He did not say anything on this last night.
<
p>
I also talked about ongoing investigations that the Bush Justice Department is conducting with respect to voting rights issues in four cities in Massachusetts (Boston, Lawrence, Springfield, and Lowell). I am no fan of the Bush Justice Department. (I faced it directly when I sued the president on the eve of the Iraq war on behalf of soldiers, parents of soldiers, and Members of Congress, led by Congressman John Conyers, Jr.) I think the Bush Justice Department should have been in Ohio and it should have been in Florida. But the fact remains that the Bush Justice Department successfully sued the City of Boston last year over the city’s violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, for not providing the required language assistance to language minorities. Why did it take the Bush Justice Department to force the City of Boston’s compliance with the Voting Rights Act? Secretary Galvin did not answer that question last night. Nor did he answer why the Bush Justice Department is investigating potential voting rights violations in three other Massachusetts cities.
<
p>
And I talked about my support for the Massachusetts Town Clerks Association’s legislation to create an Elections Task Force to study the potential implementation of Election Day Registration in Massachusetts, a model reform already in place in six states, including neighboring New Hampshire. Secretary Galvin has said Election Day Registration needs to be studied. If he believes that, why will he not publicly support the Massachusetts Town Clerks Association’s bill and press for its passage?
<
p>
Massachusetts deserves a Secretary of State who will be a pro-active leader in fighting to protect the right to vote for all of our citizens and in creating a model for free and fair elections for the country. As the founder of the National Voting Rights Institute, I have worked for the past dozen years in key voting rights battles across the nation. If you want someone who will protect the status quo, there is a 12-year incumbent who seeks your vote for four more years. But if you want someone who will fight to return voters to power and to open up the political process, then I am your candidate.
<
p>
http://www.johnbonifaz.com
Bonifaz, if you want to talk about ballot questions how about Question 3 in 2002? The voters of this Commonwealth by an overwhelming margin of 70%– expressed their opinion that their tax dollars should not be spent to fund political campaigns. I’ve seen you on the stump- and I find your ill-informed attacks on Bill Galvin to be childish and offensive, but it’s your right to be a boor, and I don’t have to vote for you. But there’s no way that my tax money should be spent so that fringe candidates like yourself can indulge their electoral fantasies. If you want to tilt at windmills, spend your own money- leave me out of it!
Let’s see. There’s a Democratic candidate who has been running for Governor for about a year. He’s built the most enthusiatic and committed grassroots organization in the state since Dukakis. He’s outraised the two-term AG in each of the last four or five months. He’s gone from 40 points down in the polls to neck-and-neck with that AG in the last few months. Oh yeah — he’s African-American and has a life story that is the embodiment of the American dream. He’s a talented speaker and campaigner. And he appears to both hold progressive values and have enough appreciation for business and markets not to come across as outside the mainstream.
<
p>
Meanwhile, Gabrielli has been offering himself to Massachusetts for about a decade now. And first a CD and then the whole state said “No thanks.” (To be fair, the second time the rejection was much more of O’Brien than of Gabrielli.) But he doesn’t exactly, as they say, light up a room. So what’s the rationale for this candidacy other than the personal ambition of a rich guy? What are the big issue differences between him and Patrick that could underpin a candidacy? Is he less pro gay rights than Patrick? (Hope not.) Less pro choice? (I don’t think so.) Is he going to promise to roll back the income tax the way the AG has? (Swell.)
<
p>
Seriosly, what is the rationale for this late entry candidate? Other than rats swimming away from the good ship Reilly, who out there is excited about the prospect of Chris Gabrielli being the nominee? Are we already seeing the “Stop Patrick” candidacy? Or is this the “Screw You, Tom” candidacy? Or is Gabrielli just our Corzine?
<
p>
It’s too bad, because by all accounts, Gabrieli is a smart person who wants to Democratic Party to grow and be strong in the future. Unfortunately, he seems to pissing the goodwill that many Democrats, including myself, have for him, by bypassing the caucus process and assuming that the state party somehow needs him as a savior.
Who knows what Gabrieli’s motivation is — anger at Reilly, a belief that both candidates can’t take on Healey, who knows? The problem is that whatever his rationale, entering the race at so late a date smacks of arrogance and it will be difficult to overcome the annoyance felt in both the Reilly and Patrick camps over this.