Were they cleaning the town clerkâs office in Jamaica Plain and surprise, found Bonifazâs card behind a filing cabinet? Was it misplaced in the âGsâ near Galvin? Did it slip out of an old book of poetry? Ms. Estes, the real story here is not that the card âturned upâ it is HOW the card came to light. Things like voter registration cards do not âturn upâ unless they are actively looked for. Ms. Estes, you need to find the election official or town clerk who gave a Galvin friend access.
Oh and if Bonifaz has a Green party past, how should this matter? Are we not allowed to change party affiliation? I suppose Lincoln should have run as a Whig instead of a Republican.
More importantly, how desperate is Galvin? So desperate that he has to continue to harp on Bonifazâs party history instead of running on his own record. Galvin has been in office long enough to do some good, talk about that. Then tell us how you are going to protect elections in Massachusetts. No, it appears Galvin would rather play the Republican game of whisper and destroy.
Mr. Galvin, you should have won 90-100% of the delegates. Instead, you received 59.7%. You can view the cup as 2/3rds full, but nearly one third of your own party wants to see something different from the office of the Secretary.
Mark Durrenberger
Tagged: Secretary of the Commonwealth, Massachusetts, Bonifaz, Galvin, Voter Rightsâ
the fact that Bonifaz got 29.3% of the delegates, while an impressive achievement, does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that 29.3% of the party is behind him. Let’s try to keep that in mind.
<
p>
As for why a Green Party past would matter, part of what’s at stake in any election is the candidate’s judgment. And not to dredge up this godawful topic again, but Nader’s judgment went out the window in 2000, to be replaced by his ego – and we all know what happened.
but we cannot blame Bonifaz for Nader’s idocy…
<
p>
Hey I was a republican once. WOuld you rather have me as a dem or go back to the dark side?
I see no reason why the 29.3% that voted Bonifaz at the Convention wouldn’t be considered behind him. A vote’s a vote.
you miss my point. I have no doubt that the 29.3% of the delegates who voted for Bonifaz at the convention will probably vote for him in September. What I’m saying is that the delegates are not an accurate cross-section of the likely voters in September, and so are not predictive of how he will do.
Many people in my section voted for Bonifaz just to get him on the ballot. Of the three delegates from my delegation who voted for him at the convention, two will be voting for Galvin in the primary, and the third is wavering.
<
p>
The principle of letting the voters decide was alive at the convention, despite some campaigns’ determination to kill it. Frankly, I don’t see how Gabs got on the ballot without some people who won’t be voting for him in Sept.
but what should matter is why John Bonifaz has chosen to lie about it if in fact he was active in the Green Party. Why not just admit it? His extensive 3rd party experience tends to lead to the conclusion he was active in the Green Party.
unless he’s publicly stated that he’s never been a member of the Green Party. I’m pretty sure he’s been making that point clear.
<
p>
Anybody got a statement or a source?
at the discussion about the “green” thing and the lack of inquiry into the “discovered” voter card and the way it was presented in the globe “turns up”
<
p>
Imagine you are a reporter for the globe, someone calls and says “this card just turned up.” Wouldn’t you wonder about its authenticity, source, etc? I certainly would and do…
Just to make everyone aware of a technicality. Bonifaz indicated “Green Party” as his political designation, which means his party registration was “unenrolled”. The Green Party wasn’t recognized as an official party in Mass in 2000, so he technically could not have registered as a member of the Green Party. I happen to think the distinction is somewhat irrelevant, and I wouldn’t care even if he was a registered member of the Green Party.
Since the political designation for Green Party didn’t exist (can someone confim that?) it appears that Bonifaz tried to enroll in the Green Party but failed because it wasn’t an option.
<
p>
But to say he “wasn’t a member of the Green Party” would be to disallow anyone from belonging to a party until the state officially recognized the party.
<
p>
Clearly in Bonifaz’s mind he was a member of the Green Party.
<
p>
So my original question stands, if all of this is true, why lie about it?
to have been a Green Party member is to be a pariah. this continues to kill us every election, and I’m sick of seeing in-fighting divide our party.
<
p>
Bonifaz shouldn’t lie about his past, nor should he feel like he has to lie to win support. There’s plenty of blame to be spread here, but at the end of the day is doesn’t mean s$%t if we’re still losing elections.
I could get deep into the weeds with this, but I’ll try to offer some clarifications. When Bonifaz filled out the registration form in 2000, the state had (and it still has) a political designation named “Green USA”. When he wrote “Green Party” for political designation, it’s likely he was counted under the Green USA designation. “Green USA” refers to one of the two national green parties (yes, there are technically two). The state does keep track of some political designation stats as shown here: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/stpoldes.pdf.
<
p>
Because “Green USA” is only a designation, the state recognized him as “unenrolled”, and did not recognize him as registered member of the Green Party. In fact, as you correctly point out, no person could be recognized by the state as a member of the Green Party. Even when the Green Party gained official party status in 2002, that would not have converted his party registration to Green.
<
p>
The Mass Green-Rainbow Party counts as a member anyone who is either 1) recognized by the state as a registered Green Party member, or 2) has paid dues to the party to become a member. So unless John paid dues, the state Green Party wouldn’t have considered him a member either.
<
p>
So in sum, I don’t think he lied. The state didn’t consider him a member of the Green Party, the Green Party probably didn’t consider him a member of the Green Party, and he doesn’t consider himself to have been a member of the Green Party. Bonifaz’s flirtation with the Greens seems mostly a symbol of protest and not an expression of allegiance to them.
“1) recognized by the state as a registered Green Party member, or 2) has paid dues to the party to become a member”
<
p>
Does ANYBODY else see amusement in this? The most ‘progressive’ party of all charging money for membership, a practice RENDOLENT of poll tax?
<
p>
Perhaps they are being canny about which direction in which they are progressing…
I pay Brookline Democratic Party Dues.
<
p>
They’re not expensive, and they will offer reduced/free dues to anyone who asks. I’d bet the Green Party works the same way. Dues with waivers are quite progressive, thankyouverymuch.
Our state committee rules specificaly FORBID dues to a town committee! They can send out letters asking for a voluntary donation, but that’s it.
<
p>
The GOP is for free!
Desperate for members.
Even when we had the majority.
<
p>
Have the Dems ALWAYS charged admission to be party members?
It’s in the bylaws
<
p>
Bylaws of the Mass. Dem. State Cmte.
Article XII: Town and Ward Committee
b. Town, Ward and City Committees may assess dues providing that the amount of dues has been adopted by a two-thirds vote and that no elected or ex-officio members or associate committee member shall be required to pay dues in order to vote or otherwise participate in committee business.
who can swoop in and raise a million dollars for a candidate. How should local political activities be run, especially by parties with little to no outside revenue? We can’t all buy off millionaire support by promising to lower their taxes by cutting substance abuse and police programs.
And how often did Clinton come to raise money – tying up traffic at and around the Park Plaza, grrr – for the Mass. Dems?
<
p>
Heck, he’s not in office anymore and he’s STILL coming!
<
p>
Please – I would be amused by this – the LAST Administration fundraiser I remember was Dick Cheney for $100 in 2002. WHEN has SuperGeorge come swooping in to raise money for MassGOP, requiring you poor benighted Dems to continue your poll tax?
A MA Republican Party that can’t even bother to put up candidates for down-ballot races or muster up enough Senators and Reps to enforce a veto. Wait, forget what I said and keep up the good work! The MA Republicans seem to be content to do on a state level what the Democrats do on a national level: get outspent, leave major offices and positions unchallenged, and get unorganized. As a former Republican, I know that it doesn’t have to be like this. But if the local Republicans don’t want to raise money for themselves, I’m sure not going to help them out.
<
p>
But seriously, the question was about both the Green Party and local Republican and Democratic party organizations that rarely get money funnelled down to them from the state and federal levels. If you’re a political party organization with few funds, is it better to have some sort of dues and fundraising infrastructure or to just ignoring money? I know which option I’d choose every time if I were devoted to building a healthy local infrastructure for my party.
<
p>
Eschewing all funds might work best in some fantasy world where we don’t use money and live solely off the clarity and power of our respective ideas, but we obviously don’t live in that world. SuperGeorge doesn’t come into Massachusetts, but he comes into plenty of other states to help out with political campaigns and fundraising is what he does best. And if the National GOP ever cared about the state GOP in Massachusetts, I’m sure there would be plenty of national money coming in. However, the Green Party doesn’t have that kind of cash to back them up. And local Democratic organizations, until very recently, also haven’t had any significant national money coming in.
<
p>
One of the first rules of politics is that you have to have enough money to win. That doesn’t mean you have enough to outspend your opponent, but you need enough to have your own infrastructure and bring out the vote. If it takes dues to get that done and Democrats are willing to spend that money, more power to them. If Republicans are willing to spend that money, more power to them. (And, on a national scale, it’s pretty obvious that more power has been going to the Republicans whether it be through dues or contributions or whatever you want to call the flow of money.)
Whether it’s called “dues” or “contribution” it doesn’t entitle you to vote, and you sure aren’t required to pay it to vote. It’s more rendolent of membership in a voluntary association such as the NRA or ACLU. I don’t think it even guarantees a seat at the state convention, does it?
<
p>
In fact, in Massachusetts you don’t even have to be registered for a party to vote in the primary. “Poll tax” indeed.
I understand, you have to defend you candidate, and full disclosure here, I voted for Galvin at the Convention.
<
p>
But the BOTTOM LINE is what I read from all of the back and forth is that there is no escaping the following two conclusions:
<
p>
1) Bonifaz may not have technically filled out his party designation correctly. But my undersatnding was he wasn’t going to REGISTER TO VOTE (where you also declare your party designation) but to CHANGE registration. In other words he was only there to ALTER his party affiliation. Now maybe he, for instance had taken a DEMOCRATIC ballot inm a primary and wanted to get out of the DEMOCRATIC party after voting.
<
p>
In ANY case, I think his INTENT was clear, to leave the DEMOCRATIC party and ENROLL in the GREEN PARTY. It seems he FAILED to correctly state the correct PARTY affiliation so he was lumped into. (This brings up another question, if the typical COMPETENT voter can successfully change parties, why would we want to elect a guy a SOS that can’t even figure that out?)
<
p>
2) From a previous post that stated in summary: GREEN PARTY affilliation= fewer voter AND DEMOCRATIC fidelity= more votes. So Bonifaz wants more votes, I understand that, but it is Bonifaz that apparently is LYING about it, NOT Galvin. So if Bonifaz thinks we don’t deserve the truth, why does he think we deserve Bonifaz?
At the risk of sounding snarky, I’d take this post a lot more seriously if it wasn’t so filled with CAPITAL LETTERS. I’ll admit that I disagree with your point, but this layout sounds a bit OVERWROUGHT.
And I suppose it’s easier to talk about Bonifaz’s former Green Party involvement than to ask the following things:
<
p>
Where does Galvin stand on IRV?
Where does Galvin stand on gerrymandered districting that continues to reduce minority representation?
Where does Galvin stand on same-day registration?
<
p>
Galvin has obviously had years to work on each issue, but hasn’t done anything about them. But, hey, that just has to do with the actual job description. Why bother talking about that when we can rehash the 2000 election for the rest of our lives?
who are fiercely afraid of outsiders, including Green Party members, past and present. It is counterproductive.
<
p>
If the Democrats are to stand for anything other than Republican ideas (and when we choose to debate the issues preselected by Bush, Romney and Healey, we have already lost the debate) then they should learn to embrace some of the ideological base on the left.
<
p>
Every time we pander to a critique from Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh or Kerry Healey we do two things: legitimize their argument and destroy our credibility.
<
p>
So what if Bonifaz used to be a member of the Green Party? There was a surge in Green Party membership after the Clinton years because a lot of liberals were unhappy with the economic reforms Clinton pushed (NAFTA, TANF.) It was a direct response by the ideological base on the left to the control by the DLC.
<
p>
Many came back in the fold because of Howard Dean’s campaign and b/c of how much Bush has f@#ed up our country in such little time. And we need them to win. This petty in-fighting continues to kill us.
<
p>
And of course Andrea Estes won’t question how her source got a copy of Bonifaz’s voter registration, that would be burning a source. She, and the editors who approved this story, are part of a pandemic of lazy journalism. Grow a set and start reporting like the old shoeleather reporters that made this industry noble (Ben Bradlee, Mike Royko…) and less like the celebrity journalists who are more interested in themselves than the story (Judy Miller, Jon Keller…)People respect guts, not gimmicks.
<
p>
Here’s the story:
<
p>
<
p>
And one final point: Sure all of those Nader votes could’ve won Gore the election, but so could all of the Florida votes. And a lot of good people in the Democratic party fought down there to make sure the recount went right, but the Supreme Court gave it away. After that experience, I find it tough to listen to arguments from anyone who did not support a complete and total recount in Ohio in 2004. It’s easier to scapegoat than it is to own up. But the victories are hollow and short-lived, as we continually discover every four years.
<
p>
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Sure all of those Nader votes could’ve won Gore the election
<
p>
… not in Massachusetts. Those Nader voters weren’t hurting Gore’s chances, and they knew it before they cast their ballots. Many of them trade votes with Nader supporters in swing states, a primitive sort of IRV-substitute, so they actually helped Gore.
<
p>
I find it tough to listen to arguments from anyone who did not support a complete and total recount in Ohio in 2004
<
p>
And that is where John Bonifaz went further than anyone else, as the lead counsel for the Ohio recount case, which he started on day 1, well before the Kerry campaign joined in.
I am getting really tired of Party Chair Phil Johnston making
<
p>
partisan statements
<
p>
in contested Democratic primaries. When is someone going to call that corrupt windbag out on the carpet? Oh, I see
<
p>
some people
already
have.
<
p>
Well, count me in.
<
p>
Really tired.
I’m not convinced that statement was really that bad, but then again people find what they’re looking for.
<
p>
And I hope that you mean that Johnston makes too many preferential statements in contested primary. ASide from raising money, Johnston’s main job is to make partisan statements, what with chairing a party and all.
Because I believe I said exactly what you hoped I said.
<
p>
As to your first point…I didn’t say Johnston’s statement was “bad”, “really bad” or “that bad”, which are all vague and thus invite vague disagreement. I said it was “partisan” … which it was. If you want to disagree, please start from there.
I was simply pointing out that in politics the term “partisan” is typically understood to mean “referring to or representing an established political party”. I realize that you’re using it in a secondary sense, but that only causes confusion.
<
p>
I believe that you are objecting that Phil Johnston made a statement indicating a preference to one Democratic candidate over other Democratic candidates in the same party. If the situation is party-neutral (all concerned are Democrats) then the statement is not “partisan” because it does not refer to other political parties. It may be preferential, one-sided, etc., but not partisan.
I think partisan means “taking sides.” But if you want to look it up, be my guest.
the whole article for a reason… no sense in reposting Galvin’s “talking point” about how the Greens elected Bush.
<
p>
Galvin is attempting to blame Bonifaz for Bush. Please.
<
p>
Galvin why didn’t you move to Florida and vote for Gore. See, it’s your fault Bush won.
<
p>
Why don’t we all admit it blaming Bonifaz via Green Party for Bush is just a Republican trick executed by a democrat to put JB on the defensive.
<
p>
It’s not much different than “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
<
p>
Galvin, what’s wrong with same day registration and why is it not the law?
<
p>
M.
Smart Mass – No one is blaming Bonifaz for Gore’s loss in 2000, just questioning his judgment.
<
p>
And I have heard Galvin publicly support same day registration, but you’ll have to ask the Legislature why it’s not the law.
<
p>
This statment was made by P. Johnston. While he never outright says that it’s the green party’s fault, he certainly implies it. And he implies that Bonifaz (“a candidate”) helped elect Bush.
<
p>
Others have already said it in this thread, no Massachusetts vote or support for a green candidate would or did matter for the 2000 or 2004 election Johnston is making it sound like it did…
<
p>
Mark
The questioning about Bonifaz’s past affiliations or non-affiliations with the Green Party is silly. I don’t like that he may have been cagey about whether he was with them or not, but the attitude of trying to dig up a Green party membership as if it were scandalous dirt is just silly.
<
p>
David, I also have to disagree with your link of that to Nader in 2000. I know many people who voted for Nader in MA precisely because it was Massachusetts. Some actively did “vote trades” to get people in swing states to vote for Gore, and others simply made a statement about their dissatisfaction with Gore and the centrist direction of the Dems. No Massachusetts Nader voter helped to get Bush elected–Gore had these electoral votes by leaps and bounds (heck, in some areas, I seem to recall that Nader beat Bush!)
<
p>
Then there are the endless conversations about whether Gore should take responsibility for losing so many states, including Tennessee, and whether Gore actually would have won Florida if not for the various machinations around the recount. But there’s no need to get into those now. Let me just say that Philip Johnston’s comment that “I think it’s important that voters know whether a candidate helped to elect George Bush” wins for the most absurd bit of intra-party mudslinging I’ve seen thus far. To see it from the Party chair is just shameful.
If this election ends up being a debate about whether John Bonifaz was every a Green on the past, or has been 100% loyal to the Democratic party his entire life, rather than a campaign about the actual issues, and what the two candidates will do with the office if elected… that will be very, very sad and pathetic.
<
p>
We know Bill Galvin wants that pathetic kind of campaign issue front & center, because he’s afraid of competing with Bonifaz on elections, the most important responsibility of the secretary. Bad for democracy, but a good strategy for him, so sort of understandable.
<
p>
But Phil Johnston is the head of the Democratic party, and he not only seems to want that sort of campaign, he’s publically calling for it to happen. I hope he comes to his senses, and remembers the name of the party he heads.
<
p>
(I am John Bonifaz’s campaign blogger, but I’m speaking for myself here)
Of all the positions, I think Sec of Commonwealth requires honesty the most. After all, as long as elections are really fair, the voters can adjust the other officeholders onto the street.
<
p>
You can argue technicalities, but if Bonifaz wrote “Green USA” on his ballot, he’s been not forthcoming; I’d call it a lie in broad terms. I don’t want a SecofCom who doesn’t tell the truth — and that’s a problem I’ve not found with Galvin.
<
p>
That said, Galvin’s campaign has been a bit sleezy. Making the race about Bonifaz’s past party activities for the Green Party which, IMO, are completely respectible activities is really crappy and doesn’t foster lots of respect for Galvin.
<
p>
Having said all of that, there are two very different sets of campaign promises on the ballot. Galvin promises more of the same, which has been for the most part quite good (outlawing punch cards pre-2000 but some voters rights problems in Boston and other cities regarding language issues). Bonifaz promises fusion and IR voting and proportional representation, same day registration, no private company voting machines, redistricting reform, and open standards government documentation. It seems to me that the real debate should be whether or not Bonifaz’s proposals are good ones. Is fusion voting such a good idea for democracy? For Democrats? What about same day registration? Etc. Unfortunately, that’s not what the debate has been about.
<
p>
Perhaps, on a slow day, sco could bring up one of these proposals and we could hammer away at it as a community, with sco and others supplying legitimate data to the discussion.
I was somewhat drawn to Bonifaz until I heard about his support for Ralph Nader in 2000. I don’t mind working with former Greens or others who made mistakes in 2000, but that doesn’t mean that I’m going to vote for them for a state-wide office. Bonifaz’s support for Nader in 2000 calls his political judgment into question. In my mind, there is nothing sleazy about Galvin bringing this up.
From the Estes article:
<
p>
” … In freehand, someone wrote the words “Green Party” on a line identifying the voter’s political designation.
<
p>
But lucky for Bonifaz — who has insisted he is and always has been a Democrat — he also appears to have checked “unenrolled” on the card and then smudged it out. … “
<
p>
“[S]omeone” wrote “Green Party”. Someone “smudged out” “unenrolled”. Someone got access to the card that just happened to be discovered by an election official. Someone leaked it to the press.
<
p>
Who wrote “Green Party”? Who smudged out “unenrolled”? People on this thread assume it was Bonifaz. “Someone” should ask him.
<
p>
This is a cloak-and-dagger story worthy of Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell.
<
p>
Why do you think everyone who has followed the inner workings of the Democratic Party call Galvin “The Prince of Darkness”? Is the grassroots effort in the Party trying to reform it, or cause it to self-destruct again? Ask the barking dogs.
<
p>
I’m a bit surprised they didn’t find the voter card in a pumpkin in Ralph Nader’s back yard.
I think you give Galvin too much credit.
<
p>
First of all, the Elections Division in Jamacia Plain is under the City of Boston, not the Secretary of State’s Office. So I still think you are careless to make charges against elections division personel with nothing to gain.
<
p>
Second, don’t you think it is strange that Bonifaz hasn’t come forward through all this discussion and either confirmed or denied that he filled out a partyy registration card in Jamaica Plain?
<
p>
Third, maybe we could end this for all time by just getting a handwriting expert to tell us if that is Bonifaz’ handwriting or not?
“So I still think you are careless to make charges against elections division personel with nothing to gain.”
<
p>
???! Galvin demanded thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from his own employees in the SoS office. He’s trying to save his job as head of “the elections division” at the state level. The circumstances of the “find” reek of Watergate era dirty tricks.
<
p>
“Third, maybe we could end this for all time by just getting a handwriting expert to tell us if that is Bonifaz’ handwriting or not? “
<
p>
It would be a lot easier just to ask him.
<
p>
I don’t care whether he worked for Nader or not. I don’t care whether he’s tried [minimally] to distance himself from the Greens or not.
<
p>
In his inaugural address on January 1, 1995, Secretary of the Commonwealth William Francis Galvin pledged to “seek to open as wide as possible to meaningful participation by citizens the processes that affect our daily lives.”* John Bonifaz has done more to advance voting rights in the last three years than Galvin has in the last eleven. If anything, Galvin has used his insider status to frustrate those rights in specific instances which Bonifaz has mentioned… but Bonifaz is focused on fixing the abuses, not rubbing salt into them.
<
p>
* Quote from Galvin’s bio