DOCSLIB.ORG

Advisory Opinionj Request (Aor)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ADVISORY OPINIONJ REQUEST (AOR) SEEKING RECOGNITION OF THE COORDINATING COMMITTEE OF THE GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES As THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE GREEN PARTY SUBMITTED AUGUST 9,2001 BY THE COORDINATING COMMITTEE AND STEERING COMMITTEE OF THE GREEN PARTY OF THE UNJTED STATES Prepared By: Thomas Alan Linxcy, Esq. Special ('oun.se! to the d/vi'/i Parly of the United .S' David Cobb, Esq. Legal Advi.wr to the Green Party of the United States THOMAS ALAN LINZEY, ESQ. Special Counsel to the Green Party of the United States DAVID COBB, ESQ. LEGAL ADVISOR TO THE GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES August 9,2001 Mr. Danny L. McDonald, Chairman Ms. Lois Lerner, Acting General Counsel Federal Election Commission 999 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20463 Dear Chairman McDonald and Acting General Counsel Lerner, The Green Party of the United States, through this submission, formally requests an Advisory Opinion from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) concerning recognition of the Coordinating Committee" of the Green Party of the United States as the National Committee of the Green Party. • The Green Parry of the United States is the natural outgrowth of the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP). The Association, formed shortly after the 1996 presidential campaign, was intended to be the vehicle through which State Green Parties in the United States would form a national Green Party. At the end of July of this year, the Association voted to formally become the Green Party of the United States and to seek recogni- tion of the Party's Coordinating Committee as its National Committee. In 2000, the Association mounted a national presidential campaign with Ralph Nader as our candidate for president and Winona LaDuke as our candidate for Vice-President. Our candidates appeared on the ballots of forty-six (46) States and garnered close to 3% of the overall national vote. • • Federal law defines a National Committee as an organization which, by virtue of the bylaws of a polit- ical party, is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the party at the national level, as determined by the Commission. See 11 CFR 100.13. Several criteria have been applied by the Commission to determine whether the Committee has demonstrated sufficient national-level activity to qualify as a National Committee. Those criteria require that (1) the Party must have a sufficient number of party-designated federal can- didates on the ballot in a sufficient number of states and that the party's ballot access efforts extend beyond the Presidential race to races for the U.S. Congress. See Advisory Opinion 1988-45 and Advisory Opinion 1980- 131; (2) the Committee must conduct activities, such as voter registration drives, on an ongoing basis - rather than with respect to a particular election. See Advisor)' Opinion 1992-30; (3) the Committee must publicize, on a national basis, issues of importance to the party and its adherents. See, e.g., Advisory Opinion 1992-44; and (4) the Party must satisfy other criteria, which may include the holding of a national convention, the establish- ment of national headquarters, and the establishment of state party committees. See, e.g.. Advisory Opinion 1992-30. Since its formation in November of 1996, the Association of State Green Parties" Coordinating Com- mittee - and its member Slate 1'arties - have met or exceeded each of these requirements for National Commit- tee recognition. In July, the Association's State Party members unanimously resolved to evolve into the Green Party of the United Slates and file this Advisory Opinion Request (AOR). The supplements and attachments to this filing are intended as evidence that each of the criteria necessary for Committee recognition have been sat- isfied. It should also be noted that an organization named "The Greens/Green Party USA" previously filed for National Committee status on August 2,1996. See AOR 1996-35. That filing resulted in a determination by the Commission that "The Greens/Green Party USA" did not satisfy the criteria for National Committee status. We thank you for your prompt review of the materials provided in support of this request for an Advisory Opinion concerning the status of the Coordinating Committee of the Green Party of the United States as a National Committee. Any questions concerning this submission should be directed to the attorneys listed below. Thomas Alan Linzey, Esq. Special Counsel, Green Party of the United States 28S9 Scotland Road Chambersburg, Pennsylvania 17201 (717)709-0457 tJavid Cobb, EsqT Senior Legal Advisor, Green Party of the United States 8 18 West 3 1st Street Houston, Texas 77018 (713)880-3219 Green Party of the United States Advisory Opinion Request (AOR) Submitted August 9,2001 Executive Summary To attain recognition as a National Committee of a political party, the Federal Election Commission has' established the following qualifications: (1) The Party must have a sufficient number of party-designated federal candidates on the ballot in a sufficient number of states and the party's ballot access efforts must extend beyond the Presidential race to races for the U.S. Congress. See Advisory Opinion 1988-45 and Advisory Opinion 1980-131; (2) The Committee must conduct activities, such as voter registration drives, on an ongoing basis - rather than with respect to a particular election. See Advisory Opinion 1992-30; (3) The Committee must publicize, on a national basis, issues of importance to the party and its adherents. See, e.g., Advisory Opinion 1992-44; and ...... (4) The Party must satisfy other criteria, which may include the holding of a national convention, the establishment of national headquarters, and the establishment of state party committees. See, e.g., Advisory Opinion 1992-30. The sections that follow will address each of these criteria. Each section refers to accompanying, supporting attachments which have been appended to this Advisory Opinion Request and are identified as Exhibits. I. The History of the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) and the Evolution of the Green Party of the United States The Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) was created in November of 1996 at a gathering held at Glcn- Ora Farm in Middleburg, Virginia. The meeting, hosted by the Green Party of Connecticut and the Green Party of Maine, was held to form an Association which would evolve into the national Green Party in the United States. The foundation for the formation of the Association was the State Green Panics which had actively participated in the Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke 1996 presidential campaign effort. Participants at the Middleburg meeting included individuals from thirty states which had been active in that effort. At the conclusion of that gathering, a formal decision by the participants was made to form the "Association of State Green Parties" and nine State Party representatives (which had been granted the authority to do so by their State Party) formally joined the Association on behalf of their respective states at the conclusion of the gathering. The mission of the Association, as determined by its members, was (1) to assist in the development of State Green Parties and (2) to create a legally structured national Green Party. At the original meeting, a provisional set of Bylaws to govern the internal operation of the organization were drafted and adopted by the attendees. Under those Bylaws, the Association's voting membership consisted of two elected representatives to the Association from each member Slate. That body, the "Coordinating Committee" was empowered with the main decisionmnking authority for the Association. The Coordinating Committee, in turn, authorized the annual election of a five member Steering Committee, which consisted of a Treasurer, Secretary, and three Co-Chairpersons. A set of the current Bylaws are attached to this Advisory Opinion Request [Sec Kxhibit One]. • Later, standing committees were also formed to address ongoing and important issues. Those standing committees, with their convenors, arc: 1. The Transition Committee (Rick Lass, Green Party of New Mexico); 2. The Media Committee (Nancy Allen, Maine Green Independent Party and Scott McClarty, D.C. Statehood Green Party); 3. The Bylaws Committee (Tom Sevigny, Green Party of Connecticut); 4. The Diversity Committee (Amy Mondloch, Green Party of Wisconsin); 5. The Finance/Fundraising Committee (Robbie Franklin, Green Party of Texas); 6. The International Committee (Anne Goeke, Pennsylvania Green Party and John Rensenbrink; Maine Green Independent Party); 7. The Platform Committee (Steven Schmidt, Green Party of Florida); 8. The Accreditation Committee (Tony Affigne, Green Party of Rhode Island); 9. The Communications Committee (Karin Norton, Green Party of Connecticut and Nathalie Paravicini, Green Party ofTexas). Membership on each Committee is open to Green Party members in all states. State Party membership in the Association of State Green Parties has risen from the original membership of nine State Parties to a membership of thirty-three State Parties. Each member State Party originally affiliated itself with the Association. Upon the evolution of the Association into the Green Party of the United States, those State Parties filed new affiliation agreements with the Party. Those Affiliation Agreements are appended to this Advisory Opinion Request [See Exhibit Two]. Due to the necessity of adopting new affiliation agreements via regular meetings of the .. State Green Party governing councils, and the recent evolution of the
Recommended publications
  • G Reen Pa G Es

    G Reen Pa G Es

    Save Our Democracy: Support the Green Party! The Green Party is unique because we reject corporate money. We believe that our values — your values — of peace, GREEN PAGES ecological wisdom, democracy and social justice should be The Newspaper of the Green Party of the United States guiding public policy. We are fully funded by real people (not corporations) like you. The Green Party’s success also serves the larger cause Vol. 19, No. 2 • Fall 2017 of multi-party democracy and independent politics in s e t the United States. I strongly believe in citizen lobbying a t and activism, but it must be coupled with electoral S d strategies and strong candidates. Com pared to other e Utah Greens t i organizations, the Green Party is relatively small, and n U so I know that every dollar I contribute has an enor - e S h t mous impact. I always give to the Green Party first and then to other wor - f E o Reboot, Make thy causes. — John Andrews y t r G 3 a 1 I can’t sit by and see wrongs and not do P 0 A n anything. I couldn’t justify having a kid if I e 0 e 2 P r wasn’t going to try and fix the world. When Ballot G C I’m around my Green friends, I feel like e 5 D h N 7 t there’s hope. Green values encompass n f 0 o o 5 E everything that’s important, and give us t n See story page 4 7 g o i an avenue to fix the problems in our soci - x E n t i a o h ety.
  • United States District Court for the District of Arizona

    United States District Court for the District of Arizona

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) THE ARIZONA LIBERTARIAN ) PARTY AND MICHAEL KIELSKY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) COMPLAINT ) MICHELE REAGAN, ) Civil Action No. ___________ ) Defendant. ) ) INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Arizona Libertarian Party (“AZLP”) and its Chairman Michael Kielsky (together, “the Libertarians”) bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to vindicate rights guaranteed to them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Libertarians specifically challenge the constitutionality of two provisions of Arizona law, A.R.S. §§ 16-321 and 16-322, which establish the requirements that political parties must meet to place their candidates on Arizona’s primary election ballot. These provisions formerly enabled candidates to appear on the primary ballot by submitting nomination petitions with a number of signatures defined as a percentage of their party’s qualified registered voters in the relevant jurisdiction. In 2015, however, the provisions were amended, such that they now define the signature requirements as a percentage of all “qualified signers” in the relevant jurisdiction – a pool defined to include independent and unaffiliated voters. As applied to the Libertarians – though not to the major parties – this drastically increased the number of signatures required. In general, the new requirements for the Libertarians are at least 20 times greater than the old ones, depending on the office, and in many cases much greater. Sections 16-321 and 16-322, as amended, violate the Libertarians’ First Amendment rights on several grounds. First, they impose unconstitutionally severe signature requirements under the settled precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States. Second, they violate the Libertarians’ freedom of association, because they compel AZLP, as a practical matter, to rely on non-members for purposes of nominating its own partisan candidates.
  • June 2004 GPCA Plenary June 5-6, 2004 Sacramento City College, Sacramento, CA

    June 2004 GPCA Plenary June 5-6, 2004 Sacramento City College, Sacramento, CA

    June 2004 GPCA Plenary June 5-6, 2004 Sacramento City College, Sacramento, CA Saturday Morning - 6/5/04 Delegate Orientation Ellen Maisen: Review of consensus-seeking process Reminder of why we seek consensus vs. simply voting: Voting creates factions, while consensus builds community spirit. Facilitators: Magali Offerman, Jim Shannon Notes: Adrienne Prince and Don Eichelberger (alt.) Vibes: Leslie Dinkin, Don Eichelberger Time Keeper: Ed Duliba Confirming of Agenda Ratification of minutes, discussion of electoral reform, and platform plank have all been moved to Sunday. Time-sensitive agenda items were given priority. Consent Calendar Jo Chamberlain, SMC: Media bylaws concerns will also be discussed Sunday a.m. Clarification on “point of process” for Consent Calendar: when concerns are brought up, the item in question becomes dropped from the calendar and can be brought up for discussion and voting later in the plenary as time allows. I. GPUS Post-First-Round Ballot Voting Instructions Proposal - Nanette Pratini, Jonathan Lundell, Jim Stauffer Regarding convention delegate voting procedure: “If a delegate’s assigned candidate withdraws from the race or if subsequent votes are required…delegates will vote using their best judgment…as to what the voters who selected their assigned candidate would choose.” Floor rules in process of being approved by national CC. Will be conducted as a series of rounds, announced state by state. For first round, delegates are tied to the candidates as represented in the primary. If someone wins and does not want to accept the vote, subsequent rounds will vote. If a willing candidate gets a majority, they will be nominated, If “no candidate” (an option) wins, there will be an IRV election for an endorsement instead of a nomination.
  • Activist Literacy and Dr. Jill Stein's 2012 Green Party Campaign

    Activist Literacy and Dr. Jill Stein's 2012 Green Party Campaign

    45 Recognizing the Rhetorics of Feminist Action: Activist Literacy and Dr. Jill Stein’s 2012 Green Party Campaign Virginia Crisco Abstract: Scholars such as Nancy Welch and Susan Jarratt argue that Neoliberalism shapes how everyday citizens are able to take action. Using what Jacquelyn Jones Royster and Gesa Kirsch call “social circulation,” I analyze how Dr. Jill Stein, the presidential candidate for the Green Party in 2012, used “whatever spaces are left” to challenge the dominant two party system, particularly in relation to the pres- idential debates. I argue that Stein demonstrates an activist literacy disposition that positions her to use the spaces, the literate and rhetorical means, and oppor- tunities for storytelling to foster social action in our neoliberal climate. Keywords: neoliberalism, social circulation, activist literacy, third party politics In Living Room: Teaching Public Writing in a Privatized World, Nancy Welch argues that neoliberalism has changed not only the topics available for public discussion in the pursuit of making socio-political change, but the venues for having those discussions, as they have also become increasingly privatized. As an example, Welch refects on her experiences advocating for her husband’s health care to their insurance company. She describes the multiple letters she had gotten from her insurance company saying their appeal for his care had been denied, using the same phrases again and again, as if her carefully re- searched and rhetorical letters were not even being read. This leads Welch to question the amount of power we as teachers and scholars of writing give to language and rhetoric: These are rhetorical strategies that, mostly in the abstract, have given me comfort – comfort in the belief that I really can wield power in language, that I can empower my students, particularly those subor- dinate by gender, race, sexuality, and class, to do the same.
  • Early History of the United States Green Party, 1984-2001

    Early History of the United States Green Party, 1984-2001

    Early History of the United States Green Party, 1984-2001 Mike Feinstein and John Rensenbrink May 15, 2017 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4 First Stirrings of a Green Political Party in the United States ................................ 5 Green Politics: The Global Promise .......................................................................... 6 Early Outreach to the Bioregional Movement .......................................................... 8 The Founding of U.S. Greens – St. Paul, MN, August 1984 ................................... 10 Creation of the Ten Key Values ............................................................................... 12 National Clearinghouse ............................................................................................ 14 Early Debates About Green Issues ......................................................................... 15 First National Green Gathering – Amherst, MA, 1987 ............................................ 16 Strategy & Policy Approaches in Key Areas (SPAKA) .......................................... 17 Greening the West Gathering – near San Francisco, 1988 ................................... 18 Second National Green Gathering – Eugene, OR, 1989 ........................................ 19 Early State Party Ballot Qualification Efforts and Candidacies ............................ 21 Third National Green Gathering – Estes Park, CO, 1990………………………….. 23 Green
  • 2020 Has Been an Unusual Election Year NONPARTISAN As We Continue to Work Under the Global Pandemic of COVID-19

    2020 Has Been an Unusual Election Year NONPARTISAN As We Continue to Work Under the Global Pandemic of COVID-19

    BY PATTI BRIGHAM, LEAGUE PRESIDENT 2020 2020 has been an unusual election year NONPARTISAN as we continue to work under the global pandemic of COVID-19. However, the League of Women Voters of Florida (LWVFL) is continuing VOTER to educate Florida’s voters in advance of the November 3rd election. The LWVFL is a non-partisan organization governance. However, ensuring citizens have GUIDE and does not endorse political candidates or direct access to making change when politi- parties but we do take positions on policy is- cians fail to act is critical for our voters and sues such as election reform, health care, and explains our opposition to this election cycle’s education. Amendment Number Four. HOW DO AMENDMENTS GET ON THE BALLOT? These and other issues are reflected in the The League does not take lightly the respon- A LOOK AT FIVE WAYS. PAGE 2 questions we have posed to the candidates sibility of supporting or opposing constitu- this year to inform voters on their positions. tional amendments. Nor should voters. These VOTER APPROVAL FOR ALL The 2020 ballot will also contain a slate of are complex issues, often complicated by CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS constitutional amendments, which is why confusing ballot language. As a result, we AMENDMENT 4 BREAKDOWN. PAGE 3 the League’s positions are reflected in the encourage you to read this guide and careful- amendment summaries in this Voter Guide. ly consider our summary of the amendments, TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR SPOUSES OF DECEASED MILITARY MEMBERS what passage of them would mean and what AMENDMENT 6 BREAKDOWN. PAGE 4 For example, the League does not believe would happen if they are voted down.
  • Green Party of Florida Case No.: FEC 12-414 ------~'

    Green Party of Florida Case No.: FEC 12-414 ------~'

    STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION In Re: Green Party of Florida Case No.: FEC 12-414 ------------------------~' NOTICE OF HEARING ON APPEAL OF AUTOMATIC FINE TO: Kelley S. Roark, Esquire Kelley Roark, P.A. · 2915 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 300 Mianii, Flo.rida 33137 Division of Elections 500 South BronoughStreet .RA GrayBililding, Room.316 Tallahassee, Florida 32399~0250 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 14, 2013,at8: 30 a.m. orthereaftei as the parties can be heard, the Florida Elections Commission will bringon to be heard Respondent's appeal of the fine imposed by the filing officer for Respondent failing to file timely a campaign treasurer's rep01t. The Commission shal! meet at: Senate Office Building, 404 S(luth Monroe Street, Room Sc401, Tallahassee, F:Io.rida 32399-6526. Respondent and staff shall have the opportunity to brieflY present their case to the Commission Failure. to appear in accordance withthis notice will constitute a waiver of your right to a hearing, and the Commission will decide this case on the record before it Convenience of location is not a basis for continuing or postponing the scheduled hearing. See reverse side for additional instructions. If you require an accommodation due to a disability, contact Donna Ann Malphurs at (850) 922-4539 or by mail af 107 West Gaines Street, The Collins Building, Suite 224, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, at least 5 days before the hearing. PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY. Dated on April 16, 2013 Amy McKeever Toman Executive Director Hea038 (2/09) Please be advised that other cases have been scheduled for the same time.
  • The Discourse of Sustainable Development: Business Groups, Local Government and Ngos In

    The Discourse of Sustainable Development: Business Groups, Local Government and Ngos In

    London School of Economics and Political Sciences The discourse of sustainable development: business groups, local government and NGOs in Juarez (Mexico) and El Paso (USA) PhD Thesis Claudia Granados Sociology Department December 2003 UMI Number: U222167 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U222167 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 I H S £ S F For F.G. and my pa ABSTRACT The thesis proposes and develops a threefold categorisation as a framework for the analysis of the sustainable development (SD) discourse of business groups, local government and NGOs in the Mexico-US border region and specifically in the border cities of Juarez (Chihuahua, Mexico) and El Paso (Texas, US). The SD categorisation proposed in this thesis consists of three schools of thought, namely, Ecologism, Ecologically-sustainable-Development (EsD) and Corporate-Environmentalism. The thesis investigates how and why Corporate- Environmentalism came to dominate sustainable development discourse in the 1990s? Based on data collected in the border region of Juarez and El Paso, this thesis argues that Corporate-Environmentalism strongly influenced the sustainable development discourse of business groups, local government and NGOs and became the prevailing orthodoxy in the sustainable development discourse of the region during the 1990s.
  • Candidate Information Guide

    Candidate Information Guide

    2020 Candidate Information Guide Tressa Guynes Clerk & Recorder Montrose County 0 | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS From The Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................... 0 Steps for Candidacy – County Offices ...................................................................................................................... 1 Basic Qualifications for County Offices ................................................................................................................... 2 Ballot Access – County Offices .............................................................................................................................. 4 Running for Municipal Office.................................................................................................................................. 8 Running for School Board Office ............................................................................................................................ 9 Running for Special District Board .......................................................................................................................... 9 Running for State Office ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Withdrawal Process .............................................................................................................................................
  • Report of the Election Tabulation Committee Green Party of the United States for the Steering Committee Election of July 26

    Report of the Election Tabulation Committee Green Party of the United States for the Steering Committee Election of July 26

    Report of the Election Tabulation Committee Green Party of the United States For the Steering Committee Election of July 26, 2014 Green Party Annual National Meeting St. Paul, Minnesota To: Green Party of the U.S. Green National Committee From: GPUS Elections Tabulations Committee: Holly Hart (Iowa) Frank Young (West Virginia) Rich Zitola (California) Morgen D'Arc (Maine) Craig Thorsen (Lavender Caucus) Date: August 15, 2014 Subject: Final report 2014 We hereby submit this final report in accordance with our responsibilities pursuant to the Bylaws of the Green Party of the United States, Article VI §6-2, and as further specified in the GPUS Rules and Procedures Article VII, as amended. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Declaration of Results for Co-Chairs and Treasurer II. Narrative Report III. Anomalies and Recommendations IV. Tabulation of Votes Appendix I: Steering Committee Election Ballots Appendix II: GPUS Rules and Procedures: Article VII I. DECLARATION of RESULTS FOR CO-CHAIR AND TREASURER We declare that the following candidates for Co-Chair of the Steering Committee of the Green Party of the United States were duly elected on July 26, 2014, according to the rules specified in Article VII of the Green Party Rules and Procedures: Audrey Clement (Virginia) Karen Young (New York) Charles Ostdiek (Nebraska) We declare that the following candidate for Treasurer of the Green Party of the United States was duly elected according to the rules specified in Article VII of the Green Party Rules and Procedures: Jeff Turner (Hawaii) We recommend that the Green National Committee certify the candidates named above as having been elected to the positions indicated.
  • Ballot Access Committee Report to NC

    Ballot Access Committee Report to NC

    Ballot Access Committee Report to NC As mentioned in the Presidential campaign debriefing, our 2012 Presidential campaign was the best in terms of ballot access since Ralph Nader ran as a Green in 2000. However, we fell short of our targets and exhausted a great deal of effort in getting on the ballot. The biggest difference between the Libertarian and Green Parties in terms of Presidential ballot lines was in our starting point. The Libertarians started off with 26 ballot lines after the 2010 midterm elections and the Greens only started off with 16. There were too many states with weak or nonexistent state parties that the Ballot Access Committee (BAC) was in poor position to assist. Delays in receiving matching funds exacerbated the campaign’s problems with trying to work in too many states at once on already scarce resources. BAC will be discussing a draft plan that sets goals for ballot access in each year of the 2013-2016 election cycle. Ultimately, our goal is to be on the ballot in between 45 and 47 states on Election Day in 2016. To make this goal more achievable, we plan to have at least 25 ballot lines after the 2014 midterm elections and at least 35 at the end of 2015. If the Green Party can achieve ballot access from 2013-15, not only will our final goal be much more achievable, but our Presidential campaign will be able to focus on what it should- winning votes on Election Day instead of fighting just to give voters a chance to see us on the ballot.
  • General Election TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3 7Am – 8Pm

    General Election TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3 7Am – 8Pm

    General Election TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3 7am – 8pm 2020 Nonpartisan Voter INDEX Congressional District Map .......... 2 General Information ...........3, 35-38 U.S. Senate ..................................4-5 Guide The League of Women Voters of Michigan would like to U.S. Representative thank the following organizations for their financial (Dist. 1-14) .................................6-23 support to enable production of this Voter Guide: State Board of Education ........24-25 University of Michigan ...........26-27 Contributors to the League of Women Voters® Michigan State University .......28-29 of Michigan Education Fund Wayne State University ...........30-31 Supreme Court ........................32-33 Court of Appeals ..........................33 Ballot Proposals ...........................34 Clip & Take to the Polls ...............40 Celebrating Updated Candidate Information - Plus 100 Years Michigan State Legislative Candidates, Local Races, Ballot Proposals of Women’s is available online at VOTE411.org. Suffrage Also see www.LWVMI.ORG for additional election information. for most women 2 H LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN 2020 NONPARTISAN VOTER GUIDE ® 1 4 2 5 10 3 8 6 7 11 9 14 Congressional 13 District Map 12 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN 2020 NONPARTISAN VOTER GUIDE ® H 3 About This Guide Voting The League of Women Voters of Michigan contacted candidates for biographi- Voting in Michigan has never been easier. Voters have options. For more cal information and answers to questions on issues. The answers are printed as submitted and have not been edited, except for necessary cutting when replies information, see page 37. exceed the stated character limitations or violated content guidelines. Spelling and grammar were not corrected. If the candidate did not reply by the required Voting Early by Absentee Ballot date for publication, the words “Did not respond in time for inclusion” appear No excuse is needed.