Green Party of the United States
Home Vote Results History Contacts Admin
 National Committee Voting


Proposal Details

Proposal ID1027
ProposalSustain Decision to Add Proposal 1026 to the Voting Queue
PresenterNational Committee
Floor ManagerKristin Combs
Discussion10/09/2020 - 10/10/2020
Voting10/11/2020 - 10/13/2020
ResultFailed: Quorum Not Met
Presens Quorum34 0.6666
Consens Quorum0 A Majority of Yes and No Votes


On October 8 an appeal of the steering committee's decision to add proposal 1026 to the voting queue was filed and properly cosponsored. Details of the appeal can be found in the references.


Shall the body sustain the decision of the Steering Committee to add proposal 1026 to the voting queue.

Please note: A *YES* vote is a vote to sustain the steering committee's decision. A *NO* vote is a vote to reverse the steering committee's decision.


Please note that the proposal requires a simple majority for quorum but the software only allows for 2/3. The proposal may pass but reported as having failed.



Section 6-5 Steering Committee Review

6-5.1 The Steering Committee shall have the responsibility to review whether a proposal satisfies the following criteria:

6-5.1(d) Is not in conflict with GPUS Bylaws, Rules and Procedures, Fiscal Policy or Presidential Convention Rules;

6-5.1(e) Is clear in what it asks the National Committee to decide;

#1 Per 6-5.1(d) the language of Proposal 1026 is in contravention of GPUS bylaws—the most striking conflict is that it attempts to rewrite, without mention, the membership structure of the Green Party of the United States. Many of the problems with former Proposal 959 continue to plague proposal 1026, which is unfortunate. This could have been resolved with a thorough revision and vetting in the BRPP Committee.  

The language of Proposal 1026 states: 

“The purpose of this Code of Conduct is to provide a clear set of principles to guide all members of the Green Party in the United States in the conduct of their official duties and interpersonal communications.”

Per our bylaws, the only members of the GPUS are the various affiliated state parties and caucuses. However, none of the language in Proposal 1026’s ethics code is specific to the functional relationship of an affiliated state party or caucus with another affiliated state party or caucus. GPUS bylaws were specifically written this way to uphold our federation structure.

Please refer to the definition of GPUS Membership as codified in our bylaws:

#2 The scope of the ethics proposal is dangerously vague and broad, which works in direct contravention of the federation model of the GPUS. In fact, the vast scope of the 1026 amendment and its unlimited application seem to be intentionally broad and vague. In addition to this, it is not clear as to what these bylaws are asking the National Committee to do. 

The language of Proposal 1026 further states:

“This Code does not include any mechanism of enforcement except as directed below, but may be referenced elsewhere in the Bylaws, Rules, and Procedures of the Green Party of the United States in such manner and to such purpose as the National Committee may direct.”

Clearly, Proposal 1026 is a broad “code” that has been written prior to some sort of intended mechanism or body, whose creation we can assume will be proposed in a follow-up proposal to the Code of Ethics. However, this is inherently problematic. One cannot pass a bylaw and claim that the party can apply it in whatever way we see fit at a later time, which is the inherent flaw in this wording. This is why the Steering Committee is directed per our Rules and Procedures to not send a proposal like Proposal 1026 to the queue because of this critical missing element. The proposal needs to be clear in what it asks the National
Committee to decide:

 6-5.1(e) Is clear in what it asks the National Committee to decide.

Is Proposal 1026 a catch-all Code of Ethics that can be invoked anytime, anywhere, anyplace? By whom and against whom? To reiterate, GPUS members are affiliated states and caucuses. None of this is clear. This is why we have Rules and Procedures for some official GPUS platforms vs. Bylaws. 

Otherwise, the code can only be interpreted as aspirational or perhaps a platform statement—not a bylaw. If the proposal is not intended to be applied to a new mechanism and its scope only pertains to the GPUS listservs, then it should therefore be proposed as a Rule/Procedure, not a Bylaw. But none of this is clear.

In conclusion, the potential scope and the wording of the Proposal 1026 clearly violates our GPUS federation structure. The only official members of the GPUS are the various affiliated state parties and caucuses. Thus the proposed bylaw amendment is very problematic and redefines “membership” in direct contravention of GPUS bylaws.

Questions about this system?
Contact the Voting Admin.
The Green Party of the United States voting system is free software, licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL).
You can download a copy here.
To independently verify a ranked choice vote, or for information about how that works, go to Jonathan Lundell's Voting Page and upload the ballot file from the ranked choice vote result page. JL's ranked choice module is licensed under an alternate free software license.
Green Party of the United States