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


Proposal Details

Proposal ID1041
ProposalSustain the SC Findings on Proposal 1039
PresenterNational Committee
Floor ManagerAnita Rios
Discussion03/22/2021 - 03/23/2021
Voting03/24/2021 - 03/26/2021
Presens Quorum32 0.6666
Consens Quorum48 A Majority of Yes and No Votes


Notice of findings on proposal 1039
At our call on 3/14/2021 a two thirds majority of the steering committee agreed to the following findings on proposal 1039
1) Proposals which seek to modify the powers of a committee must come in the form of an amendment to their mission statement, not their bylaws or rules.
This proposal must be written in the form of a modification of the mission statement.
2)The following portion of the proposal is not enforceable because neither the National Committee or any of its committees has the authority to impose
"penalties for perjury". In order for the proposal to be in accordance with the scope of the Green Party of the US National Committee bylaws this must
be removed from proposal 1039.
(p) Opportunity to Examine and Cross-Examine Witnesses, Under Oath
Advocates for the prosecuting and responding parties may examine and
cross- examine any witness offering testimony during the hearing. Each
witness offering testimony in the hearing shall be first duly sworn on
oath or affirmation, subject to the penalties for perjury, to tell the
truth in their testimony.
In addition, although we did not issue findings on the general language of the proposal it seemed to many of us that
it was written in a manner that is cumbersome and confusing. While we focused on the most egregious findings, if the proposal is resubmitted we suggest
that it be drafted in language that is readily understandable by someone without a legal background or without having to access a legal dictionary. While
this is not findings we suggest that the sponsors of proposal 1039 redraft the proposal so that the following section would no longer be needed. 
(a) Definitions

For any term used in this paragraph whose meaning is not clear from the
context of these rules, such term shall be read to have the meaning
provided by Black's Legal Dictionary as published at

the adoption of the findings below, because this ruling is contrary to
our rules.

This objection is raised pursuant to "Section 6-10 Appeals of
Procedural Decisions Made by the Steering Committee, Floor Manager
or Facilitator". I invite five or more delegates from five or more
states to join me to "stay the effective date of that decision" and to
cause the question to be put to this body on sustaining the decision of
the Steering Committee. I invite my colleague on this body to join me
in overturning these findings by voting NO on the question of
sustaining them.

I. No modification of the mission statement of the Accreditation
Committee is sought nor necessary to authorize the fulfillment of the
Committee's existing function.

The Rules and Procedures of the Green Party of the United States already provide, in a provision designated as "V. PROCEDURES FOR REVOCATION OF ACCREDITATION",
that "2. A grievance lodged against an accredited state (party) by an individual or group should be investigated by the committee as in the appeals process
above. A hearing should be held at the next general meeting. The NC should formulate rules for conducting such hearings."

The existing mission statement of the Accreditation Committee already
provides: "The GPUS Accreditations Committee (AC) is chartered to
review requests by forming state parties and caucuses for accreditation
by the GPUS, as well as complaints against state parties and caucuses
which are based upon the accreditation requirements of the GPUS."

The rules of the party already anticipate the formulation and adoption
by this Green National Committee, of rules to address the purposes of
proposal #1039. The Acccreditation Committee is already
'review(ing) . . . complaints against state parties and caucuses' (just
recently Rhode Island, Alaska, Georgia, and apparently there was a recent complaint
against Minnesota as well), and its mission statement
already anticipates this role for the committee.

II. Proposal #1039 does not anticipate that the 'penalties of perjury'
would be imposed by the National Committee nor by any of its standing
committees, merely that a hearing panel conducting a hearing pursuant
to the rules proposed by #1039 swear or affirm 'the truth in their

A. The findings raise this second objection that "neither the National
Committee (n)or any of its committees has the authority to impose
'penalties for perjury'".

Perjury is a criminal offense. Its prosecution is a matter for the
District Attorney. And the penalties for conviction are a matter for a
judge with the authority to impose them. Nothing in GNC #1039 seeks to
change that, nor to assume for the Green National Committee the
authority to prosecute or impose penalties for the conviction of

As the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found in its examination of whether
an oath sworn outside of a Court hearing was subject to the penalties
of perjury, in United States vs White (270 F3rd 356 at page 363
(2001)), "We have in the past looked to whether the entity to which the
statements were made received federal support and/or was subject to
federal regulation."

The Green National Committee operates as the national committee of the
Green Party of the United States pursuant to a 2001 Advisory Opinion of
the Federal Elections Commission, and the operation of this national
party is subject to federal regulation and a long history of case law
protecting voters from the arbitrary actions of political parties in
the perfomance of their quasi-public functions.

B. This party already has a similar provision in the "Rules of the
Presidential Nominating Convention", requiring that affidavits form the
basis for "Challenges to Preliminary Findings and/or Preliminary
Credentialing". Paragraph 4-8.3 states such affidavits "shall serve
the same function as an oath or affirmation and shall carry the same
responsibility to the truth on the part of their proponents".

The rules governing the Credentials Committee serving the Presidential
Nominating Convention determine ultimately who has standing to
participate in the nominating process to choose the slate carrying the
Green Party nomination on the ballot lines of the member state parties
of this national federation. Similarly the actions of the
Accreditation Committee in fulfillment of its mission to 'review . . .
complaints against state parties' ultimately relates to a power to
disfranchise Green voters, and should similarly be exercised in a
manner which protects the due process rights of any state party or
identity caucus subject to such a complaint. Requiring the
truthfulness of testimony on which they rely for making such
determinations is completely consistent with that responsibility.

III. The Steering Committee has exceeded its ministerial role in
administrating the orderly consideration of proposals offered by the
member state parties and caucuses for the consideration of the Green
National Committee.

The Steering Committee, in its adoption of these findings, seeks to
substitute its political judgement on the merits of GNC #1039 for that
of the National Committee in a manner which denies the Green National
Committee of an opportunity to debate the merits of the proposal for

These findings fail to make the case that GNC #1039 is 'in conflict
with GPUS Bylaws'. The process of debating proposals before the Green
National Committee affords many opportunities for members of the
governing body of the party to weigh the specifics of a proposal, to
raise concerns with how it is framed and the suitabuility of the
policies it advocates and for a sponsor to offer substitute language
before a vote on the proposal. That is the role of the National
Committee, not of the Steering Committee. Nothing in our rules
authorizes the Steering Committee to substitute its judgement on these
questions for that of the Delegates named by the member state parties
and accredited identity caucuses of the party.


“Shall the body sustain the decision of the Steering Committee on findings for proposal 1039.

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.


If the proposal fails Proposal 1039 will enter the voting queue Monday April 5.
Please note: 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.



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