Dems for Equality May General Meeting on Thursday, May 24th to feature debate on Rules

(Marriage Equality, Choice, Endorsements, Board Term Limits)

On Thursday, May 25th San Diego Democrats for Equality will host a debate on Rules and Bylaws.

The Executive Board is recommending that the club add the following to the Standing Rules for endorsements:

In order to qualify for an endorsement or an “acceptable rating”, a candidate must be fully support reproductive choice and fully support marriage equality, as measured by responding affirmatively and unequivocally to all related questions on the club’s candidate survey. In the event that this requirement is waived by the two-thirds vote necessary to waive these Standing Rules, an affirmative vote of at least 75% of the club members present and eligible to vote shall then be required to endorse the candidate or rate the candidate “acceptable.”

Because of the proposal is contains several elements and represents a significant policy change, the club will debating the following questions prior to voting on the rule. Based on the discussion, amendments to the proposed rule may be considered.

1. Is it appropriate to have a litmus test for candidates?
2. Should both marriage equality and pro-choice stands both be litmus tests? Should other issues also be included?
3. How should it be determined if a candidate is completely pro-choice?
4. Should the rule apply to both endorsements and “acceptable” ratings or just endorsements?
5. When a motion passes to waive the rules, should a higher threshold of 75% (instead of 60%) be required to endorse or rate “acceptable” a candidate that does not score 100% on these issues?
6. If adopted, should the rule take effect after the Primary Election or after the General Election in November 2012?

The Executive Board was unable to come to a consensus on the effective date, so the membership will need to make that determination if the new rule is adopted. The Board, however, decided to recommend codifying this long-standing but unwritten policy into the Standing Rules:

Endorsements or ratings of candidates in a Primary Election automatically carry forward if the candidate advances to the General Election. A candidate rated “acceptable” in a Primary Election who advances to the General Election is eligible to be considered for an endorsement in the General Election.

At the meeting, the membership will also be voting on the following bylaw amendments, recommended by the Nominating Committee to bring “new blood” onto the board while still utilizing the expertise and talents of experienced board members: A member may not serve on the Executive Board for more than ten consecutive years. A member may serve again after a minimum of a one-year break in service on the board. The Past President may continue to serve through the term of the subsequent President, even if it results in more than ten consecutive years of board service for the Past President.

This limitation shall not apply to an ex-officio board member who serves on the board as a result of being a member of the Democratic National Committee. For compelling reasons, this requirement can be waived by a two-thirds vote prior to the election, provided notice of the intent to waive the requirement was included in the notice of the election meeting. The Executive Board shall have the authority to confer nonvoting Emeritus Board Member status to a member who has served a cumulative minimum of eight years on the Executive Board. Finally, there will be a vote on the following addition to the bylaw amendment process:

These bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds vote at a properly noticed membership meeting at which a quorum is present, provided that a summary of the proposed amendment is included in the meeting notice.

—————————————————————————————————————–

NO to Rules Change
By Craig Roberts, Vice President for Political Action

The proposed changes to the club’s Standing Rules for Endorsements are unnecessary.

The club asks candidates all sorts of questions about all sorts of issues – not only about marriage equality and reproductive rights but also about education issues for LGBT youth, labor issues and public health issues such as HIV/AIDS, death with dignity and medical marijuana. We strive to ask comprehensive questions so that we know how each candidate stands on the kaleidoscope of concerns that all Democrats deem important.

While I am sure all club members agree that marriage equality and reproductive rights are critical, are we prepared to say that they are more significant than employment non-discrimination? Than equal access to health care? Than the separation of church and state? Than parental rights?

Passing these changes effectively creates two tiers of issues within the questionnaire: those that must always be supported and those that can be ignored or opposed. By passing these changes the membership would essentially elevate marriage equality and reproductive rights above all other issues we should care about as LGBT-supportive Democrats.

If these changes pass, theoretically a candidate could be completely in support of marriage equality and reproductive rights but opposed to every other issue the club deems important and still be eligible for endorsement. As a lifelong Democrat, I believe ALL the issues on our questionnaire are important. I worked very hard last year with a dedicated committee composed of a cross-section of the membership — new members, long-time members, board members and non-board members — to create our latest questionnaire.

The club’s Vice Presidents for Political Action have never concealed any candidate’s questionnaire responses. When a candidate’s answers deviate from those the club considers correct, those deviations are made public during the endorsement forum. Then the membership discusses those deviations and debates, within the context of the particular race, how significant they are.

If we decide that a candidate can never be supported who is not 100% on marriage equality and reproductive rights, then we might as well delete all other issues’ questions from our candidate questionnaire.

And yes, I am aware that there is a provision in this change to allow the membership to override this endorsement rule. But this cannot be done unless 75% of the membership agrees to do so, rather than the standard 60%. This higher, almost impossible, threshold further elevates these issues above all the others we care about as Democrats.

Let’s be honest — these changes are only being proposed because ONE candidate in the last 10 years or so got rated “Acceptable” (not endorsed) in ONE race. Eventually that candidate committed such an egregious act that this rating was revoked. Therefore, I would say our current system works pretty well. Why should our membership tie its own hands when it comes to discussing the totality of a candidate’s stance on a variety of subjects?

And I reject the fallacious argument that by failing to enact these changes that the club is somehow betraying its reason for existence, even its very name. That makes for a great emotional sound bite. It also happens to insult those of us who oppose this change for very good and thoughtful reasons and frankly, seems to me to be a liberal version of McCarthyism. Moreover, these changes make a mockery of our name by creating inequality amongst the range of Democratic issues we should all care about.

I will place my credentials on the support of marriage equality and reproductive rights against anyone else in the club. I also believe that these changes are poorly considered and will have unintended consequences that cannot be foreseen.

Let’s trust our own membership’s intelligence on all Democratic issues and reject these unnecessary restrictions on our endorsement decisions.

—————————————————————————————————————–
YES on Rules Change
By Linda Perine

I attended the 49th annual Planned Parenthood dinner Thursday night. It was a bittersweet evening of mixed
emotions.

It was heartwarming to see Cecile Richards carrying on the tradition of strong Texas women that her mother, the former governor of Texas, Anne Richards, epitomized. Cecile is a force in her own right and the list of
accomplishment, growth and good work by Planned Parenthood under her leadership is impressive. Yet, even more impressive and frightening is the litany of attacks against Planned Parenthood, family planning, individual self-determination and, really, anything having to do with the apparently not-so-private parts of women.

At the end of the evening I ran into Vince Hall, the V.P Public Affairs for the local PP. He asked what I thought of the event. The only word I could think of was “still”: 47 years after Griswold v. Connecticut recognized a right to privacy; 39 years after Roe v. Wade gave substance to that right; 92 years after the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote and 147 years after the 13th Amendment abolished slavery. We are STILL discussing whether or not women are full and equal citizens of this country. 43 years after Stonewall, we are STILL debating the full humanity of LGBT folks.

I believe we are still having these discussions because we let them get away with it. In a myriad of different ways we undermine our cause, we give lie to the seriousness of our intent: Every time you vote for a member of the party of never-ending attacks on the liberties of women and the civil rights of gays and lesbians; every time you allow another issue to take precedence over the full citizenship of the majority of the American citizenry; every time a gay man says protecting a woman’s right to choose is not a relevant issue to him; every time we decide protecting our rights is not as important to us as taking them away is to them.

It may be the clarion call to a woman’s right to choose does not resonate with my gay brothers. Let’s look at it from the most persuasive perspective — self-interest. The foundation of LGBT rights is women’s rights. The right to privacy, which was the basis of the 1965 Griswold decision and 1973 Roe v. Wade, forms the backbone of Lawrence v. Texas. Lawrence is the Supreme Court decision that made sodomy laws unconstitutional. What the Supreme Court gives, the Supreme Court can take away. So if Roe v. Wade falls, you must ask yourself how far behind is Lawrence?

What has this got to do with changing the standing rules?

In a way, we should not even be having this conversation. We should be past the point of ever endorsing anyone who does not support full marriage equality for gays and lesbians. It should never be on the radar screen that a person not fully supportive of reproductive justice would be acceptable to our organization. But it has been and may be in the future. So we need to take that possibility off the table. Or at least make it so the determination that women’s rights or LGBT civil rights are not as important as some other thing will not be made lightly.

The Club will vote on amendments to the standing rules that will assure the San Diego Democrats for Equality endorses or rates as acceptable only candidates that are fully pro-choice and pro equality. I would ask that you vote in favor of the motion amending the standing rules regarding endorsement and acceptable rating, as follows:

In order to qualify for an endorsement or an “acceptable rating”, a candidate must be fully support reproductive choice and fully support marriage equality, as measured by responding affirmatively and unequivocally to all related questions on the club’s candidate survey. In the event that this requirement is waived by the two-thirds vote necessary to waive these Standing Rules, an affirmative vote of at least 75% of the club members present and eligible to vote shall then be required to endorse the candidate or rate the candidate “acceptable.”