|
THE VILLAGE CHOICE - Volume 4, Issue 40
|
Manhattan Libertarian Party
|
Oct 14, 2005 13:34 PDT
|
THE VILLAGE CHOICE
A Weekly Rundown of News, Views and Events Affecting Freedom in NYC
Volume 4, Issue 40 * October 15, 2005
THE VILLAGE CHOICE is brought to you by the Manhattan Libertarian Party.
http://www.manhattanlp.org
In this issue:
* Victory, thy name is Popkin!
* Silk lights up Page Six!
* City Council says no to new jobs and lower prices!
* Your calendar of pro-freedom events!
* Much more!
==============
* News Bites *
Popkin Smacks Down the BOE... Again
On October 12, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, upheld
a decision of the lower court, putting the Libertarian Party candidate
for Kings County Borough President on the November 2005 ballot. The
issue in this case (In the Matter of Gary S. Popkin) is whether a single
petition can carry a citywide slate and two different district
candidates, in two different districts. In this particular case, the
question was whether the Libertarians could circulate a single petition
that named the 3 citywide nominees, as well as a nominee for Brooklyn
President, and a nominee for Queens President. The party, of course,
recognized that this single petition had to get enough signatures for
each of the nominees from among voters in the proper places. But the
Board of Elections had said the petition was intrinsically invalid as to
form. However, the courts disagreed. The precedent will make it possible
for minor parties in the future to print fewer separate petition forms.
http://ballot-access.org/2005/10/13/new-york-libertarian-ballot-access-victory/
Libertarian Gossip
Though she doesn't have a chance of winning, Audrey Silk, the
Libertarian candidate for mayor, will get some votes from smokers. Silk
has made Mayor Bloomberg's draconian ban on smoking in public places the
centerpiece of her campaign, and has been handing out lighters that say,
"End Prohibition: Smoke Bloomberg in '05." Silk says, "Repealing the
nanny smoke ban is one of my top issues . . . If the ban is about
'protecting' nonsmokers, then why aren't smokers-only clubs allowed?"
http://www.nypost.com/gossip/29202.htm
The War on Cheap Groceries
The City Council this week overrode a mayoral veto of a bill that will
require large supermarkets and big-box stores that sell food in the five
boroughs to pay part of their employees' medical expenses for the first
time. In his veto message, Mayor Bloomberg said the bill is pre-empted
by a federal law that regulates health care plans provided by private
businesses. Other opponents of the measure have said it was pushed by
city grocery stores and labor leaders and is aimed at closing the market
to non-union companies like Wal-Mart, the low-cost retail giant that has
yet to open in New York.
http://www.nysun.com/article/21293
Save the Rich
The city's rich and well-connected were tipped off to last week's subway
terror threat days before average New Yorkers. At least two E-mails
revealing the purported plot were sent to a select crowd of business and
arts executives early last week by New Yorkers who claimed to have close
connections to Homeland Security and other federal officials,
authorities said. The NYPD confirmed that it learned of the E-mails on
Oct. 3 - three days before Mayor Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Raymond
Kelly and the FBI went public with the threat.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/355272p-302744c.html
====================
* Rant of the Week *
Libertarians Versus the Board of Elections
By Jim Lesczynski
Is it too much to ask that NYC bureaucracies such as the Board of
Elections follow their own rules? Apparently it is. While Gary Popkin
was wrapping up his latest trouncing of the BOE in court this week –
regaining his rightful place on the ballot – I was initiating another
lawsuit against the BOE to make them give our Libertarian candidates the
ballot column we deserve.
Keep in mind that in each case, we weren’t asking that the court
overturn the BOE’s rules, or complaining that the rules were unfair. We
are only asking that the stupid bureaucrats follow the stupid rules they
wrote. You’d think if you’re the one writing the rules, they’d be easy
to observe.
In Gary Popkin’s case, the BOE tried to throw him off the ballot, even
though he got more than 6,000 signatures on his ballot access petition –
well over the 4,000 required by state election law. The “problem” was
that Gary Popkin, the Libertarian candidate for Brooklyn Borough
President, shared a petition form with John Clifton, who was nominated
to be the Libertarian candidate for Queens Borough President.
It’s not like Gary was trying to pull a fast one by claiming the Queens
voters who signed for John should also count for him. Gary was only
claiming the Brooklyn signatories, of whom there were over 6,000. The
BOE bizarrely claimed that the combined petition was “inherently
defective” in form and an attempt to defraud the signers. When they
tried to kick him off the ballot, Gary sued and promptly won in court.
The BOE appealed, but the appellate division sustained the lower court’s
ruling. For once, the judges got something right.
Meanwhile, I learned this week that the BOE is trying to screw all our
candidates out of our rightful place on the ballot in Column F (for
Freedom!), and placing us instead in Column G, after the Socialist
Workers Party. That could have potentially significant ramifications
this year, due to the number of candidates and the strange configuration
of the proposed ballot. (In many election districts, being on F instead
of G will make the difference between being in the top row with the
major parties or having our candidates "snake" down to a second row with
the rest of the independent candidates.)
Rule A3 of the NYC BOE's "Independent Nominating Petition Rules for
Calendar Year 2005" states:
"A3. The order of ballot shall be determined for Independent Nominations
by the first candidate to file a cover sheet, if required, and a
sufficient number of signatures to qualify that candidate to appear on
the ballot."
Jak Karako, the Libertarian candidate for Council District 4, filed his
cover sheet, signatures and letter of acceptance on August 16. All of
the Socialist Workers Party candidates filed their cover sheets and
petitions on August 18. The rest of the Libertarian candidates filed
their cover sheets and petitions on August 22.
Reading rule A3, it is clear that one of our candidates was the first
independent body candidate to file, and thus he is entitled to be on the
ballot ahead of the Socialist Workers Party. The state election law says
that all candidates from the same independent body shall be assigned to
the same column. Thus, all of the Libertarian Party candidates should
have Column F.
Over the weekend, I read the BOE's published list of candidates for the
general election. The official ballot has not yet been published. I
noticed that for each office, they listed the Socialist Workers Party
candidate ahead of the Libertarian candidate. This made me suspicious
that this was the order they intend to use on the ballot. I called the
BOE Tuesday morning, and they confirmed that is the case. I pointed out
that we filed the first cover sheet and petition. They argued that no,
the Socialists beat us. (As if!)
Tuesday afternoon, I went down to the BOE and demanded to see the
time-stamped cover sheets for the Libertarians and the Socialist
Workers. Sure enough, Jak's was dated and time-stamped first. "Ah, but
we go by the top of the ticket," the BOE drones argued. Au contraire, I
said, your own rule A3 doesn't say anything about the top of the ticket.
It says "the first candidate". "Well, we go by when all the petitions
for all the candidates for that party are turned in." Again, I pointed
to rule A3. Nothing about all the candidates. Just the first candidate.
The gentlemen in the Candidates Record Unit recommended that I go tell
it to the Legal Department if I didn't like their interpretation of the
rule. So I walked over to the Legal Department and asked to speak to an
attorney. I explained the matter to the attorney. He agreed I had a good
point, but then he walked over to the CRU to consult with the ballot
guys who gave their argument about the top of the ticket, and then he
finally said this is something the commissioners would have to rule on.
How do I get the commissioners to rule on this, I asked. He told me that
as a matter of fact, their weekly meeting was starting in 15 minutes
(1:30 pm), but they had a very full agenda.
I thanked the attorney and walked over to the building where the
commissioners were meeting. I asked if I could have some time at the end
of the agenda and they agreed. After sitting there for the next couple
hours, I finally got to make my case. They agreed that I had a good
argument, but their counsel explained that their "policy" (in apparent
contravention to the published rules) has been to go by the top of the
ticket. I pointed out again that they should really go by their own
published rules, not some unwritten policy. I think the commissioners
were actually leaning toward giving in to me, when one of the worker
bees from the ballot unit spoke up and pointed out that they were
already mailing out some absentee ballots, even though the official
ballot isn't near finished.
(As it turned out, the BOE has been in contempt of court since September
22 by ignoring the first judge’s ruling in Gary Popkin’s case by sending
out absentee ballots for Kings County without Gary listed as the
Libertarian candidate. The assholes just assumed they would overturn the
ruling on appeal and could do whatever they wanted. We may have to file
yet another lawsuit to get their contempt of court resolved.)
The commissioner chairing the meeting said, "I congratulate you on
_almost_ having a good gotcha. But with absentee ballots already
starting to go out, we don't want to add to the confusion, so I think
we'll stick with our policy and re-write the rule to conform with the
policy at a later date."
So now we’ve filed another lawsuit against the frigging BOE to make them
follow their own Rule A3 and give us column F. All eight of this year’s
Libertarian candidates in NYC are plaintiffs. I expect we’ll win this
one too, but it sure would be nice if we didn’t have to spend so much
time dancing with the BOE in court, so we could spend more time and
energy campaigning.
===================
* Upcoming Events *
Monday, October 17, 10:30 p.m.
"The Libertarian Alternative"
A Libertarian political talk show
Time Warner Cable Ch. 34, RCN Cable Ch. 110, MNN Ch. 1
http://www.libertarianalternative.org
Tuesday, October 18, 8:30 p.m.
"Hardfire"
A Libertarian political talk show focusing on NYC
Time Warner Cable Ch. 56
http://hardfire.net
Thursday, October 20, 8:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
Forum: Is Eminent Domain Necessary for Neighborhood Redevelopment?
Discussion of eminent domain and its impact on local communities
The Urban Center, 475 Madison Avenue
http://www.mas.org/PlanningCenter/#forums
Thursday, October 20, 7:00 p.m.
SCOPE-NYC meeting
Monthly meeting of the New York City affiliate of the Shooters'
Committee on Political Education, a pro-RKBA organization
Jade Mountain Restaurant, 197 Second Avenue
http://scopeny.org/NYC
================================
* Manhattan Libertarian Party Honor Roll *
Benefactors (have given at least $1,000 to the MLP in 2005)
Ron Moore
Victor Niederhoffer
Founders (have given at least $500 to the MLP in 2005)
Your Name Here?
================================
* News tips, rants and events wanted! *
Help us improve THE VILLAGE CHOICE. Send news bites, rants and event
announcements to village-@manhattanlp.org. Please include a web
link whenever possible. We will occasionally consider broader topics,
but our strong preference is for items pertaining to freedom (or the
lack thereof) in New York City.
THE VILLAGE CHOICE is edited by Jim Lesczynski.
To subscribe to THE VILLAGE CHOICE, simply send a BLANK email to:
villagechoic-@topica.com
Read the current issue or back issues of THE VILLAGE CHOICE on the web
at:
http://www.topica.com/lists/villagechoice/read
If you like THE VILLAGE CHOICE, please FORWARD it to your friends and
encourage them to subscribe.
If you're offended by anything in this newsletter, you're obviously a
humorless socialist of either the right-wing or left-wing variety.
See you next week!
|
|
 |
|
