2003 Green Party National Meeting – July 20

GPUS Coordinating Committee
Sunday, July 20, 2003

Washington, DC
Mayflower Hotel

Goood Morning!

Voting will happen within the next 30 minutes, rather than 1 hour.
Also pending:
AC/DC report.
Bush Impeachment
Home by the Holidays

Time to Vote Hold up a voting card.
When you get your ballot, notice on the bottom a space to write your state and a number. These are to control ballot count and maintain the integrity of the process.

passing out CCC ballot (9:20am)
Ballots are due by 10am

There are people from the Center for Voting and Democracy here to assist with any questions. Please remember to rank candidates in order of preference; do not simply mark an X (except in the case of Secretary)

CA–Kevin–Re: Process (supposedly): California has endorsed Jo Chamberlain Note: I was sent corrective language for Kevin’s statement, but there is no record of Dean’s comments, therefore I am leaving the minutes as produced by the note takers 

Caucus time requested (and awarded): 5 minutes.If you need to depart, ballots can be collected early by being brought to Dean at the table.
Joint Proposal from Accreditation Committee and Diversity Committee

Anita Rios–We’re Greens, we’re dedicated to doing this not just right, but Greenly. We can at least keep good order and be good to each other. . .
Proposal is in Lavender.
DC is incubator of Caucus, AC evaluates application.


DC-Maya O’Connor-Friendly Amendment on 5C still on table?
(Consult with the caucuses that are in formation to clarify—Yes)

CA—Beth Moore Haines–Re: 5H, in the definition of caucus purpose,
What is a “significant sector”? (Answer lies in 5A, the 4 pillars and 10 key values will define) “Generally, we will err on the side of inclusion, but within reason.” Eg: No pedophile caucus.
All caucus accreditation will now be a joint process between the AC and DC
Process will be transparent. (as state parties do/should have with their locals)
Which community is responsible—who will take over the roles? (the Accred Committee will address concerns)
“We’re not trying to form a paper entity on a national level that has no grassroots appeal. We need an incubator to grow at a grassroots level.

If an Identity Caucus does not have a platform, must they write one?
(They are encouraged to adopt the National Party Platform)

IA–Holly Hart–Support. Can something clarify for the Women’s Caucus (for instance)?.
Caucuses do not have to write a platform. (It’s a compromise. Point taken—needs to be formed into proposal later.)

In the report of the discussion on the AC/DC proposal, which concerned the role of the Diversity Committee in facilitating accreditation of caucuses, my remarks were recorded unclearly and not entirely correctly. I’m writing a more detailed account to you, and will post a reply to the COO list, as well.

(The mention of a caucus writing their own platform was part of the caucus accreditation definition [appears optional]; how that got in, I don’t know, but no caucus has attempted to write one. There has been lack of clarity and some concern about this within the caucuses, partly because it would involve a lot of work, partly because it’s believed they should simply endorse the GP-US platform. Aything else would be on the order of developing new material to be submitted for inclusion, or their own mission
statement, etc.)

First, the material enclosed in parentheses was not stated by me. I did say, verbatim, “caucuses do not have to write a platform,” because, in discussions with some caucus and SC members, that much is clear – that whatever was being referred to by the term “platform” was not mandatory.

The rest of the record obscures what I actually said. I was speaking about the possibility for caucuses to develop platform material (for consideration for the national platform). I said there was no actual need to do this if caucus members felt their concerns were already adequately addressed; in context, the implication was that this shouldn’t be a mandatory requirement for caucus accreditation. I then said that if caucuses have areas of concern they want further addressed in the platform, to let us (platform committee) know; ie., develop material.

This is a living, breathing document. We can make improvements, but there is no need to make changes to the national platform if it’s acceptable. If a proposed caucus has particular concerns we want to be sure we are aware and have a handle on them.

[other comments]

NJ—Jane Hunter–Thanks for the work. Concern: 5H. note on “significantly represented”–As our society changes, there may be underrepresented groups that have not been so historically disenfranchised—eg: seniors as they increase in proportion of the population.

Q on language: Should we use “mission statement” rather than platform?

I believe the Question – by Jane Hunter, NJ (?) (was it ever answered?) – about terminology would have cleared up the matter, had it been adequately addressed. The term “Mision Statement” actually fits what caucus members themselves see as their requirement, and is more appropriate here.

NY: Process Point:
(Some concern about overuse/abuse of “process points” & “points of information”—please be mindful)

NJ Gary N Notwithstanding, where are the ballots being counted, by whom, and can people watch?

CVD is conducting the ballot count now in office upstairs, Room 234, the vote is easy to take but complicated to count.

If people don’t want to form caucuses, they don’t have to.

Starlene Rankin–Withdrawing 2 amendments (not friendly), but would like to know why.
(Not ready, wanted broader input, many people didn’t see until yesterday, decided not to address immediately)

concerns, willing to stand-aside: 3
unresolved, not willing to stand aside: 0

Proposal PASSES w/o Objection

Report on IRAQ–Medea Benjamin
Iraq is currently the center of world political activity, because it is where the test of empire building is going on. And Greens need to be engaged, to understand just what a mess the B*sh admin. has gotten itself into in Iraq, and to know the repercussions about all the lying & deception. But what really has to be understood is what’s happening there: soldiers dying every day. When she arrived, there were 13 attempts on the lives of US soldiers each day. When she left, 2 weeks later, there were 25 more sophisticated such attempts a day, turned into guerilla war but they won’t call it that: it is a quagmire.

Iraquis feel betrayed, and many fault the US peace movement for not talking about Saddam Hussein & inadequately acknowledging just how bad he was. It IS GOOD that he is gone. (If he is gone. Scuttlebutt sez he’s in the White House. . .) Iraqis feel they won the war because they decided not to fight; they believed US propaganda: don’t fight & we’ll all come out better.”

They will tell you that their lives are much worse now than before invasion re: jobs, security, electricity,…. They are confused and feel an intense sense of betrayal. Eg. Asking why, after Gulf War I, under Hussein, they got electricity and phones back within 2 months after being destroyed, now 2 months later their electrical grid & phone systems are still not working? Why are the US not trying to fix phones? But MCI, of discredited WorldCom, got a major contract for cellphones to call worldwide. As an NGO, Medea was able to get a cellphone w/ free service to anywhere in the world, but Iraqis can’t call their families next door or in a neighboring city.

Looting is rampant, and if not orchestrated by USA, we allowed it to happen. And not just homes but also factories. The nation’s infrastructure is being stolen and black marketed. What is left is a flood of imports from around the world. There are no importation taxes now, so everything floods in across the border.

Why? Because the Design of the B*sh admin. is to make them go cold turkey to create a model in the Middle East of a “Free Open Market” economy. Iraqis don’t know that the US is planning to phase out the food rationing system in November. When asked, what will happen if the food rationing is phased out and they can’t feed themselves?

They say: We will riot. Which is interesting. Iraqis are well educated & organizing resistance, both armed & not, including women’s organizations & unions. It is fascinating. There is serious opposition, organizing fomenting everywhere. An occupation watch center has been set up to support, observe, take testimony about abuses (something new: a place where the US military can go to talk & find how to disengage themselves from Occupation).

It’s time to revive peace movement to say NO to this occupation.
We have good past experience with other movements, and it is happening globally. In the occupation, others are complicit too. Italians now have 3000 police in Baghdad. And there are 22 ministries in Iraq that have been divided up, mostly among Americans. Italians got the Ministry of Culture.

Honduras was forced to send 300 soldiers. El Salvador, 350. Poland, 1000, India refused. Others still resist central command under USA. This IS the time to revive the movement against the war, to say NO to the Occupation. Realize that when B*sh said, “Bring ’em on,” the military in Iraq was horrified. “We thought we were coming here to liberate the people; now we don’t know what we’re here for.” Troops are now starting to question their allegiance to Rumsfield & the B*sh Administration. (“When B*sh said Bring ’em On, we say Bring Them Home!) Troops are now saying “what did we get into?

This is a moment in history–and we don’t get many–to show that we are in solidarity with the troops, their parents, Iraqis and others who want this occupation to stop. We have to say: Bring them home. There is a new center is now manned by Iraqis; anyone who wants to work on this issue, let Medea know.

The most important thing is to Recognize the Moment. Need to focus on the Republican convention in New York City on Aug 29, 2004. Build for a global protest day when The World Says No To Bush! Need to be part of national & global peace movement, with popularity in polls going down & economy in shambles, this is the time for us to get together!

Website: occupationwatch.org Medea will be around for 2 more days if anyone wants to talk. .

B*sh Impeachment Proposal
Elizabeth Shankman, NY
NY proposes, jointly issued by Wisconsin, that the USGP join the movement to impeach the president.
(Proposal in hard copy—Hot Pink.)
Proposal is calling on the Congress to Initiate Impeachment Proceedings against GWB, because:
1. Loss of human life and the destruction of our ecosystem through toxic weaponry
2. The foreign policy of the B*sh administration treats with contempt the US Constitution, the UN charter, and International Law
3. The Impoverishment of the American People. The administration is purposely and for political purposes draining the resources of the country.

Impeachment is appropriate under the Constitution when the president commits high crimes & misdemeanors. We must join the movement now afoot; if not, they will destroy all the institutions it took centuries to build & betray our own struggle. We need to protect these institutions. If we do not do this, we will have little claim to the support of the progressive movement; we would be abdicating and disengaging from the struggle. It will give us focus in this time of chaos. It will weaken the B*sh administration and help us build for 2004.

Ben Manski–This is a good campaign for us to embark upon–‘residents’ should be impeached more often.

NC- Should we allocate a small sum of funds to address this?
–Where it says “lawless president;” should we add: “illegally elected president”

OH-Could this include Cheney as well?
–Could it embrace the whole administration?

LC—Don’t forget that B*sh is a deserter under the uniform code.

NY-modeling proposal of former Attorney-General Ramsey Clark to impeach total administration, including Rumsfield & Ashcroft, should refer to this
(“Illegally selected” taken as friendly amendment “Deserter”—also friendly)

George (WI)—Reminder that we belong to nationwide peace coalition of 660 organizations. Please submit this proposal to your local peace coalitions.

Re: Assassination of Journalists? Al Jazeera was targeded by the BA (B*sh Admin.)

Straw Poll: How many people feel we should add the whole administration (if it is appropriate legally to call for the impeachment of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft)
For: Many (Most)
Against: Few, handful
Abstain: Few, handful

IL– Why move directly to impeach before the historically legal move first to investigate? Why “selected” if Supreme Court said

Answer: in impeachment proceedings, first step is investigation.
–All this great anti-Bush energy should go into electing a Green President.

HI—Re assassination of journalists, response not adequate. It discredits our position to make unproven accusations if the situation is ambiguous. We should stick with the facts that are concrete.

–Suggest we to defer legal questions to the Ramsey Clark’s website, extremely well researched.

(Re: question of Investigation v. Impeachment: the first part of an Impeachment Process is always an Investigation by the
House of Representatives “Assassination of Journalists” is struck from the proposal.)

NE—Cindy—Full support. They tried to impeach Clinton for consensual sex–What Bush has done is infinitely more wrong. We need to support the nationwide movement.
–“Crimes against Humanity”–these words are appropriate

MI–Congressman Conyers may be more supportive, has been talking about it. Maybe if the national Green Party is behind him he will support this more vocally.

HI–Claire Mortimer–Develop a letter that state parties can send to their congressfolk, and a template letter.

AZ–Scotty—decided to support NY resolutions, with reservations

FL–We did not speak up loudly enough when the election was stolen–we should definitely speak up now.

FL–Measured responses are appropriate. Start with an Investigation, escalate as necessary.

DE–John–We must be loud and clear in these times, show leadership, not to let the Dems off the hook, as they have enabled the entire process & let it happen from the get go.

DC–Steve–Add Cheney because the evidence is there. We have to be out front of the Dems on this; they will move more slowly, we must push them.
(Amendment accepted to include Cheney)

CA–Cheney should go down, but reservations
This is 2 proposals in 1: 1.to join a movement, and 2.to make a statement. The movement is a great idea and should be wholeheartedly endorsed. The statement is nowhere near ready, needs working on. The Patriot Act is not even mentioned in this paper, and should be included.

(Ben Manski–dir. Response. We can send it back to committee to get a statement we can be proud of. Statement to be drafted by the Peace Action committee, then returned to the CC for comment/eventual approval.)

Acceptable to CA

VA–We should vote to impeach Bush and Cheney in November of 2004

CA–Ross Mirkarimi–Something with this kind of political heft should not read as only an Activist document. The evidence in the Ramsey Clark case is thin. We should extend the case with citable references that can stick, strengthen footnotes & resources with amendments that can stick.

OH–David Berenson–Glad for CA concerns–Clarification should include indictment for continuing the use of depleted uranium, still doing it.

OH–Resentment of the process moving forward without every delegate receiving the document.

NY—Howie Hawkins—Don’t wait until 2004–Impeach B*sh Now. Politically, this is important. Trust the committee for wording, no micro-management, experts are working on it.

NY–Julia Willebrand–Support. Comments re. legal language are excellent. Language point: “The Green Party of the United States shall LEAD. . .” not join “. . the movement to impeach.”

Test for Consensus
Stand Aside Concerns–19
Unresolved, Not Willing to Stand Aside–4
Presenters move to Vote.
Motion PASSES. [Impeach the Sons of B*shes.]

Question: How to count abstentions? (They are not counted at all.)

Home by the Holidays—by Green Peace Action
Committee (GPax)

Hard copy of proposal in vivid chartreuse.

Ben Manski—We want to work with many various other peace groups in organizing and coordinating, i.e Veterans for Peace, United for Peace & Justice, Women’s groups…

The resolution is self-explanatory: loss of lives, cost, going on day by day so if we don’t push more & more soldiers dying every day. We will publicize: website: homebytheholidays.org

Sign on for newspaper ads. Put Green Party first to initiate campaign for bridge-building

Organize an event for the Veteran’s Day Holiday this year.

Clarifying Questions:

Would it be possible to ask Global Greens to cooperate?

HI–Claire Mortimer—Can resolution include wording to expand ending occupation in Iraq to include forces anywhere in the world, including Afghanistan, Colombia, Philippines, i.e. add “other nations”

IL–Mark Sampson–Any thought of including mention of US responsibility to help rebuild Iraq through troop programs & economic reconstruction? And what about the troops in other locations (Bosnia & elsewhere?)

Rudy–What about all peacekeeping efforts through multinational forces? How implemented?

MA–Rudy Perkins–Would the proposal preclude U.S. participation in all international peacekeeping efforts through multinational forces?”

(UN Resolution 377 is referenced, and language is
included. Proposal would not preclude peacekeeping forces. Dismantling of all foreign military forces is included. The US military exists only for self-defense–our platform says this is the only reason we have a military.)

Marnie Glickman: How much $, and will there be a budget amendment in the near future?

CA–Mike: “Some peacekeeping forces should be better delineated” current or prospective “by the United Nations rather than unilaterally by the United States”

CA–Bethmore Hanes–last be it further resolved: dismantling all US foreign bases. Maybe separate for another proposal?

Straw Poll: How many would support the Resolution
3 in the document? (22)
Who would like to see it struck? (many more)
It is struck from the proposal


The proposers of the Home for the Holidays proposal asked whether the the third resolution in the proposal should be retained. That draft third resolution stated: “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Green Party of the United States calls for the dismantling of all U.S. military bases located on foreign soil, with the total return home of all U.S. military personnel stationed overseas by the winter holidays of the following year.”

The proposers called for a straw poll to determine how many CC delegates supported retaining this third resolution language. 22 delegates favored retaining the language, but many more opposed retaining this language. The proposers amended the Home for
the Holidays proposal by striking the above third resolution language from the proposal.

VA–What about biological weapons–which ones? Can “nuclear weapons” be replaced by “depleted uranium”? Reference to biological weapons refers particularly to Colombia.

[Correction Note] Also, it does not appear to me that the minutes on this discussion reflect the fact that the proposal
was amended by the proposers during the discussion to replace the word “nuclear” with the words “depleted uranium” and “biological” with the word “ecological” in the sixth paragraph of the original proposal.

Concerns and Affirmation

Move to extend time 10 minutes. Time extended.
Point of Information–Approved to 2004, not 2003

DC—Steve Shafarman-Concerned that US citizens might believe Green Party can’t be trusted on foreign policy, could be used against us in later years.

DC–Maya O’Connor-Different concern: Resolution doesn’t go far enough, what about mercenaries, no mention?

PA-uranium depletion substitution: need to talk about this.

FL—Resolution is indicator that the GP is not just a loudspeaker but a translator of movement. Should be part of educational process to lead the way & show where US policy is wrong.

HI-add Afghanistan

–This document without practical articulations could be very dangerous, could cause more loss of life, US foreign involvement for more than 100 years, could change emphasis. . .

Motion to allow Medea to speak on how Iraqis would
feel about it. (approved)

Medea–Iraqi feeling is complex. Iraqis are afraid of civil war. Others say the opposite – US has responsibility, but need to bring the troops home. Fundamentally any action we take to pressure our government to accelerate the end of the occupation would
be strong and welcomed.

–Still allow for UN peacekeeping force

MA-give examples of chemical & biological attacks

MA–Rudy Perkins–Agree with view that this campaign would be better done in two phases, first phase on Iraq, second phase after more education, on US military presence in other countries. Proposal would be stronger if it gave examples of the chemical & biological weapons used.

NY–Mark–message will be lost if we add too much: focus only on Iraq

CA–How much money will be spent for ads: expensive? (money not from party budgeted funds, but from fund-raising efforts)

CA–Are we exposing an isolationist policy? Think of impact of troops abroad, future legacy.

CA–Growing up in Iran, thousands of US troops were thrown out by the revolution. Wholeheartedly support.

(Revised budget: no $ requested.
Difference in what we take as position & how we advocate, must reflect the position of party.
Re: concerns abut the UN and its ability to do peacekeeping in Iraq.
This explicitly supports the UN’s ability to do that.)

>Test for Consensus
Stand Aside Concerns: 17
Unresolved: 20
Presenters move to a vote:
Yes: 55
Proposal PASSES

Fund-raising report:
Jack Urich–
Big thanks to volunteers.
We have in hand $6,941
Workshops raised $12,395
$1,581 already for the Black Caucus proposal
Total pledged $16,746, so over $30,000 raised

Platform Committee
Bud Dickenson (CA), Dee Berry, Howie Hawkins (NY), Mark Reichert, Jenefer Ellingston (DC), Reno Alluci (FL) These members were present at the conference. The platcom actually has around 25 members, recently adding 5 or 6 new members.

Platform Committee has striven for openness, accessibility and transparency. New processes have been developed/implemented to improve the 4 D’s : Debate, Deliberation, Discussion and Democracy. Platform Committee Report is extensive, included in the packet. [hard copy in folder] Open & accessible – mission is to engage GP grassroots & engage members outwards to inform general public what GP stands for. Truly interactive, throughout the country. 2 year timetable developed last year, received submissions, spent 2 months working on document

13 submissions received suggesting revisions and new material:

FP, Labor, Lavender, Civil Rights, Health Concerns, foreign policy,
agriculture, energy, more…

New material may be submitted through December 31, 2003. will circulate draft 2 months in advance, 6 weeks to 2 months before 2004 GP convention. Materials need to be approved by states, later draft will be put up on website. After that, they will process & revise.

2004 Convention was scheduled for July, now June

Role of Agenda is to provide an orderly process that will not lead to disruption of the 2004 convention. The Platform is a long term document, used for 4 years. It is not a way to deal with crises. We have Resolutions to deal with crises.
Re: Timeline–Disagreement over meaning of “First Draft” (“Comparison Draft”) Everything in the platform is important to someone–it is not a place to set priorities. That is done as events warrant, using the platform as a resource.

CA–Sarah—On foreign policy–what about Palestinian/Israeli issue? Have you addressed?

CA–Mike Wyman—Platform is a philosophical document about where we stand and what we believe. But candidates need to be able to say what we are going to DO if elected. Does such belong in the platform, or elsewhere?

NY–Mark–in Agricultural, repeated references to corporate producers, not processors–but many, many farmers are being destroyed by the Processing, which is the problem, not producers. Also, there is much reference to Small Businesses, but we must speak of and to the Self-Employed, not just small biz!

NY—Elizabeth-When is the website up, how will it be announced, what will be on it?

RI–Tony–FP—If foreign policy is new & is a distinct platform issue, can you refer FP questions to the Int’l Committee

ME—Morgan—Mention of action vs. trafficking of women is not included and should be. Contacts established with many & could
connect with other organizations.

[Correction Note]

ME–Morgen-I asked the Platform Committee a question. I asked if I, as a delegate of the national committee, could outreach and contact organizations relative to a plank I was working on in my Green Party capacity. I used one of the issues I was working on as an example. I am writing two planks relating to the trafficking of women. I have already written a longer paper on the topic. I would like to contact the primary human rights organizations who have done the work in this area to ask them to work with me in preparing a Plank on this issue for the GP-US 2004 Platform. My rationale is that such a joint effort in writing the Plank would give the highest assurance that this complex topic was handled as accurately as possible.

My second rationale is that such an outreach and collaboration would, I believe, be very helpful in demonstrating to these organizations our commitment to their issues and to build good will and exposure to Greens in a practical capacity. I am also hoping to demonstrate to these organizations the benefit to them of having their concerns reflected and addressed in the Platform of the Green Party. My question at the CC Sunday meeting was: Can I contact these organizations using my official and relevant Green Party positions, i.e., CC delegate, Women’s Caucus Organizer, and writing Platform submissions?
I remember some response was given. That’s why I’m cc’ing Holly. I think she said then or later to me personally that it seemed like a good thing or the right thing to do. Or if that wasn’t said, I know I need to follow up on this to get a decision. I want this reflected in the minutes correctly, because I want to start making outreach. It makes far better sense and will get much better results to outreach in my official rather than personal capacity. I appreciate your attention on this, and I hope I got it in on time.

[Followup Correction Note]

Holly Hart-As I recall, I said I thought this was a good idea, and had encouraged people to do this, if interested. I’d thought this was dealing with the possibility of soliciting material from experts (or, in one case, working with an interstate team of Greens). I didn’t pick up on the question of whether one should use one’s official capacity to solicit material, but it seems appropriate to do so, especially if the people you’re representing are interested in getting together platform material.

AL–wants a democratic and orderly convention next year. Platform committee should tell us more details about the approval process ASAP, get out proposal of how this will happen so as we are ready and prepared.

DC–Jenefer Ellingston—wants to reinforce getting involved. Please recall that platform text derives from the 10 key values, and the 10 key values derive from the 4 pillars.

DC–Steve Shafarman–Has the PlatCom considered restructuring under the 4 pillars rather than the 10 Key Values? One effect of this would be to give Non-Violence/Peace a higher profile, right up front, simpler & more logical.

Use the process, look at the template. It is important to learn about and follow the process, as this is the major factor in how we adopt new material and make revisions. Send in comments. Website–don’t know when and how yet. There will be a draft platform, and something interactive. It will be up ASAP, as soon as we find out who to go to!

Details of 2004 convention not complete, will talk about this later, get facts from us.

Re: timeline: It’s important to get correct information, from the co-chairs. The platform is not a list of what we’ll do the moment we get into office. [that would be a Program]. Need experts & people to write about what to do.

[Correction Note] Due to the platcom report being cut short, we will be sending out a review of the process, we encourage everyone to go over the materials they got from us at the conference and watch for announcements!

We’ll end with announcements, lastly election results.
First check out, then eat lunch.
Communication Committee will meet today.
New Hampshire Room meetings will be held in the Rhode Island Room
The Humanist Caucus is meeting for lunch.
Rally for Self-Determination is at Dupont Circle from 1 to 4.

Presidential Exploratory Committee
Document: Perspectives Toward Peace, action items have arrows, will discuss online
Many Thanks to All.

Vote Results:
111 Ballots Cast (full complement), no spoiled ballots
Victory threshold was 27.75 votes.
Ben Manski 44
Marnie Glickman 30
Jo Chamberlain 27

For Secretary:
Greg Gerritt–56 to 53 write-ins.

For CCC:
Threshold was over 10 votes, 111 ballots, 3 unused
Juscha Robinson, Roy Williams, Marnie Glickman
Masada Disenhouse, Gray Newman, Susan King, Dan Kinney
Adriana Buonorotti, Penny Teal, Mike Livingston

Thank You, Tom Sevigny, for your excellent service
to the Steering Committee.

Connect! Create! Contribute! Celebrate!

Thank You, Nadine Bloch, for Facilitating!>[respectfully submitted: Jay Marx, Amy Larkin, Ray
Carrier Washington, DC
July 20, 2003]

* * *
Notes on the voting process

The vote count was done in room 234. Three young men  from the Center for Voting and Democracy were counting and sorting ballots, along with Gary from NJ.

There were 111 ballots counted for the SC election and an equal number for the CCC. However, 3 ballots for the CCC were not counted because the state and number were not filled in. By process of elimination, these were determined to be the 2 Missouri delegates and Pennsylvania #3. One ballot was marked D 2, and since both votes from Delaware were already counted, it was considered valid for DC. The results were the same when the blank ballots were factored in, however they were not counted in the official total.

For the CCC, there were 4 write-ins for Phil Huckleberry and one for Ross Mirkarimi.

One SC ballot had NOTA ranked third. All others were moved up one rank.

Write-in votes for Tom and Tony for SC were disregarded.