A friend in the legal cannabis movement sent us the statement embedded below.
The statement from the Grassroots Legalize Cannabis Party chair--authorized by the party's central committee--isn't new, though it's updated.
Under Minnesota election law, the GLC Party is a major party, having earned this status by capturing a required percentage of the statewide vote in a past election.
Short skinny: Steve Patterson, who won the August 9 prmary, is a hijacker who had no prior connection with the party. The statement maintains that Patterson had hoped to run as an Independent as a part of a personal grudge against Governor Tim Walz, but found he could use a loophole to file as a GLC candidate without collecting signatures on a petition to get on the ballot.
UPDATE: In mid-June, Matthew Stolle reported about Patterson for the Post Bulletin in Co-owner of Lansing Corners near Austin is running for governor to protect, strengthen small businesses:
Steve Patterson does not smoke pot, yet he is running for governor on the Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis Party. . . .
Patterson, 34, says he represents a strain of public opinion that is "just sick of it all" – sick of what he considers DFL Gov. Tim Walz’s heavy-handedness in dealing with the pandemic, the damage to small business, and the two-headed monster called the two-party system. . . .
Patterson said he decided to pull the trigger on running for governor while watching a Vikings football game. A commercial aired urging people to get vaccinated. Tired of the constant "harassment," Patterson went on Facebook and vowed to run for governor if he got a 100 likes. He got 129 for his post called the "People's Governor." . . .
Though not a cannabis user, Patterson supports the idea of allowing people to use and smoke marijuana recreationally. The real value of running on the cannabis ticket as a third-party candidate is to engage people turned off by the rancid state of politics.
“What I’m looking for is new voters,” Patterson said. “I’m on Facebook, I’m on Twitter. I’m on TikTok. I’m looking (for voters who are) legitimately interested in other options.”
A viable third-party candidate has the potential to moderate the state’s hyperpartisan environment by taking ideas from both the left and right. Most people belong to the broad, non-ideological middle anyway, he said. And offering more choices to voters in terms of third-party candidacies could lead to better governors. . . .
Steinberg is on to something when he asserts Patterson isn't a GLC Party adherent. [end update]
According to the GLC statement, Patterson's effort dovetailed with another independent thrust against the GLC. In early June, Ricardo Lopez reported To counter GOP meddling, some cannabis activists pushed effort to change party name, though the GLC's statement tells how these efforts to rename the party took time away from the goal to get the GLC Party's endorsed candidate Kevin "NeSe" Shores, a blind disabled Navy veteran, on the ballot.
Read the details in the document embedded below.
The statement also follows up on a strategy Peter Callaghan covered at MinnPost in the May 9 story, One of Minnesota’s two cannabis legalization parties plans to police ‘bogus’ candidates in 2022 election:
One of the founders of the marijuana legalization movement in Minnesota says he will patrol candidates’ affiliations to one of the state’s two marijuana parties in the upcoming election.
Oliver Steinberg, chair of the Grassroots Legalize Cannabis Party, said he will file complaints with the state against any candidate that files for office in June but who lacks any connection to the party. The push comes in response to the 2020 election, when Republican operatives recruited candidates to file for office under one of two marijuana parties — moves that likely siphoned votes away from some DFL candidates.
Steinberg said the parties were caught off guard in 2020 but won’t be this election. “We know what we’re facing, and potentially if they attempt again to encourage people fraudulently to pretend to be who they are not, I will proceed under the laws that we have by filing a complaint under fair campaign practices laws,” Steinberg said.
The claim would be that the candidates filed false affidavits of candidacy, which include a pledge that “If a major political party candidate, I either participated in the party’s most recent precinct caucuses or intend to vote for a majority of that party’s candidates at the next general election.” . . .
As chair, Steinberg said he would have the standing to challenge people who file as candidates for the Grassroots Legal Cannabis Party but not the other legalization party, Legal Marijuana Now (LMN). He will, he said, raise public objections to candidates who misuse that party’s label. “If we find out about it, or if that happens, we’ll certainly try to publicize it,” he said.
Steinberg called such candidates “bogus candidates” and “imposters,” but said neither party was prepared to investigate candidates who had little connection to the legalization movement.
“Neither of the legalization parties were ready for prime time. They did not have the rank and file structure,” he said. “It is an extremely popular issue that is reflected in the party names and attracts protest votes.” . . .
As Bluestem noted above, the situation is a bit different, as the claim in the statement isn't that Patterson is a Republican in weed's clothing, but rather an unaffiliated guy with an anti-Walz agenda.
Here's the statement:
Grassroots Legalize Cannabis Party repudiates result of August 9 primary uploaded by Sally Jo Sorensen on Scribd
We print this to let voters know more about a candidate on the ballot.
Image: The logo of the Grassroots Legalize Cannabis Party. from the party's website.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments