The League of Women Voters: Are they as "non-partisan" as they claim?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

I'm curious if anyone knows if they have a particular agenda. I was looking on the web site of The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, and I couldn't find anything particularly conservative. They are for protecting the artic wilderness, support an act to provide timely access to emergency contraception, etc.

Is the League a worthwhile organization? I was thinking of volunteering, but I wanted to get some DUer feedback...

[Lars39]

1. They support black box voting. Against verifiable votes, IIRC.

Unless they've changed their stance and I'm not aware. :shrug:

[Maddy McCall]

2. Yeah, they have a huge agenda...

getting women elected to office is their agenda. That's admirable from whichever side of the aisle you view it.

In Mississippi, they are the most liberal activist organization in the state. The president of the League of Women Voters was one of the most vocal feminists in the state in the 1960s.

It's a great org; can't imagine anyone having a problem with them, except for paternalists.

[JailForBush]

3. The Seattle branch is a corporate shill!

I don't think I've uncovered any smoking-gun evidence to indict them, but my observations have convinced me they're as corrupt as everything else in this town.

My first experience with them was actually positive. I was running for a seat on the Seattle School Board and someone from the League of Women Voters called me. She said something like, "I wonder if the voters will vote against Nancy Waldman because of her husband."

I asked what she meant, and she told me her husband was the Mariners' attorney! At the time, the Mariners were up to their eyeballs in scandal and were widely hated in Seattle. Anyway, I took her tip and ran with it.

But I don't think this individual represented the top brass.

During my second campaign (for state office), I used a really neat website that was designed for online debates between candidates. I can't think of the name of it offhand, I think it started with Democracy, like "Democracy Net," or something like that.

The League of Women Voters operated it, but I became suspicious when I learned that Microsoft was involved. There was no extremely heavy-handed meddling that I was aware of, but they did censor several of my posts in a way that helped the corrupt incumbent.

I believe the head of the Seattle League of Women Voters was Jeannie Hale, who was also the head of the Laurelhurst Community Club -
http://www.laurelhurstcc.com/ I think she was also the president of Laurelhurst Elementary School's PTA. Laurelhurst is somewhat famous as one of Seattle's snottiest and most politically powerful white neighborhoods. A number of movers and shakers are involved with local community clubs and PTAs.

I ran for office three times, and the League of Women Voters always sent me their boilerplate questionnaires, but no one ever called to ask me probing questions about education or to offer advice or opinions. Yet they're often quoted in the Seattle Times and Post-Intelligencer. In fact, they probably got more press during elections than I did. It's obvious to me who they're working for.

It looks like Jeannie Hale is no longer the head of the Seattle League of Women Voters - http://seattle.wa.lwv.org/ - but I still don't trust this group.

I wouldn't know anything about branches in other cities and states, but corporations have done a very thorough job of infiltrating similar groups across America. Even Seattle's ACLU and NAACP branches are corrupt.

[Vogon_Glory]

4. I Think That Most Are Non-Partisan

I suspect that most League of Women Voters branches are non-partisan. Aside from the fact that my mother worked with them for years, I also note that the LWV comes up in right-wing diatribes against "liberals" and "liberal-controlled" organizations, so they must not all be totally rotten.

:-)