Mediaboss Marketing

How Do Stand Your Ground Laws Change Existing Law?

ALECs model Stand Your Ground law and the Florida law on which it was based contain seven key components that distinguish them from traditional self-defense doctrine. Some states have adopted all seven elements, while others have adopted varying combinations of them. For the purposes of this report, a state is only considered a Stand Your Ground state if its statute allows a person to use deadly force e.g., shoot someone anywhere the shooter has a right to be, even when there is a clear and safe opportunity to avoid a dangerous situation.

Allowing People to Stand Their Ground in Public

Stand Your Ground states give shooters the right to use deadly force even when there is a safe opportunity to retreat, as long as they are in any place they have a right to be. An additional three states which are not classified as Stand Your Ground states for the purposes of this report expand the Castle Doctrine only to the shooters vehicle,Missouri: 2007 Mo. SB 62; Ohio: 2007 Ohio SB 184; Wisconsin: 2011 Wis. ALS 94. allowing a driver to shoot someone when threatened in his or her car instead of simply driving away.

Permitting Deadly Force in Defense of Property

At least nine Stand Your Ground statesAlabama: Code of Ala. 13A-3-23(a)(3); Arizona: A.R.S. 13-411(A); Florida: Fla. Stat 776.031, 776.08; Georgia: O.C.G.A. 16-3-23(3); Kansas: K.S.A. 21-3212, 21-3213; Kentucky: KRS 503.080(2)(b); Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. 200.120(1); Oklahoma: 21 Okl. St. 643(3); Texas: Tex. Penal Code 9.42. have statutes that allow a shooter to kill a person to defend property, even if no one is in physical danger and, in at least one state, even if the perpetrator is fleeing.Texas: Tex. Penal Code 9.42(2)(B)

The statutes that allow deadly force to be used to defend property fall into two broad categories. Four states allow deadly force to be used to protect personal property, such as money, cell phones, and cameras.Kansas: K.S.A. 21-3212, 21-3213; Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. 200.120(1); Oklahoma: 21 Okl. St. 643(3); Texas: Tex. Penal Code 9.42 This can result in the legally justified killing of people even when the compromised property is of very little value.For example, in June 2012, Benito Pantoja stole $20.29 from the tip jar of a taco truck in Houston, Texas. The owner of the business chased Pantoja and shot him in the back, killing him. Pantojas death was ruled a justifiable homicide. See Yang Wang and Dane Schiller, Texas Justifiable Homicides Rise with Castle Doctrine, Houston Chronicle, July 2, 2012, http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Killings-deemed-justified-are-on-therise-in-Texas-3676412.php#page-1. Six states permit the use of deadly force to prevent the burglary of an unoccupied building, even if the shooter does not own or control the building, and even if the shooter knows that no one is inside or otherwise in danger.Alabama: Code of Ala. 13A-3-23(a)(3); Arizona: A.R.S. 13-411(A); Florida: Fla. Stat 776.031, 776.08; Georgia: O.C.G.A. 16-3-23(3); Kentucky: KRS 503.080(2)(b)

Though proponents of these laws claim that they deter criminals, the evidence indicates otherwise. A recent study by Texas A&M University economists found that rates of burglary and robbery are unaffected by the passage of Stand Your Ground laws.C. Cheng and M. Hoekstra, Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Castle Doctrine, Texas A&M Department of Economics, 29 May 2012, available at http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf. Meanwhile, as this report explains, states that have passed these laws have experienced increased homicide rates.

Creating Presumptions that Shootings are Lawful

Beyond expanding the Castle Doctrine to apply outside the home, the Stand Your Ground laws in 14 states also alter traditional doctrine by creating a legal presumption that shooters in certain locations, such as their home or vehicle, are justified in their use of deadly force.Alabama: Code of Ala. 13A-3-23(a)(4); Arizona: A.R.S. 13-411(C); Florida: Fla. Stat. 776.013; Kansas: K.S.A. 21-3212a; Kentucky: KRS 503.055; Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 14:19(B); Michigan: MCLS 780.951; Mississippi: Miss. Code. Ann. 97-3-15(3); North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-51.2(b); Oklahoma: 21 Okla. Stat. 1289.25(B); Pennsylvania: 18 Pa.C.S.A. 505(b)(2.1); South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. 16-11-440; Tennessee: Tenn. Code Ann. 39-11-611(c); Texas: Tex. Penal Code 9.31. In two states Arizona and Texas these presumptions apply everywhere.

Under traditional American legal principles, a defendant is presumed innocent and the governments prosecutors are required to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime in question.

Layered on top of this exacting beyond a reasonable doubt standard, Stand Your Ground presumptions are often effectively irrefutable. If the victim is dead, and there are no other witnesses to contradict the shooters claims, the presumption forces authorities to take the shooter at his or her word, regardless of how unlikely and unsubstantiated the shooters version of events may be. Additional evidence may be impossible to obtain if the victim was killed and there were no eyewitnesses to or video recordings of the shooting.

Criminal Immunity, Part 1: Preventing the Arrest of Shooters

Typically, police can arrest a person if they have probable cause essentially, a reasonable belief that he or she has committed a crime, such as shooting another person.See, e.g., F. Andrew Hessick III & Reshma Saujani, Plea Bargaining and Convicting the Innocent: the Role of the Prosecutor, the Defense Counsel, and the Judge, 16 BYU J. Pub. L. 189, 200 (2002); Elise Bjorkan Clare et. al., Twenty-Fifth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure: I. Investigation and Police Practices. 84 Geo. L.J. 717, 759-760 (1996). However, Stand Your Ground laws in six states forbid police from arresting a shooter who claims self-defense unless they find evidence to disprove the shooters claim.Alabama: Code of Ala. 13A-3-23(d); Florida: Fla. Stat. 776.032(2); Kansas: K.S.A. 21-5231(a); Kentucky: KRS 503.085(1); Oklahoma: 21 Okl. St. 1289.25(G); South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. 16-11-450(B). This heightened standard for making an arrest and, in three states, for even detaining a suspectFlorida: Fla. Stat. 776.032(2); Kansas: K.S.A. 21-5231(a); Kentucky: KRS 503.085(1). puts a significant roadblock in front of law enforcement because police often start accumulating evidence by interviewing the shooter, and a shooter who is presumed to have acted lawfully has little incentive to cooperate with an investigation. If the victim is dead and there are no other witnesses, it may be impossible for the police to proceed with the investigation.

Stand Your Ground laws provide law enforcement with little guidance for how to evaluate the validity of a suspects self-defense claim,Reagan v. Mallory, 429 Fed. Appx. 918 (11th Cir. 2011) (Under Florida law, law enforcement officers have a duty to assess the validity of this defense, but they are provided minimal, if any, guidance on how to make this assessment.). and instead expose officers to the prospect of a wrongful arrest lawsuit for improperly detaining a suspect who has claimed self-defense.See, e.g., Reagan v. Mallory, 429 Fed. Appx. 918 (11th Cir. 2011). Additionally, as a recent Tampa Bay Times study demonstrated, courts have difficulty determining when arrests and prosecutions are proper, leading to confusion and inconsistent decisions.Floridas Stand Your Ground Law, Tampa Bay Times at http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/. This uncertainty creates a chilling effect, making police less likely to arrest, and prosecutors less likely to prosecute, shooters who claim self-defense.

Criminal Immunity, Part 2: Immunity Hearings

Stand Your Ground laws in eight states shield a shooter from criminal prosecution even after an arrest is made.Alabama: Code of Ala. 13A-3-23(e); Florida: Fla. Stat. 776.032(1); Georgia: O.C.G.A. 16-3-24.2, Kansas: K.S.A. 21-5231(a); Kentucky: KRS 503.085(1); North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-51.3(b); Oklahoma: 21 Okl. St. 1289.25(F); South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. 16-11-450(A). State courts have interpreted these criminal immunity provisions to entitle a shooter to a pretrial immunity hearing a procedure during which each party presents evidence to a judge who determines if the shooter acted in self-defense. If the judge finds it more likely than not that the defendant acted in self-defense, the case is dismissed. Otherwise, the case proceeds to trial.See, e.g. Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2010); Bunn v. State, 667 S.E.2d 605 (Ga. 2008); Rodgers v. Commonwealth, 285 S.W.3d 740 (Ky. 2009); State v. Duncan, 392 S.C. 404 (S.C. 2011). Such immunity hearings alter traditional criminal procedure by requiring a judge to make factual determinations usually left to a panel of jurors.

The distinction between judge and jury can be significant. The jury with its breadth and diversity of opinions, experiences, and backgrounds generally determines what evidence to believe and disbelieve. Self-defense cases, in particular, often turn on only a few crucial facts.Jean K. Gilles Phillips & Elizabeth Cateforis, Self-Defense: Whats a Jury Got to Do with It?, 57 Kan. L. Rev. 1143 , 1168-1174 (2009). In most states, a jury must decide those facts. The immunity provisions found in Stand Your Ground laws effectively overturn this rule in self-defense cases by requiring factual disputes to be decided by a judge instead of by the people a jury of ones peers.In doing so, Stand Your Ground laws grant a unique status to claims of self-defense. There are many defenses e.g., necessity, entrapment, insanity that a defendant can raise at trial that would relieve him or her of criminal responsibility for actions that would otherwise constitute a crime. Until the advent of Stand Your Ground laws, self defense ranked among them, but these provisions single out self-defense and create a new type of procedural mechanism to determine whether self-defense applies.

The purpose of granting criminal immunity, according to Representative Dennis Baxley, who sponsored Floridas Stand Your Ground law in the Florida House of Representatives, was to protect law-abiding citizens from uncertainty while they wait for the government to decide whether to prosecute them for shootings they claimed were in self-defense.See, e.g., Ann ONeill, NRAs Marion Hammer stands her ground, CNN, April 15, 2012, http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/15/us/marion-hammer-profile/index.html. In practice, however, immunity provisions do not accomplish this goal. Shooters continue to wait sometimes years for a decision.For example, in one Florida case, Dennis Sosa Palma, who had fatally stabbed his brother during a 2010 brawl, waited more than two years for a favorable determination on immunity. David Ovalle, Miami-Dade judge tosses murder charge based on self-defense, The Miami Herald, August 17, 2012 at http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/17/2956670/miami-dade-judge-tosses-murder.html. In fact, if the shooter is prosecuted, the case may take even longer to resolve than under the traditional regime: If the judge decides the shooter is not entitled to criminal immunity, the case then proceeds to a jury trial, effectively lengthening the process and giving the shooter two trials instead of one. The difference is often not in the time spent awaiting a decision, but in whether the case is decided by a judge or a jury.

Civil Immunity: Prohibiting Civil Lawsuits

Our civil justice system provides avenues for injured parties to seek redress for harms they have suffered. Shooting victims and their families traditionally have the ability to file a civil lawsuit for monetary damages to compensate for injuries like lost wages, medical costs, and pain and suffering. To prevail, the injured party must generally show by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., that it is more likely than not) that the defendants actions violated the law and caused harm. This standard of proof is much easier to meet than the exacting beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal cases and provides some measure of justice where the proof of guilt was substantial, but not strong enough to satisfy the criminal standard. Of the 22 Stand Your Ground states examined in this report, 19 effectively bar civil lawsuits against shooters protected by Stand Your Ground laws.

These so-called civil immunity laws take different forms. Eleven states have statutes that create immunity from all civil suits arising from the lawful use of force.Alabama: Code of Ala. 13A-3-23(d); Arizona: A.R.S. 13-413; Florida: Fla. Stat. 776.032; Kansas: K.S.A. 21-3219; Kentucky: KRS 503.085; Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 9:2800.19; Mississippi: Miss. Code. Ann. 97-3-15(5); North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-51.2(b), 14-51.3(b); Oklahoma: 21 Okla. Stat. 1289.25(F); South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. 16-11-450(A); Texas: V.T.C.A. 83.001. Often referred to as blanket immunity, these provisions prevent all suits against the shooter, including suits brought by innocent bystanders who may have been injured. Eight states have more limited civil immunity provisions that shield the shooter only from suits brought by the intended victim and his or her survivors, implicitly allowing innocent bystanders to sue.Alaska: Alaska Stat. 09.65.330; Georgia: O.C.G.A. 51-11-9; Michigan: Mich. Comp. Laws 600.2922b; Montana: Mont. Code. Ann. 27-1-722; New Hampshire: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 627:1-a; Pennsylvania: 42 Pa.C.S.A. 8340.2(a); Tennessee: Tenn. Code Ann. 39-11-622; West Virginia: W. Va. Code 55-7-22(d).

In addition, 12 states award attorneys fees and litigation costs to a shooter who prevails in a civil suit, creating a strong disincentive for a shooting victim to pursue justice in the civil system.Alaska: Alaska Stat. 09.65.330(b); Florida: Fla. Stat. 776.032 (3); Kentucky: KRS 503.085; Louisiana: La. R.S. 9:2800.19; Michigan: Mich. Comp. Laws 600.2922c; Mississippi: Miss. Code. Ann. 97-3-15(5); Montana: Mont. Code. Ann. 27-1-722(4); New Hampshire: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 627:1-a; Oklahoma: 21 Okla. Stat. 1289.25(H); Pennsylvania: 42 Pa.C.S.A. 8340.2(b); South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. 16-11-450(C); Tennessee: Tenn. Code Ann. 39-11-622(b). These cost-shifting provisions only work in one direction: They award attorneys fees if the shooter prevails, but not if the injured party prevails.

Read the original post:
How Stand Your Ground laws affect ... - EverytownResearch.org

After the tragic events that lead to the death of Trayvon Martin last month in Sanford, Fla., the Internet is abuzz with questions on Stand Your Ground laws and Castle Laws.

Indeed, it was the Stand Your Ground Law in Florida that appears to have allowed the alleged killer, George Zimmerman, to walk free after shooting the seventeen-year old. You see, it seems Zimmerman thought that a black man with a hoodie was reasonable cause for suspicion. So, he called 911 and reported the guy.

As far as reports now indicate, he thenfollowed and confronted Martin, eventually shooting him.

Zimmerman claimed that he acted in self-defense. After all, he was in fear of his life. But Trayvon Martin was armed with nothing more than a bag of Skittles and a bottle of ice tea.

Stanford police have not yet arrested Zimmerman, saying that under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, he was within his rights to confront a stranger on the streets and use deadly force, if he believed himself or others to be in imminent danger.

In Florida's version of the law, you can shoot anyone, anywhere, if you fear for your life. Well, anywhere you have the legal right to be.

Now, what if this scenario played out in Los Angeles? Would a Los Angeles criminal lawyer be able to assert a California Stand Your Ground law to protect a Zimmerman-wannabe?

California has a slightly different take on this law. Under California Penal Code sec. 198.5 , if someone enters your home, you can presume that your life is in imminent danger and you can use deadly force against the intruder. In your own home, you would have no duty to retreat in California. Also in this state, you have no duty to retreat if you're stopping someone from committing a felony.

But as for attacking a Skittles-wielding 17-year-old on the street, a Los Angeles defendant would not have much success in invoking the Stand Your Ground laws in California, as California adopts the more tailored version of that law, known as the Castle doctrine. As described above, those claiming self defense have more leeway in their homes (your home is your castle) than in a public area.

Related Resources:

Read more:
What is the 'Stand Your Ground' Law in California? - The Los ...

Critics say "stand your ground" turned Florida into the Wild West. Supporters say it has helped keep innocents out of jail. The truth of how the law has been used over the past six years was unknown until now.

What follows is the most comprehensive list of "stand your ground" cases ever created. Browse by victim or defendant, by fatal or nonfatal cases. Hover over a photo to explore the basics of each case or click it for a more detailed case file. Use the buttons at right to filter by race, sex and location.

Critics say "stand your ground" turned Florida into the Wild West. Supporters say it has helped keep innocents out of jail. The truth of how the law has been used over the past six years was unknown until now.

What follows is the most comprehensive list of "stand your ground" cases ever created. Browse by victim or defendant, by fatal or nonfatal cases. Hover over a photo to explore the basics of each case or click it for a more detailed case file. Use the buttons at right to filter by race, sex and location.

The accused Victims All male female Gender All Bay Brevard Broward Citrus Collier Duval Escambia Hernando Hillsborough Lake Lee Leon Manatee Marion Martin Miami-Dade Monroe Orange Osceola Palm Beach Pasco Pinellas Polk Santa Rosa Sarasota Seminole St. Lucie Volusia County All Black White Hispanic White/White White/Black White/Hispanic Black/White Black/Black Black/Hispanic Hispanic/White Hispanic/Black Hispanic/Hispanic Race

30 convicted

60 justified

10 pending

No cases match your filters

Page last updated: Oct. 1, 2014

Original post:
Stand your ground law, Trayvon Martin and a shocking legacy ...

While the BC Liberals have always been very good at shouting their real and more often allegedwins, they are by far the mastersof spin whosmoothlydeflect their failures into thin air.

The extent towhich they will do this is quite phenomenal.

In the period oftime since Christy Clarkbecame premier,her skill as a political chameleon driven to garner votes has not gone un-noticed by the press, nor the voters of B.C.

Thankfully, British Columbians have long and solid memories of the Liberal era of government.Sadly, they continue to vote for them because the NDP have never been able to show why they deserve the vote more.

Ive never been a member of any political party and I never will be,but Ive investigated, researched and covered so many stories of the current governments misdeeds, that its been my opinion they need to go.

Regular readers know that I have held both the Liberals and the NDPs feet to the fire,and will continue to do so any new government can expect my full attention to their activities in governmentas well and possibly a new list if required.But facts are facts.

The BC Liberals have fostered an environment of deception and secrecy in the BC legislature, one where the less the people know about what is going on, the better it is for their party.

In 2010, I asked my readers to see how fast they could come up with 100 reasons NOT to vote for Gordon Campbell ( and the Liberals) again. Readers rose to the challenge, and the comment sections quickly filled with concrete examples of Liberal failures that have all occurred during that Golden Decade during whichthe BCLiberalsrevealed an agenda of slice and dice vs. corporate welfare.

Ironically, our current premier Christy Clark played a large role in many of the most drastic changes to the provinces most vulnerable citizens, while she was young MLA mentoring under Campbell. Its important to remember that while Christy Clark has tried to rebrand the BC Liberal brand as new and different from Gordon Campbell how different and new can they be when all the same names,faces and donors are still there?

Deals arent made in the legislature, but back rooms of restaurants and behind closed doors.

British Columbians must not be fooled by cheeky smiles,glib responses and a well-oiled,big money campaign. Let the facts speak for themselves.

What began as a fun challenge to readers, has become a comprehensive list of100 + reasons the BC Liberals must go.

Please, feel free to continue to add to the list in the comment section below, and I simply ask that you provide concrete examples with links, if you can, so we can provide an honest and factual record of what I call the decade of deceit.

You are welcome to tweet, facebook and/or print the list for distribution I only ask that you include reference back to this page.

Thank you,

Laila Yuile

146) During the Liberal leadership race, Clark campaigned on calling an early election to get a mandate from the people in fact she said two years was too long to goto wait for an electionwith new leadership and then promptly broke that promise once in the premiers office.http://www.ipolitics.ca/2010/12/15/b-c-liberal-leadership-hopefuls-call-for-early-vote-lower-voting-age/

145) Christy Clark thought it was funny to drive through a red light, on the urging of her son, with a reporter in the car. Her son stated You always do that. Clark denied that was true,but the entire incident called into examination her judgement. http://lailayuile.com/2013/04/27/i-guess-the-message-from-our-premier-is-its-ok-to-do-it-as-long-as-you-dont-get-caught/

144)In 2001, newly elected Campbell tore up legally signed and binding contracts between the govtand the HEU, creating a rush to privatization that continues to this day.

143)Campbell gave himself a whopping raise of $ 60,951 in 2007, which works out to a crazy 48.1% hike and gave all BC MLAs a pay raise of 29% while he was at it. http://thetyee.ca/Views/2009/04/29/PayRaises/

142)Drunk driving conviction in 2003 while on vacation in Hawaii http://dawn.thot.net/campbell_dui_media.html ( I feel strongly politicians who are convicted for any crime, should no longer to be able to hold office, based on the notion that they need to provide an example of a standard of integrity that is inherent to the position. )

141) Fabricating an energy crisis in BC to be solved by forcing the public utility BC Hydro to buy power at twice the market value from Liberal-stocked independent power producers and then reselling it at a loss to owners of air-conditioners in California .

140)Closed 24 of 68 courthouses so the Attorney General could meet budget targets , therefore putting excessive strain and overload on the remaining ones, and forcing people to travel further to deal with family and criminal matters.http://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/20120401-Justice-Denied-report1.pdf

139)above reduction inthe number of courthouses has now lengthened the trial wait times in some areas to years, which often results in the accused being released from all charges because of the right to a speedy trial. http://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/20120401-Justice-Denied-report1.pdf

138) Since 2001, 10 jails have been closed across the province, creating dangerously overloaded conditions in the remaining facilities,and increasing the likelihood many criminals will serve time in the community or receive suspended sentences because of that overcrowding.http://lailayuile.com/2012/02/07/never-underestimate-the-predictability-of-stupidity-or-how-the-bc-liberals-are-now-overspending-to-fix-the-corrections-crisis-they-created/

http://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/20120401-Justice-Denied-report1.pdf

137)Massive, MASSIVE cutbacks to legal aid services in this province, across the board, for the entire time the BC Liberals have been in power . More people than ever are unable to remedy family law and simple legal matters because of lack of funding and resulting closures to free clinics, help lines and offices. http://www.povnet.org/node/3629details in the reasons below.

136)85% of Legal Aid offices in BC closed,

135)reduction in 75% of staff

134)cut family law by 60%

133)Closure of LawLine, a free legal assistance number for low income people to access help and advice.

132)Closure of 5 regional Legal Aid offices in Surrey, Victoria, Kelowna, Kamloops and Prince George.

131)legislating the Paramedics working conditions. http://www.fpse.ca/news/fpse-news/free-collective-bargaining-takes-another-hit-campbell-government-legislates-paramedic

130)Campbell supports and champions the Enbridge project, and refuses to commit to protect the BC coastline from a spill like the Exxon Valdez You can read the debate here : http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th2nd/h00323p.htm#3548

129)The B.C. Liberals issued permits to a company that wanted to burn creosote soaked railway ties in the city of Kamloops without any consultation. The project was only stopped when countless community members and more than 100 Interior doctors opposed the project. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/02/15/bc-kamloops-g ( from BC NDP site)

128)Massive cuts to the Parks Budget over the years has resulted in a lack of protection for endangered ecosystems, a lack of park rangers, and unsafe and unsanitary conditions in provincial campgrounds across the province. Many free campgrounds and picnic areashave been de-commissioned over the years http://www.bcauditor.com/pubs/2010/report3/conservation-ecological-integrity-bc-parks-protected

127)committed to NOT introduce internet gaming in 2007, then created and introduced the new BCLC online gambling site this year, again increasing and furthering the incidence of gambling addiction and family strife, since there is no way to police it.

126)raised gambling limits to $ 9,999.00 a mere $1 below the reportablelevel to FINTRAC, the agency that monitors and polices money laundering lol. http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2010/07/explain-bc-liberals-addiction-to.html

125)raised MSP premiums, while service and wait times increased and get ready for another MSP premium increase January 1st, 2013. http://www.vancouversun.com/health/premiums+rise+second+straight+year/7987242/story.html

124)Campbell lowered tax rates the wealthy benefit the most from those rate cuts, while instituting user fees for some public services that were formerly paid out of tax revenue. This resulted in proportionally higher tax increases for the working poor struggling the hardest to make ends meet. http://www.straight.com/article-349819/vancouver/ndp-leader-carole-james-should-acknowledge-impact-personal-tax-cuts-rich

123) Charging user fees at publiclyfunded hospitals in Vancouver , even to people with insurance, for anyone requiring short term residential care to recover from a medical treatment coming soon to a hospital near you http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/20101022/bc-user-fees-101022/

122)closed 176 schools between 2001 and 2009 . ONE FREAKING HUNDRED AND SEVENTY SIX SCHOOLS!!!! http://bctf.ca/SchoolClosures.aspx

121)cut funding to the Success by 6 program, an initiative which gave young children a head start through more than 400 projects in 240 communities in British Columbia, including early childhood literacy programs, music and social programs for preschoolers, mentorship programs for single mothers, and pregnancy support . http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/03/24/bc-success-by-six-cancelled.html

120)Cuts to seniors services and care http://www.hsabc.org/news/seniors-victims-long-term-care-and-home-support-cuts

119)Cuts to PACs across BC ( Parents Advisory Councils) resulting in parents struggling to make ends meet having to pay more for school related activities http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/09/09/bc-parent-advisory-council-funding-cut.html

118)Cuts to Annual Facility Grants http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2009/08/28/trustees-protest-the-cancellation-of-annual-facility-grant/

117)government continually breaks its own class size limit legislation http://bctf.ca/NewsReleases.aspx?id=20508

116)cuts to funding and programs for special needs children in schools as a result of budget cuts.http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/25/bc-vancouver-special-needs.html

115)highest tuition fees ever on record , for university and colleges in BC http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2010/16/c2521.html

114)Liberalsshow theirtrue feelings about education and the future of our province, and cut $16 million dollars in student loan funds, with no warning, leaving students unable to attend classes, and wreaking havoc on families already financially strapped http://www.straight.com/article-246824/ashley-fehr-gordon-campbell-governments-cuts-devastate-postsecondary-students

113) In addition to the above loan cuts, the BC liberals also cut non-repayable grants to student, also with no warning as detailed in the above link. Some university students found out the hard way when they called Student Aid BC to find out where their grant was, after enrolling and days prior to classes commencing.

112)BC has one of the highest BC Student loan rate in the country.

111)BC post secondary students collectively pay more in fees than government collects in corporate income tax, showing whereLiberal priorities really are.

110)cuts to surgeries in BC http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/01/21/bc-oylmpics-cancelled-surgeries-dix.html

109)cuts to diagnostic and rehabilitation services http://www.hsabc.org/search/cuts%20to%20diagnostic%20and%20rehabilitation%20services

108)cuts to community outreach services http://www.nupge.ca/content/3456/bc-cuts-southern-vancouver-island-social-services

107)HORRIFIC cuts to domestic violence programs and violence against women outreach and counselling programs http://www.endingviolence.org/files/uploads/inst_women_programs_going_in_wrong_direction.pdf

106)cuts to many vital medical and health related items previously funded for those on income assistance http://willcocks.blogspot.ca/2009/07/latest-secret-cuts-hurt-those-who-most.html

105)closed CHIMO Achievement Centre, a therapeutic day program for adults with disabilities http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2010/01/fraser-health-authority-to-kill-amazing.html

104)cuts to income assistance programs http://www.bcfed.com/node/294

103) althoughthe Liberalsincreased the number of Casinos and access to other forms of gambling, continued cuts have been made to the amount of gaming grants given out to social service agencies, programs, playground and schools only a small portion were ever restored. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/03/08/bc-community-gaming-grants.html

102)Special needs assessment for children eliminated in the Fraser Health Authority, meaning families must travel to Sunnyhillat Childrens hospital for diagnostic services and care http://www.betterbc.ca/2010/05/cuts-update/

101)Autism: BCs Early Intensive Behaviour Intervention programs werecut http://www.straight.com/article-302303/vancouver/bc-coalition-protest-gordon-campbells-cuts-saturday-vancouver

100)Therewere onlyenough regulated child care spaces for 15% of children under 12 inBC http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/family/

99)elimination of conservation officers mean less enforcement and protection over larger areas, putting people and wildlife at risk http://www.nupge.ca/content/3512/bc-parks-hurt-budget-cuts-and-poor-enforcement

98)Cuts to environment ministry saw the Environmental Stewardship divisionwhich includes protection of BCs 2,000 species at risk, fish and wildlife habitat, and air and watersliced by almost $4 million http://www.bcauditor.com/pubs/2010/report3/conservation-ecological-integrity-bc-parks-and-protected

97) unregulated fish farms on the coast of bc and their impact on wild salmon stocks, as well as the increase in fish farm licencesthe Libs handed out during their tenure. http://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/10/02/WildSalmonWipedOut/

96)the systematic rape of many rivers in BC through Independent Power Projects http://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/province-of-bc-criss-crossed-by-independent-power-projects/

95) whilethe Liberalscontinually pressed and pushed these projects as safe, clean energy, the truth is that they can, and have extremely horrific impacts on the environment around them, as detailed in this post http://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/what-the-liberals-dont-want-you-to-find-out-until-after-election-day-documents-obtained-by-cbc-news-show-run-of-the-river-projects-are-breaking-environmental-regulations/

94) The announcement by Campbell to flood hectares of prime land for yet another dam to generate power the province will sell elsewhere and Christy Clark continues the push for Site C, admitting its needed for her LNG dreams http://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/the-worst-is-yet-to-come-rafe-mair/

http://energeticcity.ca/article/news/2012/02/09/site-c-essential-lng-development-clark

93) Crown land giveawaysand contracts apparently based onpolitical donations http://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/brookfield-asset-management-gordon-campbell-and-british-columbias-best-assets/

92)clearing ALR land for development, over and over http://www.straight.com/pressure-builds-agricultural-land-reserve

http://www.bcndp.ca/newsroom/new-democrats-challenge-liberals-stand-agricultural-land-reserve

http://lailayuile.com/tag/falcons-follies/

91) TheLiberals admitted that during the lastelection they suppressed information showing the number of people in BC forced to apply for welfare had increased by 10,000.The information was releasedshortly after the election http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/05/22/bc-welfare-cases-up.html

90)Gordon Campbell claimed he was not aware of how bad the financial outlook of the province was prior to the election, despite the world financial crash that was well underway. ( sound familiar?)

89)The public is kept in the dark as John Les, the provinces top cop, is under police investigation for almost a year http://willcocks.blogspot.com/2009/09/creeping-pace-of-john-les-investigation.html

88)The coincidental and repeated occurrence ofdevelopment and real estate companies who donate large $$ to the Liberal party of BC, getting lucrative landdeals and approvals across the province http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/BC-Politics/2009/05/08/Builders-real-estate-firms-gave-big-to-BC-Liberals/

87)The coincidental and repeated occurence of other corporations( mining,gas, oil and independent power producers) who donate large $$ to the Liberal party of BC getting lucrative contracts, deal and approvals across the province: http://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/the-kind-of-corruption-the-media-talk-about-the-kind-the-supreme-court-was-concerned-about-involves-the-putative-sale-of-votes-in-exchange-for-campaign-contributions-james-l-buckley/

http://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/fraser-transportation-group-chosen-as-preferred-bidder-for-south-fraser-perimeter-road/

“Moral hazard is when they take your money and then are not responsible for what they do with it.”~ Gordon Gekko

86) In February 2008, the public learned that Campbells TransLink board voted themselves a 500 percent pay raise. Only a few weeks later, the premiers BC Ferries directors received an increase of up to 60 percent on April 1, 2008 the same day ferry fares were increased for British Columbians. Compare this with the fact that in 2008, more than 50,000 British Columbians worked for minimum wage or less http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/02/08/bc-translink.html

85) The very large and expensive mess that is known as BC ferries http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/11/07/BloatedFerries/

84)The very large and expensive mess that was known as the BC Transmission corporation http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/05/03/LiberalsOweApology/

83) The very large and again, expensive mess known as BC Hydro , which is on the path to financial ruin http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/08/23/BCHydroPathToRuin/ and another opinion http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_thompson_nicola/clearwatertimes/opinion/101681738.html

82) 2010 olympic debt legacy http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-government-releases-details-of-olympics-costs/article1634211/

81)Despite those tough economic times Campbell decided to appoint a larger, expanded cabinet, costing us all more ( for quite a bitless, in my opinion) http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/BC-Politics/2009/06/10/CampbellCabinet/

80)The over-inflated, expensive and relatively useless Public Affairs Bureau( otherwise known as internet trolls who monitor,watch and read everything written anywhere about Campbell and his Liberal co-horts) http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/2009/04/about-that-public-affairs-bureau-this.html

79) Die Entscheidungvon Campbell, deutsche Scheifhrschiffezu kaufen , or for those of you who do not speak German, Campbells decision to buy crappy german ferries http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/12/15/NoisyFerry/

78). Choosing to contract out the storage, handling and administration of our personal medical records to an American company,which leaves personal information potentially open to dubious uses with American law enforcement http://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/bc-citizens-assessment-of-what-the-campbell-government-has-done-to-british-columbia-so-far/

77)Campbell failed to hold regular legislature sessions- twice http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/09/10/bc-fall-legislative-session-cancelled.html

76) Christy Clark has spent so little time in the legislature,she needs a map to find her way around the building when she does show up. Only 19 days in session in one calendar year! http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/13/the-absentee-b-c-legislature/

75)Campbellsdecision to sign TILMA the Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement http://thetyee.ca/Views/2009/05/07/TILMA/

74)Sold off BC Gas, now known as Terasen

73)Passed Bill 20, which prevents local municipal veto of Run of the River projects http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=4659&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

72) Exporting raw logs to China and elsewhere ( a direct contradiction to a campaign promise he made prior to first being elected back in 20o1) all while closing BC mills who could process wood here. http://www.peoplesvoice.ca/articleprint21/02)_BCS_FOREST_JOBS_CRISIS.html http://store.wildernesscommittee.org/campaigns/communities/campaigns/communities/readers/raw_logs/

71)Vancouver convention centre completely ridiculous cost overruns , which technically might make it the largest screw-up in the history of BC that is, until the final and true bill for the new Port Mann bridge comes in http://www.bcndp.ca/newsroom/campbells-convention-centre-overruns-largest-boondoggle-bc-history

70)Sea to sky highway over-runs with no toll to cover costs . Campbell told press repeatedly at photo ops that the cost of the highway would be $800 million, yet the final cost was nearly$2 billion + http://www.bcndp.ca/newsroom/campbell-liberals-p3s-not-time-not-budget

69)A report in 2007 stated that the province could have saved the taxpayer over $ 220 million by financing it themselves, because borrowing costs were underestimated by Partnerships BC, and the government always ALWAYS- gets a better finance rate than other entities. http://dcnonl.com/article/id20954/profservices

See original here:
100 + reasons the BC Liberals must go. No Strings ...

The Australian Democrats was a centrist[1]political party in Australia with a social-liberal ideology. The party was formed in 1977, a merger of the Australia Party and the New Liberal Movement, with former Liberal minister Don Chipp as its high-profile leader. Though never achieving a seat in the House of Representatives, the party had considerable influence in the Senate for the following thirty years. Its representation in the Parliament of Australia ended on 30 June 2008, after loss of its four remaining Senate seats at the 2007 general election. As of October 2012[update], the organisation had disintegrated and control was contested by two factions associated with two former parliamentarians.[2] The party was deregistered by the Australian Electoral Commission on 16 April 2015 due to the party's failure to demonstrate requisite 500 members to maintain registration.[3] Even before its deregistration and since it became extinct as a parliamentary party anywhere in Australia, the party saw many of its prominent members including former federal party leader Andrew Bartlett and former NSW MLC Arthur Chesterfield-Evans defect to the Greens.

The party was founded on principles of honesty, tolerance, compassion and direct democracy through postal ballots of all members, so that "there should be no hierarchical structure ... by which a carefully engineered elite could make decisions for the members."[4]:p187 From the outset, members' participation was fiercely protected in national and divisional constitutions prescribing internal elections, regular meeting protocols, annual conferencesand monthly journals for open discussion and balloting. Dispute resolution procedures were established, with final recourse to a party ombudsman and membership ballot.

Policies determined by the unique participatory method promoted environmental awareness and sustainability, opposition to the primacy of economic rationalism (Australian neoliberalism), preventative approaches to human health and welfare, animal rights, rejection of nuclear technology and weapons.

The Australian Democrats were the first representatives of green politics at the federal level in Australia. They played a key role in the cause clbre of the Franklin River Dam.

The party's centrist role made it subject to criticism from both the right and left of the political spectrum. In particular, Chipp's former conservative affiliation was frequently recalled by opponents on the left.[n 1] This problem was to torment later leaders and strategists who, by 1991, were proclaiming "the electoral objective" as a higher priority than the rigorous participatory democracy espoused by the party's founders.[n 2]

Over three decades, the Australian Democrats achieved representation in the legislatures of the ACT, South Australia, New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania as well as Senate seats in all six states. However, at the 2004 and 2007 federal elections, all seven of its Senate seats were lost.[5] The last remaining State parliamentarian, David Winderlich, left the party and was defeated as an independent in 2010.

On the evening of 29 April 1977, Don Chipp addressed an overflowing Perth Town Hall meeting which unanimously passed a resolution to form a Centre-Line Party, which Chipp was invited to lead[4]:p185but he firmly declined to reverse his avowed decision to quit politics, having resigned from the Liberal Party and been offered a lucrative position as a radio public affairs commentator. The Centre-Line Party was the provisional title of the Australian Democrats party.[4]:p 185 The occasion was a meeting at the Perth Town Hall to which Don Chipp had been invited in the hope that he would accept the position of leader of the new party, which would be an amalgamation of the Australia Party and the New Liberal Movement. On that occasion, Chipp declined to commit himself but did so at a corresponding public meeting in Melbourne on 9 May 1977. Chipp received a standing ovation from over 3,000 people, including former Prime Minister John Gorton, and decided to commit himself to leading the new party which was already being constructed by a national steering committee.[4]:p186 The new party was eventually renamed the Australian Democrats by a ballot of its membership. "Fifty-six suggestions produced by members were listed on the ballot paper, including Uniting Australia Party, Australian Centre Line Party, Dinkum Democrats, Practical Idealists of Australia and People for Sanity Party!! After the ballot, the suggestion of the Steering Committee, 'Australian Democrats', was overwhelmingly accepted."[4]:p188 The name "Australian Democrats" was already in informal currency before this decision.[6]

The first Australian Democrats (AD) federal parliamentarian was Senator Janine Haines who filled Steele Hall's casual Senate vacancy for South Australia in 1977. Surprisingly, she was not a candidate when the party contested the 1977 federal elections after Don Chipp had agreed to be leader and figurehead. Members and candidates were not lacking in electoral experience, since the Australia Party had been contesting all federal elections since 1969 and the Liberal Movement, in 1974 and 1975. The party's broad aim was to achieve a balance of power in one or more parliaments and to exercise it responsibly in line with policies determined by membership.

The grassroot support attracted by Chipp's leadership was measurable at the party's first electoral test at the 1977 federal election on 10 December, when 9.38 per cent of the total Lower House vote was polled and 11.13 per cent of the Senate vote. At that time, with five Senate seats being contested in each state, the required quota was a daunting 16.66 per cent. However, the first 6-year-term seats were won by Don Chipp (Vic) and Colin Mason (NSW).

The Australian Democrats' first national conference, on 1617 February 1980, was opened by the distinguished nuclear physicist and former governor of South Australia, Sir Mark Oliphant, who said:

I was privileged to be in the chair at the public meeting in Melbourne when [Don Chipp] announced formation of a new party, dedicated to preserve what freedoms we still retain, and to increase them. A party in which dictatorship from the top was replaced by consensus. A party not ordered about by big business and the rich, or by union bosses. A party where a man could retain freedom of conscience and not thereby be faced with expulsion. A party to which the intelligent individual could belong without having to subscribe to a dogmatic creed. In other words, a democratic party.[7]

At a Melbourne media conference on 19 September 1980, in the midst of the 1980 election campaign, Chipp described his party's aim as to "keep the bastards honest"the "bastards" being the major parties and/or politicians in general. This became a long-lived slogan for the Democrats.[8]

At the October 1980 election, the Democrats polled 9.25 per cent of the Senate vote, electing Janine Haines (SA) and two new senators Michael Macklin (Qld) and John Siddons (Vic), bringing the party's strength to five Senate seats from 1 July 1981 .

A by-election in the South Australian state seat of Mitcham (now Waite) saw Heather Southcott retain the seat for the Democrats in 1982. Since 1955 it had been held by conservative lawyer Robin Millhouse whose New Liberal Movement merged into the Democrats in 1977, and who was resigning to take up a senior judicial appointment. Southcott was defeated later that year at the 1982 state election. Mitcham was the only single-member lower-house seat anywhere in Australia to be won by the Democrats.

Don Chipp resigned from the Senate on 18 August 1986, being succeeded as party leader by Janine Haines and replaced as a senator for Victoria by Janet Powell.

At the 1987 election following a double dissolution, the reduced quota of 7.7% necessary to win a seat assisted the election of three new senators. 6-year terms were won by Paul McLean (NSW) and incumbents Janine Haines (South Australia) and Janet Powell (Victoria). In South Australia, a second senator, John Coulter, was elected for a 3-year term, as were incumbent Michael Macklin (Queensland) and Jean Jenkins (Western Australia).

1990 saw the voluntary departure from the Senate of Janine Haines (a step with which not all Democrats agreed) and the failure of her strategic goal of winning the House of Representatives seat of Kingston.

The casual vacancy was filled by Meg Lees several months before the election of Cheryl Kernot in place of retired deputy leader Michael Macklin. The ambitious Kernot immediately contested the party's national parliamentary deputy leadership. Being unemployed at the time, she requested and obtained party funds to pay for her travel to address members in all seven divisions.[9] In the event, Victorian Janet Powell was elected as leader and John Coulter was chosen as deputy leader.

Despite the loss of Haines and the WA Senate seat (through an inconsistent national preference agreement with the ALP), the 1990 federal election heralded something of a rebirth for the party, with a dramatic rise in primary vote. This was at the same time as an economic recession was building, and events such as the Gulf War in Kuwait were beginning to shepherd issues of globalisation and transnational trade on to national government agendas.

Virtually alone on the Australian political landscape, Janet Powell consistently attacked both the government and opposition which had closed ranks in support of the Gulf War. Whereas the House of Representatives was thus able to avoid any debate about the war and Australia's participation,[n 3][10] the Democrats took full advantage of the opportunity to move for a debate in the Senate.[11]

Possibly because of the party's opposition to the Gulf War, there was mass-media antipathy and negative publicity which some construed as poor media performance by Janet Powell, the party's standing having stalled at about 10%. Before 12 months of her leadership had passed, the South Australian and Queensland divisions were circulating the party's first-ever petition to criticise and oust the parliamentary leader. The explicit grounds related to Powell's alleged responsibility for poor AD ratings in Gallup and other media surveys of potential voting support. When this charge was deemed insufficient, interested party officers and senators reinforced it with negative media 'leaks' concerning her openly established relationship with Sid Spindler[12] and exposure of administrative failings resulting in excessive overtime to a staff member. With National Executive blessing, the party room pre-empted the ballot by replacing the leader with deputy John Coulter. In the process, severe internal divisions were generated. One major collateral casualty was the party whip Paul McLean who resigned and quit the Senate in disgust at what he perceived as in-fighting between close friends. The casual NSW vacancy created by his resignation was filled by Karin Sowada. Powell duly left the party, along with many leading figures of the Victorian branch of the party, and unsuccessfully stood as an Independent candidate when her term expired. In later years, she campaigned for the Australian Greens.

Because of their numbers on the cross benches during the Hawke and Keating governments, the Democrats were sometimes regarded as exercising a balance of powerwhich attracted electoral support from a significant sector of the electorate which had been alienated by both Labor and Coalition policies and practices. The party's parliamentary influence was weakened in 1996 after the Howard Government was elected, and a Labor senator, Mal Colston, resigned from the Labor Party. Since the Democrats now shared the parliamentary balance of power with two Independent senators, the Coalition government was able on occasion to pass legislation by negotiating with Colston and Brian Harradine. Following the 1998 election the Australian Democrats again held the balance of power, until the Coalition gained a Senate majority at the 2004 election.

The party's integrity as a neutral third party suffered a serious blow from the resignation and defection of leader Cheryl Kernot in October 1997,[13] with revelations of her sexual relationship with Gareth Evans and her aspirations to a ministerial position in a Labor government.[14]

Under Lees' leadership, in the 1998 federal election, the Democrats' candidate John Schumann came within 2 per cent of taking Liberal Foreign Minister Alexander Downer's seat of Mayo in the Adelaide Hills under Australia's preferential voting system. The party's representation increased to nine senators.

Internal conflict and leadership tensions from 2000 to 2002, blamed on the party's support for the Government's Goods and Services Tax (GST), was damaging to the Democrats. Opposed by the Labor Party, the Australian Greens and independent Senator Harradine, the GST required Democrat support to pass. In an election fought on tax, the Democrats publicly stated that they liked neither the Liberal (GST) tax package nor the Labor package, but pledged to work with whichever party was elected to make their tax package better. They campaigned with the slogan "No GST on food".[15][not in citation given][16]

In 1999, after negotiations with Prime Minister Howard, Meg Lees, Andrew Murray and the party room Senators agreed to support the A New Tax System (ANTS) legislation[17] with exemptions from GST for most food and some medicines, as well as many environmental and social concessions.[18][19] Five Australian Democrats senators voted in favour.[20] However, two dissident senators on the party's left Natasha Stott Despoja and Andrew Bartlett voted against the GST.[21][22]

In 2001, a leadership spill saw Meg Lees replaced as leader[23] by Natasha Stott Despoja after a very public and bitter leadership battle.[24] Despite criticism of Stott Despoja's youth and lack of experience, the 2001 election saw the Democrats receive similar media coverage to the previous election.[25] Despite the internal divisions, the Australian Democrats' election result in 2001 was quite good. However, it was not enough to prevent the loss of Vicki Bourne's Senate seat in NSW.

The 2002 South Australian state election was the last time an Australian Democrat would be elected to an Australian parliament. Sandra Kanck was re-elected to a second eight-year term from an upper house primary vote of 7.3 percent.

Resulting tensions between Stott Despoja and Lees led to Meg Lees leaving the party in 2002, becoming an independent and forming the Australian Progressive Alliance. Stott Despoja stood down from the leadership following a loss of confidence by her party room colleagues.[26] It led to a protracted leadership battle in 2002, which eventually led to the election of Senator Andrew Bartlett as leader. While the public fighting stopped, the public support for the party remained at record lows.

On 6 December 2003, Bartlett stepped aside temporarily as leader of the party, after an incident in which he swore at Liberal Senator Jeannie Ferris on the floor of Parliament while intoxicated.[27] The party issued a statement stating that deputy leader Lyn Allison would serve as the acting leader of the party. Bartlett apologised to the Democrats, Jeannie Ferris and the Australian public for his behaviour and assured all concerned that it would never happen again. On 29 January 2004, after seeking medical treatment, Bartlett returned to the Australian Democrats leadership, vowing to abstain from alcohol.

Support for the Australian Democrats fell significantly at the 2004 federal election in which they achieved only 2.4 per cent of the national vote. Nowhere was this more noticeable than in their key support base of suburban Adelaide in South Australia, where they received between 7 and 31 per cent of the Lower House vote in 2001, and between 1 and 4 per cent in 2004. Three incumbent senators were defeatedAden Ridgeway (NSW), Brian Greig (WA) and John Cherry (Qld). Following the loss, the customary post-election leadership ballot installed Lyn Allison as leader and Andrew Bartlett as her deputy.

From 1 July 2005 the Australian Democrats lost official parliamentary party status, being represented by only four senators while the governing Liberal-National Coalition gained a majority and potential control of the Senatethe first time this advantage had been enjoyed by any government since 1980.

On 5 January 2006, the ABC reported that the Tasmanian Electoral Commission had de-registered that division of the party for failing to provide a list containing the required number of members to be registered for Tasmanian state and local elections.[28]

On 18 March 2006, at the 2006 South Australian state election, the Australian Democrats were reduced to 1.7 per cent of the Legislative Council (upper house) vote. Their sole councillor up for re-election, Kate Reynolds, was defeated.

After the election, South Australian senator Natasha Stott Despoja denied rumours that she was considering quitting the party.[29]

In early July, Richard Pascoe, national and South Australian party president, resigned, citing slumping opinion polls and the poor result in the 2006 South Australian election as well as South Australian parliamentary leader Sandra Kanck's comments regarding the drug MDMA which he saw as damaging to the party.[30][31][32]

On 5 July 2006, Australian Democrats senator for Western Australia Andrew Murray announced his intention not to contest the 2007 federal election, citing frustration arising from the Howard Government's control of both houses and his unwillingness to serve another six-year term.[33] His term ended on 30 June 2008.

On 28 August 2006, the founder of the Australian Democrats, Don Chipp, died. Former prime minister Bob Hawke said: "... there is a coincidental timing almost between the passing of Don Chipp and what I think is the death throes of the Democrats.[34] "

On 22 October 2006, Australian Democrats Senator Natasha Stott Despoja announced her intention not to seek re-election at the 2007 federal election due to health concerns.[35] Her term ended on 30 June 2008.

In November 2006, the Australian Democrats fared very poorly in the Victorian state election, receiving a Legislative Council vote tally of only 0.83%,[36] less than half of the party's result in 2002 (1.79 per cent).[37]

In the New South Wales state election of March 2007, the Australian Democrats lost their last remaining NSW Upper House representative, Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. The party fared poorly, gaining only 1.8 per cent of the Legislative Council vote. A higher vote was achieved in some of the Legislative Assembly seats selectively contested as compared to 2003. However, the statewide vote share fell because the party was unable to field as many candidates as in 2003.

In the Victorian state by-election in Albert Park District[38] the Australian Democrats stood candidate Paul Kavanagh, who polled 5.75 per cent of the primary vote, despite a large number of candidates, and all[citation needed] media attention focusing on the battle between Labor and Greens candidates.

On 13 September 2007, the ACT Democrats (Australian Capital Territory Division of the party) was deregistered[39] by the ACT Electoral Commissioner, being unable to demonstrate a minimum membership of 100 electors.

The Democrats had no success at the 2007 federal election. Two incumbent senators, Lyn Allison (Victoria) and Andrew Bartlett (Queensland), were defeated, their seats both reverting to major parties. Their two remaining colleagues, Andrew Murray (WA) and Natasha Stott Despoja (SA), did not run for new terms. All four senators' terms expired on 30 June 2008leaving the Australian Democrats with no federal representation for the first time since its founding in 1977. An ABC report noted that "on the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) website the party is now referred to just as 'other'".[40]

The last of the party's state upper-house members, David Winderlich, resigned from the party in October 2009[41] and was defeated as an independent at the 2010 election.

In March 2012, the Australian Electoral Commission queried a Democrats submission of 550 names of purported members and proposed deregistering the party for having fewer than 500 members, the threshold needed for registration.[42] The Commission later satisfied itself that the party had sufficient membership to continue its registration.

The Democrats did not nominate a single candidate in the 2014 South Australian election, in the party's state of origin.

On 16 April 2015, the Australian Electoral Commission deregistered the Australian Democrats as a political party for failure to demonstrate the requisite 500 members to maintain registration.[3]

The Australian Democrats have said they will appeal the AEC decision, which under the legislation is reviewable.[43][44][45]

The party's original support base consisted of voters alienated by perceived unproductive adversarial conflict between the two mainstream parties and an emerging new constituency of people with a desire to participate more effectively in government and to promote concerns for environmental protection and social justice. The party aimed to combine liberal social policies with centrist, particularly neo-Keynesian economics and a progressive environmental platform.

The original agenda included interventionist economic policies, commitment to environmental causes, support for reconciliation with Australia's indigenous population through such mechanisms as formal treaties, pacifist approaches to international relations, open government, constitutional reform, progressive approaches to social issues such as sexuality and drugs, and strong support for human rights and civil liberties. Its membership largely comprised tertiary-educated and middle-class constituents. The party also appealed to voters opposed to untrammeled government power and wishing to have alternative views aired in parliaments and media.

The party has a platform of participatory democracy, with policies supporting proportional representation and citizen-initiated referenda. Many important internal issues (such as electoral preselection and leadership) are decided by direct postal ballot of the membership. Although policies are theoretically set in a similar fashion, Australian Democrats parliamentarians generally had extensive freedom in interpreting them.

However, by 1980, the Australian Democrats had employed the postal-ballot method at both national at state levels to develop an extensive body of written policy covering not only the political agendas of the day but also innovative and far-sighted policies for environmental and economic sustainability, water and energy conservation, e.g., through development of alternative energy sources, expanded public transport, etc. To the community's growing concerns about human rights, the Australian Democrats added finely detailed policies on animal welfare and species preservation. The material is available in election manifestos and copies of the party's journals, obtainable in major public libraries.

In a 2009 "rebuild" process, the party announced creation of a new policy process, attempts to improve internal communication, and envisaged development of a new party constitution.[46]

Prior to the 2013 federal election, the party, though factionally divided into two separate organisations,[47] was able to publish a comprehensive package of member-balloted policies.[48]

Support for the Democrats historically tended to fluctuate between about 5 and 10 per cent of the population and was geographically concentrated around the wealthy dense CBD and inner-suburban neighbourhoods of the capital cities (especially Adelaide). Therefore, they never managed to win a House of Representatives seat. During the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s they typically held one or two Senate seats in each state, as well as having some representatives in state parliaments.[49]

Following the internal conflict over GST (19982001) and resultant leadership changes, a dramatic decline occurred in the Democrats' membership and voting support in all states. Simultaneously, an increase was recorded in support for the Australian Greens who, by 2004, were supplanting the Democrats as a substantial third party. The trend was noted that year by political scientists Dean Jaensch et al.[50] Elsewhere, Jaensch later suggested it was possible the Democrats could make a political comeback in the federal arena.[51]

Following Tony Abbott's displacement of Malcolm Turnbull as federal leader of the Liberal Party in 2009, the Democrats sought to attract the support of "those Liberals who no longer feel they can support their party".[52]

Of the party's nine elected federal parliamentary leaders, six were women. Aboriginal senator Aden Ridgeway was deputy leader under Natasha Stott Despoja. Ridgeway was technically leader between Stott Despoja's resignation and the appointment of Brian Greig as interim leader.

More:
Australian Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia