At the general membership meeting, Long Beach Lambda Democratic Club members had a lively discussion, voting on three separate motions to endorse candidates running in the special election for the Sixth District city council race. 



All of the motions failed. Lambda made no official endorsement. 



However, three candidates were recommended as “acceptable” and Lambda’s President, Bob Hildebrand and the Board of Directors encouraged the membership to support and work to elect their choice of the trio: Ahmed Saafir, Dee Andrews and Alvin Austin. 



It is important to understand the endorsement process before jumping to any conclusions about this. 



Lambda’s Political Action Committee sent questionnaires to all seven of the candidates whose names will appear on the ballot. The candidates who responded were then invited to be interviewed by the PAC committee. However, by the deadline, only two candidates had responded: Dee Andrews and Ahmend Saafir.



Based on the answers on the questionnaires and performance during the interviews, the committee brought forward a recommendation to endorse Dee Andrews. When brought to the membership, this motion failed to obtain the 60% majority required for an official endorsement. Because Lambda is a chartered Democratic club, they cannot endorse by simple majority, but must follow the guidelines set by the Party, which require a 60 % majority.



A second motion was made from the floor to endorse Alvin Austin. Austin had returned his questionnaire late and the PAC committee was not able to interview him prior to the meeting, but had many supporters in the room. But this motion also failed to achieve the required 60% majority. 



Finally, a third motion was made to endorse both Andrews and Austin. This motion, like the others, also failed to achieve 60%. Since the PAC committee’s evaluation of Saafir had been favorable, it was agreed that club members would be urged to support and work for any of the three candidates.



Cynics may question Lambda’s failure to endorse and wonder if this possibly reflects in-fighting, or a lack of shared vision. But that is not my perspective. 


In the late seventies when Lambda was first organized, the club worked on fighting the Briggs Initiative that would have banned gay teachers from teaching in California schools. In the eighties, there were more initiatives to fight that would have quarantined and black-listed persons living with HIV and AIDS.



In the nineties, Lambda was able to shift efforts to pro-active issues, such as the passage of a domestic partner ordinance in 1997, and the establishment of a Hate Crimes reporting Hotline. But there was considerable resistance to these advances and the club stayed in activist mode.



LGBT clubs such as Lambda would dutifully mail questionnaires to candidates, knowing they were probably wasting their time. They would sometimes be surprised to receive any responses what-so-ever. Some progressive candidates were afraid the endorsement would hurt their chances. Some candidates even sought “secret endorsements” suggesting that members contribute money to their campaigns, and pass the word through the “gay underground” to vote for them. 



Within this context, it is truly a sign of progress that so many candidates actively and aggressively seek the Lambda endorsement and are proud to have it. But for Lambda members, it makes it difficult because there so many choices. This is a new thing to have so many good candidates who not only want to be inclusive, but want to compete for the Lambda stamp of approval. Decisions, decisions…It’s all good.