This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2009)

The first two pages of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, in (left to right) German, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Ottoman Turkish and Russian

A treaty is an express agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.^[1]

Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law.

Modern usage[link]

A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to legally bind themselves.^[2] A treaty is that official document which expresses that agreement in words; and it is also the objective outcome of a ceremonial occasion which acknowledges the parties and their defined relationships.

Bilateral and multilateral treaties[link]

Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states^[3] or entities. It is possible however for a bilateral treaty to have more than two parties; consider for instance the bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) following the Swiss rejection of the European Economic Area agreement. Each of these treaties has seventeen parties. These however are still bilateral, not multilateral, treaties. The parties are divided into two groups, the Swiss ("on the one part") and the EU and its member states ("on the other part"). The treaty establishes rights and obligations between the Swiss and the EU and the member states severally; it does not establish any rights and obligations amongst the EU and its member states.^{[citation needed]}

A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries.^[3] The agreement establishes rights and obligations between each party and every other party. Multilateral treaties are often regional.^{[citation needed]} Treaties of "mutual guarantee" are international compacts, e.g., the Treaty of Locarno which guarantees each signatory against attack from another.^[3]

Adding and amending treaty obligations[link]

Reservations[link]

Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty. Reservations are unilateral statements purporting to exclude or to modify the legal obligation and its effects on the reserving state.^[4] These must be included at the time of signing or ratification—a party cannot add a reservation after it has already joined a treaty.

Originally, international law was unaccepting of treaty reservations, rejecting them unless all parties to the treaty accepted the same reservations. However, in the interest of encouraging the largest number of states to join treaties, a more permissive rule regarding reservations has emerged. While some treaties still expressly forbid any reservations, they are now generally permitted to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the treaty.

When a state limits its treaty obligations through reservations, other states party to that treaty have the option to accept those reservations, object to them, or object and oppose them. If the state accepts them (or fails to act at all), both the reserving state and the accepting state are relieved of the reserved legal obligation as concerns their legal obligations to each other (accepting the reservation does not change the accepting state's legal obligations as concerns other parties to the treaty). If the state opposes, the parts of the treaty affected by the reservation drop out completely and no longer create any legal obligations on the reserving and accepting state, again only as concerns each other. Finally, if the state objects and opposes, there are no legal obligations under that treaty between those two state parties whatsoever. The objecting and opposing state essentially refuses to acknowledge the reserving state is a party to the treaty at all.^[5]

Amendments[link]

There are three ways an existing treaty can be amended. First, formal amendment requires States parties to the treaty to go through the ratification process all over again. The re-negotiation of treaty provisions can be long and protracted, and often some parties to the original treaty will not become parties to the amended treaty. When determining the legal obligations of states, one party to the original treaty and one a party to the amended treaty, the states will only be bound by the terms they both agreed upon. Treaties can also be amended informally by the treaty executive council when the changes are only procedural, technical change in customary international law can also amend a treaty, where state behavior evinces a new interpretation of the legal obligations under the treaty. Minor corrections to a treaty may be adopted by a procès-verbal; but a procès-verbal is generally reserved for changes to rectify obvious errors in the text adopted, i.e. where the text adopted does not correctly reflect the intention of the parties adopting it.

Protocols[link]

In international law and international relations, a protocol is generally a treaty or international agreement that supplements a previous treaty or international agreement. A protocol can amend the previous treaty, or add additional provisions. Parties to the earlier agreement are not required to adopt the protocol; sometimes this is made clearer by calling it an "optional protocol", especially where many parties to the first agreement do not support the protocol.

Some examples: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established a framework for the development of binding greenhouse gas emission limits, while the Kyoto Protocol contained the specific provisions and regulations later agreed upon.

Execution and implementation[link]

Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action. Other treaties may be non-self-executing and require 'implementing legislation'—a change in the domestic law of a state party that will direct or enable it to fulfill treaty obligations. An example of a treaty requiring such legislation would be one mandating local prosecution by a party for particular crimes.

The division between the two is often not clear and is often politicized in disagreements within a government over a treaty, since a non-self-executing treaty cannot be acted on without the proper change in domestic law. If a treaty requires implementing legislation, a state may be in default of its obligations by the failure of its legislature to pass the necessary domestic laws.

Interpretation[link]

The language of treaties, like that of any law or contract, must be interpreted when the wording does not seem clear or it is not immediately apparent how it should be applied in a perhaps unforeseen circumstance. The Vienna Convention states that treaties are to be interpreted “in good faith” according to the “ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.” International legal experts also often invoke the 'principle of maximum effectiveness,' which interprets treaty language as having the fullest force and effect possible to establish obligations between the parties.

No one party to a treaty can impose its particular interpretation of the treaty upon the other parties. Consent may be implied, however, if the other parties fail to explicitly disavow that initially unilateral interpretation, particularly if that state has acted upon its view of the treaty without complaint. Consent by all parties to the treaty to a particular interpretation has the legal effect of adding an additional clause to the treaty – this is commonly called an 'authentic interpretation'.

International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself.

Consequences of terminology[link]

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding.

Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. This factor has been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation.

The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

Ending treaty obligations[link]

Withdrawal[link]

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Other treaties are silent on the issue, and so if a state attempts withdrawal through its own unilateral denunciation of the treaty, a determination must be made regarding whether permitting withdrawal is contrary to the original intent of the parties or to the nature of the treaty. Human rights treaties, for example, are generally interpreted to exclude the possibility of withdrawal, because of the importance and permanence of the obligations.^{[citation needed]}

If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force between the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.^{[citation needed]}

Suspension and termination[link]

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.^{[citation needed]}

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. The issue must be presented to an international tribunal or arbiter (usually specified in the treaty itself) to legally establish that a sufficiently serious breach has in fact occurred. Otherwise, a party that prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspends or terminates its own obligations due to an alleged breach itself runs the risk of being held liable for breach. Additionally, parties may choose to overlook treaty breaches while still maintaining their own obligations towards the party in breach.^{[citation needed]}

Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions.^{[citation needed]}

A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.^{[citation needed]}

Invalid treaties[link]

There are several reasons an otherwise valid and agreed upon treaty may be rejected as a binding international agreement, most of which involve problems created at the formation of the treaty.^{[citation needed]} For example, the serial Japan-Korea treaties of 1905 1907 and 1910 were protested;^[6] and they were confirmed as "already null and void" in the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.^[7]

[edit] Ultra vires treaties

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a “manifest” violation is required such that it would be “objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.^{[citation needed]}

Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.^{[citation needed]}

According to the preamble in The Law of treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law.^[8] This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.^[9]

Misunderstanding, fraud, corruption, coercion[link]

Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.

Peremptory norms[link]

A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against genocide, slavery, torture, and piracy, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.^{[citation needed]}

Role of the United Nations[link]

The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.

After their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force.

In function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some^{[citation needed]}, giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation.

Relation between national law and treaties by country[link]

Brazilian law[link]

The Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

The Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordinárias, or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

The Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation.

United States law[link]

This article appears to contradict the article Foreign policy of the United States. Please see discussion on the linked talk page. Please do not remove this message until the contradictions are resolved. (February 2012)

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senate, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the U.S.

See the article on the Bricker Amendment for history of the relationship between treaty powers and Constitutional provisions.

Treaties and indigenous peoples[link]

Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing.

In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other.

In other cases, such as New Zealand and Canada, treaties allowed native peoples to maintain a minimum amount of autonomy. In the case of indigenous Australians, unlike with the Māori of New Zealand, no treaty was ever entered into with the indigenous peoples entitling the Europeans to land ownership, under the doctrine of terra nullius (later overturned by Mabo v Queensland, establishing the concept of native title well after colonization was already a fait accompli). Such treaties between colonizers and indigenous peoples are an important part of political discourse in the late 20th and early 21st century, the treaties being discussed have international standing as has been stated in a treaty study by the UN.

United States[link]

Prior to 1871 the government of the United States regularly entered into treaties with Native Americans of the United States but the Indian Appropriations Act of March 3, 1871 (ch. 120, 16 Stat. 566) had a rider (25 U.S.C. § 71) attached that effectively ended the President’s treaty making by providing that no Indian nation or tribe shall be acknowledged as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty. The federal government continued to provide similar contractual relations with the Indian tribes after 1871 by agreements, statutes, and executive orders.^[10]

See also[link]

• Jus tractatuum
• List of intergovernmental organizations
• List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement
• List of treaties
• Manrent (feudal Scottish Clan treaty)
• Treaty ratification
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Notes[link]

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (August 2009)

References[link]

• Korean Mission to the Conference on the Limitation of Armament, Washington, D.C., 1921–1922. (1922). Korea's Appeal to the Conference on Limitation of Armament. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. OCLC 12923609
• Nicolson, Harold. (1936). Diplomacy, 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. OCLC 502863836
• Shaw, Malcolm Nathan. (1977). International Law, 1st ed. Sevenoaks, Kent: Hodder and Stoughton. OCLC 637940121

External links[link]

Look up treaty in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Treaties

• Treaties and Selected other International Instruments – Resources
• United Nations Treaty Collection
  • UN Treaty Collection – Treaty Guide
• TreatyLaw.org is a dedicated web site featuring academic papers and resources
• UN Cyberschoolbus – UN Core Treaties
• The International Law of Treaties
• ISEA International Energy Treaties
• Treaties from UCB Libraries GovPubs
• Resource Guide on Treaties from the American Society of International Law
• Treaty Affairs at the United States Department of State
• Treaties Office at the European Union
• Treaties Section of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office
• Ecuadorian Treaties
• Peace Palace Library - Research Guide

Dick Morris (born November 28, 1948) is an American political author and commentator who previously worked as a pollster, political campaign consultant, and general political consultant.

A friend and advisor to Bill Clinton during his time as Governor of Arkansas, Morris became a political adviser to the White House after Clinton was elected president in 1992. Morris encouraged Clinton to pursue third way policies of triangulation that combined, to achieve maximum political gain and popularity, traditional Republican and Democratic proposals, rhetoric, and issues. He worked as a Republican strategist before joining the Clinton administration, where he helped Clinton recover from the 1994 midterm elections by convincing the President to adopt Republican policies.^[1]

The president consulted Morris in secret beginning in 1994.^[2] Clinton's communications director George Stephanopoulos has said, "Over the course of the first nine months of 1995, no single person had more power over the president."^[3] Morris went on to become campaign manager of Bill Clinton's successful 1996 bid for re-election to the office of President. His tenure on that campaign was cut short two months before the election, when it was revealed that he had allowed a prostitute to listen in on conversations with the President. Morris then turned his focus to media commentary. He now writes a weekly column for the New York Post which is carried nationwide, contributes columns and blogs to both the print and online versions of The Hill, and appears regularly on the Fox News Channel for political commentary. He is also President of Vote.com.^[4]

More recently, Morris has emerged as a harsh critic of the Clintons and has written several books that criticize them, including Rewriting History, a rebuttal to Senator Hillary Clinton's Living History. Morris said that he would leave the United States if Hillary Clinton were elected president in 2008.^[5]

Morris was the strategist for Republican Christy Mihos's failed campaign in the 2010 Massachusetts gubernatorial race.^[6]

Early life[link]

Morris is the son of writer Terry Lesser Morris, an early proponent of confessional human interest stories.^[7] He attended Stuyvesant High School in New York City,^[8] where he was active on the debate team. He managed Jerrold Nadler's campaign for class president; Nadler has since gone on to represent New York in the House of Representatives. Morris was also involved in the first campaign of Richard Gottfried for New York State Assembly in 1970. Morris graduated from Stuyvesant in 1964, then attended Columbia University where he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree, graduating in 1967.

Morris and the Clintons[link]

Morris first worked with Bill and Hillary Clinton during Bill Clinton's successful 1978 bid for Governor of Arkansas. Morris is credited by many with engineering Clinton's re-election to the Arkansas governorship after a humiliating defeat at the end of Clinton's first term. As a result, Clinton turned to Morris after the mid-term elections of 1994, when Republicans gained control of the U.S. House and Senate and Clinton's own chance for a second presidential term seemed remote. From the early months of 1995 to August 1996, Morris was a principal architect of the Clinton-Gore re-election strategy.

Morris did not have a role in Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign, which instead was headed by David Wilhelm, James Carville, George Stephanopoulos, and Paul Begala. After the 1994 mid-term election, in which Republicans took control of both houses of the United States Congress and gained considerable power in the states, Clinton once again sought Morris's help to prepare for the 1996 Presidential election. It was Morris who proposed a strategy that is now referred to as triangulation, in which Clinton would appeal to a diverse group of voters by distancing himself from both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Scandal[link]

On August 29, 1996, Morris resigned from the Clinton campaign after tabloid reports stated that he had been involved with a female prostitute, Sherry Rowlands, as reported by the Washington Post. A New York tabloid newspaper, the Star, had obtained and published a set of photographs allegedly of Morris and the woman on a Washington, D.C., hotel balcony. News of the impending publication broke during the third day of the 1996 Democratic Convention. The Electronic Telegraph reported unverified claims that in order to impress the woman, S. Rowlands, Morris invited her to listen in on his conversations with President Clinton.^[9][10][11] It was also alleged he had an illegitimate child from an affair with a Texas woman.^[12]

Morris resigned on the same day that Bill Clinton spoke and accepted the nomination at the Democratic National Convention. In his resignation statement, he said that "while I served I sought to avoid the limelight because I did not want to become the message. Now, I resign so I will not become the issue."^[13] In his response, President Clinton praised Morris as a "friend", and thanked him for his years of service. Privately, several of Clinton's aides were furious that in his resignation statement Morris credited himself with helping the President "come back from being buried in a landslide" and that Morris ended by comparing himself to Robert Kennedy.^[14]

Morris was featured on two consecutive covers of Time magazine. The September 2, 1996 issue, which was released before the prostitute story broke, featured Morris as "The Man Who Has Clinton's Ear".^[1] The following week, the cover featured Morris and his wife, Eileen McGann, and the headline read "The Morris Mess: After the Fall".^[14]

Later work[link]

In his 1997 book, Behind the Oval Office, Morris wrote that, following an argument in the Arkansas Governor's Mansion, he strode toward the exit and was tackled by Clinton. In 2003, Morris further stated that Clinton cocked his arm back to throw a punch, but Hillary Clinton pulled her husband off Morris. In both versions of the story, she consoled Morris and apologized to him, stating that Bill behaved such only with those he cared for most. According to Morris, she did this to keep him quiet about the incident. He says the incident was the reason for denying Bill Clinton's request to work on the 1992 campaign.

Morris has become a vocal and regular critic of the Clintons since his departure, in particular Hillary Rodham Clinton and her bid for the presidency. Morris has written extensively about the Clintons (see below) and also contributed to Hillary: The Movie, a documentary about Rodham Clinton when she was still a 2008 Presidential candidate.^[15] Later, after former President Bill Clinton's comments about the similarities between the Obama win and the win of presidential candidate Jesse Jackson in 1988, Morris put out an article on his blog that asserted that this was Clinton's way of injecting race into the political campaign.^[16]

Other work[link]

Political consulting[link]

As of August 2009, Morris lends his name and assistance to the League of American Voters, an advocacy group for seniors to defeat the Obama health care reform. He has been described as "America's most ruthless political consultant" in the BBC documentary Century of the Self Episode 4,^[17] which chronicled how he brought lifestyle marketing to politics for the first time.

Morris has also consulted for candidates in other countries of the western hemisphere, including the campaigns of Fernando de la Rua for President of Argentina (1999), Jorge Batlle for President of Uruguay (1999), Vicente Fox for President of Mexico (2000), and Raphael Trotman for President of Guyana (2006).^[18]

Morris and his wife, Eileen McGann, are behind www.vote.com, a site intended to register non-scientific political public opinion on various issues.

Morris worked as a strategist for Christy Mihos, who sought the Republican nomination to run for Governor of Massachusetts in 2010 against incumbent Deval Patrick. Morris "oversaw strategy, polling, and advertising for Mihos".^[6] At the Republican state convention, Mihos lost to Charles D. Baker, Jr. by 89 percent to 11 percent; by failing to reach 15 percent, Mihos did not qualify for a primary against Baker.^[19]

Guest commentator and political prognosticator[link]

Since leaving Clinton's employ in 1996, Morris has said he has become profoundly "disillusioned" with the actions of the Clintons in the late 1990s. He has now formed a career as a political commentator and critic of the Clintons (particularly towards Hillary), appearing on Fox News programs such as Hannity & Colmes, Hannity, and the O'Reilly Factor, and on various local and nationally syndicated radio talk shows. Morris is also a regular columnist and Pundits Blogger for The Hill, a nonpartisan daily newspaper based in Washington, D.C., and for NewsMax.com, a conservative online news website.^[20][21][22]

Morris regularly makes predictions about candidates' chances of winning elections during these appearances. In a 2005 book on the 2008 presidential campaign, Morris stated that it was most likely that Hillary Clinton would face Condoleezza Rice for the presidency. Morris's critics reacted by mocking his mistaken predictions of past races.

Regarding the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, he initially stated that Howard Dean's candidacy could be written off right away. While ultimately vindicated, he had earlier discussed the likelihood of Dean defeating John Kerry after early strong showings by the former Vermont governor. Kerry defeated Dean and all his other rivals and won the nomination. Additionally, in a column in "The Hill" on June 22, 2005, Morris predicted that Hillary Clinton would face her "worst nightmare" in her 2006 Senate race against moderate Republican candidate Jeanine Pirro, whose campaign subsequently collapsed within a matter of two months after repeated crushing defeats in the opinion polls due to her husband's alleged mafia ties. He even went so far as to suggest that Clinton would "give up"^{[citation needed]} and drop out to focus on her 2008 campaign.^[23][24]

Morris further wrote that Hurricane Katrina "has the capacity to shape the second Bush term in the same way September 11 shaped his first term—not only in rebuilding New Orleans but in taking preventative steps around the nation to bolster our defenses against natural and man-made disasters and terror strikes. Responding to disasters is a source of presidential strength and popularity, and Bush is about to show how it is done."^[25] Appearing on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes on January 29, 2008, Morris said that those voting for John Edwards were "at the moment... those that can't decide which they don't like more—a black or a woman getting elected".^{[citation needed]} Host Alan Colmes asked if he was "saying that Edwards voters are bigots?"^{[citation needed]}

Morris elaborated that exit polls showed some Edwards voters were unsure if a woman or a Black American, in reference to then Democratic Primary front runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, could get elected to the Presidency for the first time in 2008.^[26]

After Obama won the 2008 election, Morris was critical of him. In early 2009, Morris said: "Those crazies in Montana who say, 'We're going to kill ATF agents because the U.N.'s going to take over'? Well, they're beginning to have a case."^[27][28] In April 2009, Morris keynoted an animated debate at the Yale Political Union on the topic "Resolved: Save Capitalism from President Obama".^[29]

In March 2010, About.com, owned by The New York Times Company, named Morris one of the top 20 conservatives to follow on Twitter.^[30]

In a March 2011 column for The Hill, Morris predicted that Obama would not win a second term as President.^[31] For many years a "disillusioned Democrat," Dick Morris has stated he is now a Republican.

In August 2011, Morris began a petition on his website opposing federal funding for the Park51 Muslim community center, claiming that the center is "designed to celebrate the attacks that killed 3,000 Americans", and that the center would "train the same kinds of terrorists who caused the... attacks".

Foreign political consultant[link]

Morris worked with the United Kingdom Independence Party in their campaign before the 2004 European Parliament election. The party, which advocates withdrawal from the European Union, won 12 of the United Kingdom's 78 seats.

In 2004 and 2005, he and his wife had acted as campaign consultants to the successful Yushchenko Presidential campaign in Ukraine. Morris reports that he insisted on the use of exit polls as a means of potentially exposing ballot tampering. He argues this played a significant role in forcing the government of then President Leonid Kuchma to acquiesce to a new poll when the official results of the first varied materially from the exit surveys. Interestingly, faced with a similar (though smaller) divergence between exit polling and election returns, he took the opposite stance in a 2004 article in The Hill when he suspected "foul play" on the part of the exit pollsters in the US presidential race.^[32] Mexico 2004; Morris outlined the strategy of the negative campaign that would be used against the PRD and AMLO: "The PRD would be a disaster for Mexico, the country would go in the same direction as Chávez and Castro."^{[citation needed]} That is to say, López Obrador would be "a danger to Mexico",^{[citation needed]} as Rob Allyn said in an article published on April 3, 2006, published in the New York Post.

In a November 13, 2007 press conference in Nairobi, Kenya, Morris announced that he would be offering his consultancy services pro bono for the campaign to elect Raila Odinga as President of Kenya in the 2007 Presidential election running on the Orange Democratic Movement ticket.

With four weeks to the national elections, an editorial in one of the leading dailies called into question the legalities of Morris's consulting work from the perspective of his presence in and lack of legal ability to work in Kenya "pro bono" or "through the back door".^[33]

The outcome of the December 27, 2007 elections in Kenya is still disputed due to allegations of electoral fraud and rigging by the incumbent president, Mwai Kibaki, the Party of National Unity and erroneous reporting by the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK). Massive protests and tribal tensions have since erupted between the president's Kikuyu tribe and the majority of other tribes not favorably aligned to the outcome. Major mediations have commenced between concerned parties, including possible formation of a coalition and/or interim government until reelections are held.

Morris's DVD[link]

Morris has appeared in, and wrote the screenplay for, the documentary film FahrenHYPE 9/11. The film was a response to Michael Moore's 2004 film, Fahrenheit 9/11.

Tax issues[link]

Morris said that he has reached an agreement with Connecticut, and his name will be removed from the next delinquency list. Morris says that he is committed to paying his taxes: "Following a difficult period in my life, I fell into arrears. But since then, I have paid almost $3 million in state and federal taxes."^[34]

Books[link]

Morris has written several books. He authored Condi vs. Hillary (subtitled The next great presidential race) (ISBN 0-06-083913-9) in which he argues that only Condoleezza Rice could block Hillary Clinton's anticipated 2008 bid for the White House. He co-authored this book with his wife, Eileen McGann.

Previously he wrote a pair of books criticizing the Clintons, again co-authored by his wife, Eileen McGann. Rewriting History (ISBN 0-06-073668-2) was published in May 2004 as a rebuttal to Hillary Clinton's book, Living History (ISBN 0-7432-2224-5). In it, he argues that Hillary Clinton has presented a false "nice" persona in the book. Morris instead remembers her as manipulative, cold, and single-minded in her pursuit of power. Similarly, Morris and McGann wrote Because He Could (ISBN 0-06-078415-6) in response to Bill Clinton's memoir My Life (ISBN 0-375-41457-6).

Morris has also written Behind the Oval Office: Winning the Presidency in the Nineties (ISBN 1-58063-053-7), a retrospective of his work with the Clintons that was published soon after his resignation from the campaign in 1996. Other books include Power Plays: Win or Lose—How History's Great Political Leaders Play the Game (ISBN 0-06-000444-4), The New Prince (ISBN 1580631479 ),Vote.com: How Big-Money Lobbyists and the Media Are Losing Their Influence, and the Internet Is Giving Power Back to the People (ISBN 1-58063-163-0)and "Outrage" (ISBN 978-0-06-119540-2).

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann's latest collaboration is Fleeced: How Barack Obama, Media Mockery of Terrorist Threats, Liberals Who Want To Kill Talk Radio, the Do-Nothing Congress, Companies That Help Iran, and Washington Lobbyists for Foreign Governments Are Scamming Us...And What To Do About It (ISBN 9780061718663), published in June 2008. Its jacket copy states, "In this hard-hitting call to arms, Dick Morris and Eileen McGann reveal the hundreds of ways American tax-payers are routinely fleeced--by our own government; by foreign countries like Dubai that are gobbling up American interests and spending millions to influence government decisions and American public opinion; by Washington lobbying firms that are pushing the agendas of corrupt foreign dictators on Capitol Hill; and by hedge-fund billionaires collecting huge tax breaks courtesy of the IRS."

His book Catastrophe was released in June 2009.

His latest book is Revolt! How to Defeat Obama and Repeal His Socialist Programs, which was released in March 2011.

References[link]

• Conason, Joe (2008-04-09). "Daily show". comedycentral.com. http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/09/jon-stewart-ann.html. Retrieved 2008-03-09. 
• Conason, Joe (2003-06-12). "Setting Dick Morris straight". Salon.com. http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2003/06/12/morris/index.html. Retrieved 2004-10-14. 
• "Dick Morris Biography". NewsMax.com. http://www.newsmax.com/pundits/bios/Morris-bio.shtml. Retrieved 2004-10-14. 
• "Clinton ex-adviser gives boost to Britain's anti-EU party". EUBusiness. 2004-06-15. Archived from the original on June 28, 2004. http://web.archive.org/web/20040628084521/http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040615012643.oukbjuqc. Retrieved 2004-10-14. 
• Morris, Dick (2003-06-12). "Setting the Record Straight: An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton". National Review Online. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-morris061203.asp. Retrieved 2004-10-14. 
• "NewsHour Transcript: The Morris Resignation". Online NewsHour. 1996-08-29. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/august96/panel_morris_8-29.html. Retrieved 2004-10-14. 

External links[link]

• DickMorris.com, Dick Morris Blog and Opinion Site
• Vote.com, Dick Morris online polling site (heavily biased, it only offers options for Republican candidates, with none for Democratic ones)[1]
• Podcasts of Morris' recent articles
• Dick Morris' Pundits Blogs for The Hill

Elizabeth Evans May OC, LLB (Dalhousie) DHumL (MSVU hc) LLD (UNB hc) LLD (MAU hc)
Elizabeth May in September 2009
Member of the Canadian Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands
Incumbent
Assumed office May 30, 2011
Preceded by	Gary Lunn
Leader of the Green Party of Canada
Incumbent
Assumed office August 26, 2006
Preceded by	Jim Harris
Personal details
Born	(1954-06-09) June 9, 1954 (age 58) Hartford, Connecticut, United States
Political party	Green Party of Canada
Other political affiliations	New Democratic Party Liberal Party of Canada[1]
Residence	Sidney, British Columbia
Alma mater	Dalhousie Law School (1983)
Occupation	Politician, lawyer, writer, activist
Religion	Anglican

Elizabeth Evans May, OC, MP (born June 9, 1954) is an American-born Canadian Member of Parliament, environmentalist, writer, activist, lawyer, and the leader of the Green Party of Canada. She was the executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada from 1989 to 2006. She became a Canadian citizen in 1978.^[2]

May's permanent residence is in Sidney, British Columbia.^[3] Her family home is in Margaree Harbour, Cape Breton Island.^[4] On May 2, 2011, she became the first elected Green Party Member of Parliament in Canada, defeating the incumbent, Gary Lunn.^[5][6]

Early life and family[link]

May was born in Hartford, Connecticut^[7][8] to a British father and American mother; she has a younger brother named Geoffrey.^[9][10] Her mother was a prominent anti-nuclear activist and one of the original founders of the peace group SANE, while her father was Assistant Vice President of Aetna Life and Casualty.^[10][11] May's godfather was actor Cliff Robertson.^[12]

May attended Renbrook School and the prestigious Miss Porter's School in Farmington, Connecticut. Her family was rooted in the Welsh Congregationalist tradition of free thinking on religious beliefs.^[13]

The family moved to Margaree Harbour, Nova Scotia in 1972 following a summer vacation spent on Cape Breton Island. On moving to the province, the May family purchased and restored a land-locked schooner, the Marion Elizabeth, in which a restaurant and gift shop was housed. Although the business had been closed for several years before being purchased by the Mays, it became a popular spot along the Cabot Trail. Launched in 1918, and named after the wife and daughter of the ship's first captain, the Marion Elizabeth was the only authentic Bluenose fishing schooner, and was built by the Lunenburg, Nova Scotia firm Smith and Rhuland. Farley Mowat also gave the Mays his schooner, the Happy Adventure, which was featured in his book, The Boat Who Wouldn’t Float, and was displayed next to the gift shop.^[14] The restaurant and gift shop operated from 1974 until 2002 when the property was expropriated for an expanded highway bridge carrying Route 19 across the Margaree River.^[11]

Law school[link]

Heavy financial losses in the early years of the family business made it impossible for Elizabeth and her brother to go to university.^[15] Elizabeth briefly enrolled at St. Francis Xavier University in 1974, but had to leave when she didn’t have enough money for tuition. Returning to Margaree, she took correspondence courses in restaurant management. Beginning in 1980, she worked her way through Dalhousie Law School as a mature student, graduating with an LLB in 1983, with then Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, writing her a letter of reference.^[16]

Early activism[link]

In 1975, following the move to Margaree Harbour, Elizabeth May joined with other local residents in a grassroots effort to stop approved aerial insecticide spraying over the forests of Cape Breton Island. The group “Cape Breton Landowners Against the Spray” was the focus of Elizabeth May’s volunteer effort from 1975-79. Swedish multinational Stora owned the local pulp and paper mill and held licenses to harvest the forests of eastern Nova Scotia. Stora wanted the government to pay for spraying the now-banned, organophosphate insecticide fenitrothion to counter the epidemic of spruce budworm. Within months the provincial government agreed to cancel the permits due to health concerns. The budworm outbreak later collapsed of natural causes. The issue was the subject of Elizabeth May's first book, Budworm Battles,^[17] as well as CBC program The Fifth Estate in a segment called “Miss May's War”, and a National Film Board documentary called Budworks.

Early political activity[link]

In 1980, disillusioned with the federal election sparked by the loss of confidence vote on Prime Minister Joe Clark's budget, May launched a political party to raise environment and anti-nuclear issues. The party, dubbed "the Small Party" and based on the ideas in E.F. Schumacher's book, Small is Beautiful, ran 12 candidates in 6 provinces, in the 1980 federal election. They made no pretense of attempting to win seats, calling the effort a “beau geste” to raise awareness. May, at the time a 25-year-old waitress, ran against the former Deputy Prime Minister, Allan J. MacEachen in Cape Breton Highlands—Canso. She placed fourth in a field of four candidates receiving 272 votes.^[18]

Early 1980s environmental activism[link]

Between 1980 and 1982, May worked in the local movement opposing uranium mining. It succeeded when the provincial government announced a moratorium. She was also very active in the effort to stop approval of the Point Lepreau nuclear plant in New Brunswick.^[19]

In 1982, the Nova Scotia government of Conservative Premier John Buchanan re-approved the spraying of forests with the herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Those same chemicals, in 50-50 combination, were known as Agent Orange and had been used as defoliants during the Vietnam War. All of the major pulp and paper companies in Nova Scotia received permits to spray the herbicides to kill hardwood trees and shrubs. May was between her second and third year of law school when the permits were granted, and began organizing to stop the spraying. The government announced it would convert the spray permits from aerial to ground spray. A total of 17 local residents went to court to stop the spraying. May's role was as both plaintiff and as volunteer lawyer. The plaintiffs received an interim injunction in August 1982 that prevented the spraying. Following the initial hearing, the case against Scott Paper was rejected. That initial decision resulted in a bill of costs against the plaintiffs for $15,000. May's mother sold 80 acres of family land to cover the costs to Scott Paper.^{[citation needed]}

The trial of the 17 plaintiffs against Stora, reported as Vicky Palmer et al v. Stora Kopparberg, Nova Scotia Supreme Court Trial Division, was heard over the month of May 1983.^[20] Mr. Justice Merlin Nunn ruled that the chemicals were not dangerous and had not caused health effects in Vietnam. By the time the judgment came down, the chemicals were no longer available for use in Canada. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Elizabeth May and Chief Ryan Googoo of the Mikmaq First Nation traveled to Sweden to raise funds and support for an appeal. The tour of Sweden gained support for the Nova Scotians opposed to Agent Orange, with Prime Minister Olof Palme endorsing their cause. While they were away, the pulp company pressured the other plaintiffs to drop the appeal and accept a settlement. In the settlement, Stora insisted that, while other plaintiffs and lawyers could be reimbursed for their costs, the May family would not. The herbicide case is documented in an National Film Board film called Herbicide Trials.^[21]

Early legal career[link]

May graduated in 1983 and, following law school, worked as an associate at the firm of Kitz, Matheson, Green and MacIsaac in Halifax (now Patterson Palmer). In 1985 she moved to Ottawa to accept the position of Associate General Counsel to the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. During this time May helped found the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund with the aim of funding groups and individuals in environmental cases. She was admitted to the bar of Nova Scotia in 1984, and the Law Society of Upper Canada in 1989.

In 1986, Elizabeth May was recruited by the federal Minister of Environment, Tom McMillan to provide environmental policy advice. As Senior Policy Advisor, May worked on many critical environmental issues. She was involved in the negotiation of agreements with the seven Eastern provinces and with the U.S. to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions in order to combat acid rain, writing new legislation, the creation of five new national parks, the negotiation of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, the clean-up of the Great Lakes, and the first agreement to clean up the Sydney Tar Ponds.

In June 1988, she discovered that the minister had broken the law approving permits for two dams in Saskatchewan (Rafferty and Alameda dams on the Souris River) without environmental review. She resigned on principle, but did not make her reasons for resignation public. In September, the Winnipeg Free Press broke the story of her resignation on the front page, unleashing a storm of anger from Manitoba residents, who were downstream from the Souris. The day after the story broke, the Manitoba Legislature held an emergency debate on the issue. The Canadian Wildlife Federation brought a lawsuit against the decision to grant permits without environmental review. The Federal Court of Canada ruled the permits had been granted illegally.^[22]

May received praise from David Suzuki for her work on Quttinirpaaq National Park (known as Ellesmere National Park prior to February 19, 2001), Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida Heritage Site (previously the South Moresby National Park Reserve, it was renamed on February 28, 1996), Grasslands National Park and the ozone protocol files.^[23] She resigned, in 1988, from her post after learning that the government's plan for Grasslands National Park meant granting permits for the Rafferty-Alameda Project^[24] in Saskatchewan without performing environmental assessments in exchange for the parkland and the translation of Saskatchewan's statutes into French.^[25]

Sierra Club of Canada Executive Director[link]

In 1989, May became the founding Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada.^[26] May sits on the boards of the International Institute of Sustainable Development^[27] and Prevent Cancer Now!^[28] She is a former vice-chair of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

In 2001, May went on a 17-day hunger strike in front of Parliament Hill to demand the relocation of families at risk next to Canada’s largest toxic waste site, the Sydney tar ponds in Cape Breton. She had co-authored a book on the tar ponds with Maude Barlow. As a result, the federal government pledged to relocate people living nearby to a safer location.^[29] After that, May was involved in lobbying Paul Martin, then Minister of Finance, that gross domestic product was not a viable measure of economic performance, a position Martin clearly advanced in public in Canada through 2003.^[30]

When Martin became Prime Minister of Canada in late 2003, he was however circumspect on this point, and his replacement in Finance, Ralph Goodale, was concerned mostly to cut Canada's debt to GDP ratio. May rallied and repeated her conversion feat, and by February 2005 Goodale announced "the greenest budget ever", representing the Green Budget Coalition.

May is a supporter of Help Lesotho^[31] and has experience in international lobbying. She said that the Montreal Action Plan (which came out of the 2005 UN Climate Change Conference^[32]) was "a set of agreements that may well save the planet".^[33] She counts Bill Clinton, who attended the Montreal Conference in 2005 at her request, among her contacts; Clinton became acquainted with May and her parents (then living in Connecticut) while a student at Yale University in the 1970s. In his conference speech Clinton thanked May for inviting him to Montreal. Clinton's presence was instrumental in getting the US to agree to talks on climate change for the first time.^{[citation needed]}

May resigned as the Sierra Club's executive director in April 2006, intending to step down that June. As one of her last major acts in this post she participated in a poll of experts that determined that Brian Mulroney was Canada's "greenest" Prime Minister for an award presented by Corporate Knights magazine, due in part to his influence over the USA on acid rain. For her prominent role in this initiative, May took some criticism from leftist commentators and environmentalists. However, as Mulroney himself noted, she saw him as "the best of a bad bunch", and the timing of the event was calculated to pressure current Prime Minister Stephen Harper to improve his environmental policies in the spring 2006 federal budget. This was May's last public nonpartisan announcement.

Leader of Green Party of Canada[link]

May with the fellow candidates at the June 21, 2006, leadership debate in Calgary.

On May 9, 2006, May entered the Green Party of Canada's leadership race.^[34] She announced her intent to make the party "a force". She cited the "major planetary catastrophe" and "climate crisis" and the "crisis of democracy" as primary issues. "I find myself despairing when I see four men in suits engaging in a debate where nothing important is said… if the voters get to hear a whole bunch of really exciting new ideas, they might like them… instead of trying to do a calculation of who they hate the least".^[35]

On August 26, 2006, May won the leadership election on the first ballot. She tallied 65.3% of the votes, beating her main rival, David Chernushenko (33.3%) and Jim Fannon (0.88%). She said one of the main platforms for the next election would be to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). She also said that she would insist on the party being represented on the televised debates.^[36] At the time of her election as leader, May said she intended to run in the riding of Cape Breton-Canso in the next federal election, although she also said she would stand in a federal byelection if one occurred prior to the next general election.^[37]

London North Centre by-election[link]

In the fall of 2006, London North Centre Member of Parliament Joe Fontana announced he was resigning his seat to run for Mayor of London, Ontario. Prime Minister Stephen Harper scheduled a by-election for that seat on November 27, 2006, and May stood as the candidate for the Green Party. She shocked some analysts^[who?] when she finished second to Glen Pearson of the Liberal Party, ahead of the Conservative and New Democratic Party (NDP) candidates. At the time, May's showing in this by-election was the best result, in terms of percentage, ever achieved by the Green Party of Canada. She received 9,864 votes, about 26% of the total votes cast.^[38]

2008 federal election[link]

May on March 17, 2007 after announcing her candidacy in Central Nova

On March 17, 2007, May announced that she would run in the Nova Scotia riding of Central Nova, in the next federal election.^[39] Central Nova is located on mainland Nova Scotia, rather than Cape Breton Island where May once lived. However, it is adjacent to the Cape Breton-Canso riding in which May previously expressed interest, and overlaps with the area covered by the former Cape Breton Highlands—Canso riding in which she ran in 1980^[40] as founder of the "Small Party". The riding was held by Conservative National Defence Minister Peter MacKay. May has explained that she chose Central Nova to avoid running against a Liberal or NDP incumbent.^[41] She acknowledged, however, that this would be a more difficult riding for her to win than others she had considered.^[42] May received 32% of the vote in Central Nova in 2006 to MacKay's 47%.

On April 12, 2007, Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion announced that the Liberals would not run a candidate in Central Nova in return for the Greens not running a candidate in Dion's safe Saint-Laurent—Cartierville riding.^[43] May had attempted to talk to NDP leader Jack Layton about ways to cooperate to avoid Harper’s party forming government. Layton refused to meet and attacked May for agreeing to a “leader’s courtesy” agreement with Dion. When the May-Dion deal was announced, it was criticized by the Conservatives and NDP, with Layton describing it as "backroom dealing", while former NDP leader Ed Broadbent said that it deprived voters of choice.^[44]

Disputes over leadership debates[link]

May was initially excluded from the televised leadership debate in the 2008 federal election, based on the lack of any elected Green party MPs. She argued that the TV network consortium's initial exclusion of the Green Party of Canada was "anti-democratic" and blamed it on "the decision-making of a small group of TV network executives".^[45] Prime Minister Harper, NDP leader Jack Layton, and Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe, all initially opposed her inclusion, with Stephen Harper threatening to boycott the debates if May were allowed to participate, on the basis that her arrangement with the Liberal party in Central Nova meant she was not truly independent of them.^[46] Because of this, former Editor-In-Chief of CBC TV News, Tony Burman, characterized the debate process as a sham, stating that, "Some networks worried that adding a fifth leader would make the debate 'unwatchable' but we all knew that the elephant in the room was actually living at 24 Sussex Drive. And he – the Prime Minister – would effectively have veto power. Within days of the [Media Consortium] meeting, we were privately told by the Conservative Party representative that Prime Minister Harper would not participate in the debates if the Green Party leader was there."^[47]

Layton initially said that he was following the rules of the broadcast consortium, while NDP spokesman Brad Lavigne confirmed that Layton had refused to attend if May was present, noting that May had endorsed Liberal leader Stéphane Dion for prime minister, and arguing that her inclusion would in effect give the Liberals two representatives at the debate.^[48] Rod Love, former chief of staff to Ralph Klein, has suggested that the Greens could potentially cut into the NDP's support.^[49] Layton's stance drew criticism from the YWCA, Judy Rebick, and members of his own party.^[50] Layton dropped his opposition to May's inclusion on September 10, 2008.^[51][52] Many commentators proclaimed May’s debut in the leaders debates to be a major breakthrough for the party, and were surprised that she proved to be a strong debater on a wide range of issues.^[53][54]

2008 election[link]

Elizabeth May won 32% of the vote on election day, the highest percentage ever for a Green Party candidate in Canada.^[55] Despite this, May did not win in Central Nova, losing to MacKay by a margin of 5,619 votes, and her party only received 6.8 percent of the popular vote. The party failed to elect a candidate and finished the election either $2 million^[56] or $4 million^[57] in debt. There was criticism from prominent Green Party members of May's failing to support all Green candidates unequivocally during the 2008 election, as she made favorable comments about Liberal leader Stéphane Dion and said that supporters in close ridings might consider voting strategically to attempt to defeat the Conservatives.^[56] Despite this, the Green Party was the only party to see an increase in its popular vote in the 2008 election.

Coalition government support[link]

On December 2, 2008, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion spoke to May about Green Party support for a possible Liberal-NDP coalition government. According to May, these discussions included discussion of a possible Senate appointment for May.^[56] However, the coalition ultimately fell apart. After Prime Minister Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote, Liberal leader Dion resigned and was replaced by Michael Ignatieff. When Parliament finally resumed in January, 2009, the Liberal Party decided to support the Conservative government's new proposed budget. While Parliament was prorogued, Harper also announced his intention to fill all current and upcoming Senate vacancies with Conservative appointees.

Speculation of a Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley by-election bid[link]

May had indicated she would consider running in a by-election in the rural Nova Scotia riding of Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, which is adjacent to the Central Nova riding she had contested in the 2008 election. The Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley riding became vacant when incumbent independent MP Bill Casey resigned to accept a job as representative of the Nova Scotia provincial government in Ottawa.^[58] Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced on October 3, 2009 that these by-elections would be held on November 9, 2009.^[59] After May made these comments, the Green Party selected Jason Blanch as the candidate for this riding. In the 2008 federal election, May endorsed Casey's independent campaign in Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley and the Green Party did not run a candidate.

2011 federal election[link]

May ran as the Green Party candidate and won in the riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands, in British Columbia. She faced Conservative cabinet minister Gary Lunn, who had held the seat for the preceding 14 years.^[60] May had considered the Ontario riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound where the Green Party received over 27% of the vote in 2008,^[61] and the riding of Guelph, where the Green Party received 21% of the vote.^[62] This election has become marred in controversy following allegations of widespread voter fraud involving robocalls directed at Liberal, NDP and Green Party supporters to the benefit of the Conservative Party of Canada. Elizabeth May's home riding is said to have been influenced by such calls. Elections Canada and the RCMP are investigating.^[63]

Excluded from leaders' debates[link]

On March 29, 2011 the broadcast consortium organizing the televised leaders' debate for the 2011 federal election announced that it would not invite May. May publicly condemned the decision as "anti-democratic in the extreme".^{[64][65][66][67]}

May speaks at the Fair Vote Canada National Day of Action in Ottawa May 14, 2011.

Despite her exclusion from the major leader debates, she won her riding, defeating the incumbent Gary Lunn.^[5] She was the only Green party candidate to be elected. May is the first elected Green Party MP in Canadian history.

Green Party Bi-Annual General Meeting[link]

On August 11, 2010, 85% of the party’s members voted to support Elizabeth May as leader, and 74% of Green party members voted to hold a leadership review after the next election, rather than August 2010, which was when May's term as leader was set to end.^{[citation needed]}

Controversial statements[link]

Stance on abortion[link]

The Green Party's policy is described as “pro-life, pro-choice”, confirming support for legal safe abortions, while also finding ways to support women who find themselves facing economic hardship and wanting to have a child. According to Green Vision 2010, Green Party MPs will "oppose any possible government move to diminish the right of a woman to a safe, legal abortion. We fully support a woman's right to choose. We will also expand programs in reproductive rights and education to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and expand supports for low-income mothers."^{[citation needed]}

During a visit to the Mount St. Joseph's Convent in London, Ontario, May responded to a nun's question about abortion by explaining her personal position, which included the statement that "I don't think a woman has a frivolous right to choose."^[68] May maintains that this comment was misinterpreted. Following reports of May's statements, prominent Canadian feminist Judy Rebick announced that she was withdrawing her previous support of May and the Green Party due to May's questioning "the most important victory of the women's movement of my generation".^[69]

Responding to Rebick's open letter, May explicitly reaffirmed that she supported a woman's right to access a safe and legal abortion and that “I never said a woman's right to choose trivialized anything. Not ever.” May further wrote “Some feminist scholars have pointed out that the slogan 'right to choose' focuses on too narrow a context. What are a woman's real rights in society? Where are our economic rights? While a woman must have the right to terminate a pregnancy, what of the larger context? What about the on-going struggle to create a truly equal relationship of sexual equality that might (would) help avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place? What about the responsibility of both sexual partners to avoid unwanted pregnancy (and while on the topic, to avoid sexually transmitted diseases that would be reduced through use of condoms)? I believe that respectful dialogue is possible even around such an emotionally charged issue as this. Not every opponent of legal abortions is unthinking. Neither is every supporter of legal abortion unwilling to acknowledge the moral complexity of the issue. Some common ground could be found, I believe, when the discussion shifts to a broader context”.^[70]

Chamberlain analogy[link]

In April 2007, during a speech by May to a London, Ontario United Church of Canada, she quoted British author George Monbiot stating, in reference to climate policy, that "In the eyes of history, John Howard, George Bush, and Stephen Harper will be judged more culpable than Neville Chamberlain."^[71] The statement drew criticism from the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Conservative Party. While Opposition leader Stéphane Dion refused to respond to Harper's request for him to distance himself from May and these remarks during Question Period, Dion did state to reporters outside Commons that May should withdraw the remarks, and that the Nazi regime is beyond any comparison.^[72]

In a Green Party of Canada press release May stated that she was referencing comments made by journalist George Monbiot a few days earlier at the Toronto Green Living Show^[73] saying that he "echoed the views of many people around the world when he expressed his deep distress at Canada's abdication of responsibility in the current climate crisis. As a failure of leadership and moral courage, he compared it to the appeasement efforts of Neville Chamberlain. I made reference to Mr. Monbiot's statement to highlight the damage being done to Canada's international reputation, something that should concern all Canadians."^[74][75] Both Prince Charles and a former British Labour foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, are on record having made similar analogies.^[76]

The reaction to May's comments led to a Macleans.ca story^[77] recounting several instances of politicians on record using Chamberlain analogies, including NDP leader Jack Layton, Liberal MP Robert Thibault and Conservative MP Peter MacKay.^[78]

Personal life[link]

May lives in Sidney, British Columbia with her daughter, Victoria Cate May Burton (born 1991). She is studying theology at Saint Paul University, and describes herself as a practising Anglican.

She has indicated that her path towards becoming an ordained minister with the Anglican Church does not clash with her role in the Green Party of Canada, and sees a clear separation between religion and politics.^[79]

Electoral record[link]

Honours and awards[link]