From the LA Times:

Anti-immigration candidates trying to take over the Sierra Club's governing board have filed a lawsuit against the national environmental organization, alleging that its leaders are breaking state law by using club money and resources to oppose them in upcoming board elections.

The legal maneuver, immediately denounced by Sierra Club leaders, is the latest turn in what has become a bitter battle for control of the 750,000-member group, one of the nation's oldest and most powerful environmental advocates.

If elected, the candidates - former Colorado Gov. Richard D. Lamm, Cornell University professor David Pimentel and Frank L. Morris, a former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation - would help form a new majority on the Sierra Club's 15-member board that would call for population control and curbs on immigration.

Most of the Sierra Club's current leaders vehemently oppose the takeover attempt, which has attracted support from an array of strange political bedfellows including animal rights groups and anti-Semitic websites...

..."You have to have disinterested elections," Lamm said in an interview, adding that he was greatly offended that Sierra Club leaders had linked him with extremist groups simply because he supports has [sic] immigration control. "I don't mind being blamed for what I believe in, but I am a hunter and fisherman. I am not an animal-rights activist. The biggest thing, of course, is that charge of racism. There is a terrible character assassination going on."

If you aren't a Sierra Club member, it might not be too late to join the Sierra Club in order to vote for these candidates.

Regarding the current LAT article, notice that the phrase "anti-immigration" is used no less than five times. However, it also says they would "call for population control and curbs on immigration." In other words, the article is internally inconsistent: they aren't really "anti-immigration," they just favor reduced immigration. Not the same thing, but what would you expect from the LAT?

Also, Lamm says he "was greatly offended that Sierra Club leaders had linked him with extremist groups." Which is exactly what the LAT article attempts to do: "...an array of strange political bedfellows including animal rights groups and anti-Semitic websites." I guess we know which way the LAT is going to vote.

Contact the LAT's reader's representative Jamie.Gold@latimes.com if you agree with my comments on the article.

[Also posted here.]