Los Angeles County election officials have released this sample ballot for the upcoming special election for the special election in the 28th district of the California State Senate. As one can see, the candidates who are registered members of qualified parties are permitted to list their party preference on the ballot, but the candidates who are not registered members of a qualified party are forced to have “no party preference” listed next to their names. One of the two candidates with that label, Mark Lipman, does not object to it. But the other candidate with that label, Michael Chamness, does object to that label. He is a registered member of the Coffee Party and he wants to have “My party preference is the Coffee Party” on the ballot. He has applied to intervene in the lawsuit Field v Bowen, now pending in the State Court of Appeals.
The purpose of listing “party preference” on the ballot in the top-two systems of Washington and California is to help the candidate communicate a message, and to help the voter know something about the candidate. The U.S. Supreme Court, and the California Supreme Court, have ruled in the past that it is unconstitutional to discriminate for or against candidates, relative to labels on the ballot. The meaning of the party preference is not that the party approves of the candidate. The meaning of the party preference is to illustrate the mind-set of the candidate. Therefore, it is not rational to tell candidates that they can only reveal their mind-set on the ballot if they prefer a large party, or an already-established party, versus a new party. Washington state officials understand this, and that is why they let all candidates choose any “party preference”, as long as it isn’t obscene and is no longer than 16 characters.
Former California Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado understands this point. In May 2010 he was on television in New York city, being interviewed, and he said under the California top-two system that he sponsored, any candidate could choose any party label. He said, for example, that a candidate could prefer the Farmer Party. Also, in December 2010, when he received an award from IndependentVoting, he told the group that under his plan, all candidates can choose any label they wish. But the California Secretary of State and the California Attorney General do not agree. And even Maldonado’s attorneys don’t seem to agree with him. In the Superior Court, Maldonado’s attorneys argued vociferously against letting members of unqualified parties list their party preference. In the State Court of Appeals they seemed to reverse their position. But then in their papers in the State Supreme Court they seemed to suggest that they don’t know what the law means, relative to labels.
This is why I would want multiple designations. One would be your party registration from your voter record. Another could be your desired party designation. And the last would be indorsements. I do not agree that you could indicate a party that you are not enrolled in. That is misleading. That is why I would have multiple entries.
The county election officials are already having trouble fitting all the information that is already required to be printed on the ballot. California requires occupation to be printed on the ballot for each candidate; no other state does that.
Richard Winger
Why is EX 1. on the bottom right side of the sample ballot?
So this is what Election Code section 13105(a) was stating. My question will The American Independent Party be stated on future ballots in Los Angeles County
as “My party preference is The American Independent Party” or “My party preference is the American Independent Party”? Note the the letter “T” in “The”
or “the”.
How will the non English language ballot look?
So when Ms. Carol Winkler wanted to mislead the 17th
Senate District electors by having it stated under her
name “My party preference is the Independent Party”,
was she trying also to get seated as a member of the
American Independent Party County Central Committee
as part Odom’s plan to hijack the American Independent
Party from County Central Committee in the county she
resides in?
Is Carol Winkler associated with Jim King?
Remember, in Imperial County electors that place “Independent” for party on the HAVA Statement of
Registration are list as “American Independent on that
counties voter rolls.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Richard Winger
My list on Carol Winkler is now down to five, viz.,
Carol Winkler, Carol Anne Winkler (DVM), Two Carol J.
Winkler’s and Carol R. Winkler. Do you know a middle
name or if she is a vet?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Note the [N] sentences. [N] added. *** = non-relevant language omitted. Sentences separated for easier reading.
Go over the below at least 10 times. You too can be a judge.
NOTE – the stuff before amended Art. II, Sec. 5 is NOT in the CA Constitution.
NO *OBVIOUS* distinction is made between new, old, big, small parties — Gee — thus — does CA have EQUAL protection for ALL parties ???
Perhaps THE ONLY State to have such EQUAL protection ???
Perhaps NOT what the genius MORONS who wrote Prop 14 at 4 AM in the morning wanted ???
ONLY the CA Supremes and/or U.S.A. Supremes know for sure ???
———
2010 CA Prop 14 PARTS —
PROPOSED LAW
First—This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act.”
Second—The People of the State of California hereby find and declare all of the following:
(b) Top Two Candidate Open Primary.***
All candidates for a given state or congressional office shall be listed on a single primary ballot.
The top two candidates, as determined by the voters in an open primary, shall advance to a general election in which the winner shall be the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes cast in an open general election.
****
(d) Open Candidate Disclosure.
[1] At the time they file to run for public office, all candidates shall have the choice to declare a party preference.
[2] The preference chosen shall accompany the candidate’s name on both the primary and general election ballots.
[3] The names of candidates who choose not to declare a party preference shall be accompanied by the designation “No Party Preference” on both the primary and general election ballots.
[4] Selection of a party preference by a candidate for state or congressional office shall not constitute or imply endorsement of the candidate by the party designated, and no candidate for that office shall be deemed the official candidate of any party by virtue of his or her selection in the primary.
(e) Freedom of Political Parties.
Nothing in this act shall restrict the right of individuals to join or organize into political parties or in any way restrict the right of private association of political parties.
Nothing in this measure shall restrict the parties’ right to contribute to, endorse, or otherwise support a candidate for state elective or congressional office.
[5] Political parties may establish such procedures as they see fit to endorse or support candidates or otherwise participate in all elections, and they may informally “nominate” candidates for election to voter-nominated offices at a party convention or by whatever lawful mechanism they so choose, other than at state-conducted primary elections. ***
***********
Third—That [CA Const.] Section 5 of Article II thereof is amended to read:
SEC. 5. (a) A voter-nomination primary election shall be conducted to select the candidates for congressional and state elective offices in California.
[6] All voters may vote at a voter-nominated primary election for any candidate for congressional and state elective office without regard to the political party preference disclosed by the candidate or the voter, provided that the voter is otherwise qualified to vote for candidates for the office in question.
The candidates who are the top two vote-getters at a voter-nominated primary election for a congressional or state elective office shall, regardless of party preference, compete in the ensuing general election.
[7] (b) Except as otherwise provided by Section 6, a candidate for a congressional or state elective office may have his or her political party preference, or lack of political party preference, indicated upon the ballot for the office in the manner provided by statute.
[8] A political party or party central committee shall not nominate a candidate for any congressional or state elective office at the voter-nominated primary.
[9] This subdivision shall not be interpreted to prohibit a political party or party central committee from endorsing, supporting, or opposing any candidate for a congressional or state elective office.
[10] A political party or party central committee shall not have the right to have its preferred candidate participate in the general election for a voter-nominated office other than a candidate who is one of the two highest vote-getters at the primary election, as provided in subdivision (a).
Carol Winkler isn’t running in any event, but if she had run, she would have wanted just “independent” next to her name. The State Supreme Courts of Massachusetts and Minnesota have ruled that the term “independent” as a ballot label for candidates cannot be denied; it is too important a term.
If I was registered as a republican could I indicate democrat as my preference?
So when Ms. Carol Winkler wanted to mislead the 17th
Senate District electors by having it stated under her
name “My party preference is the Independent Party”,
was she trying also to get seated as a member of the
American Independent Party County Central Committee
as part Odom’s plan to hijack the American Independent
Party from County Central Committee in the county she
resides in?
= Awwww, does somebody have their little tinfoil hat on?
I don’t think the top-two in cali is going away anytime soon- its here to say for good, from the looks of it.
Richard Winger,
I think they could have the ballot state ADJOURN SINE DIE would make a more correct statement for November 30
with the year.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
ALL of the language above and below the Office box in the sample ballot is quite useless.
The Electors-Voters are supposed to be aware of every word in Prop 14 — # 5 above.
The OLD maxim of the LAW — Ignorance of the LAW is NO excuse.
How many parties in CA have ONE member — the showboat candidate involved ???
Obviously do NOT be surprised that IF the courts rule that ALL such one person parties can get ballot labels —
THEN the gerrymander party hacks will instantly have a const. amdt. to define and limit what a party is for any such ballot labels — i.e. be a Prez party getting X percent of the votes or Y percent of all party registrations as of Z date — i.e. more of the same old unequal stuff regarding ballot access.
The sample ballot does not comply with Elections Code 13302.
The 10-year party registration history on the Secretary of State web site does not comply with Elections Code 8121(b).
The sample ballot apparently does not comply with Elections Code 300.5, 2150(8), 2150(10)(b), 2151(a), 2151(d), 8002.5(a), 8002.5(d), 8040 (as modified by 8002.5(d)), and 13105(a).
It should be investigated whether Michael Chamness deliberately omitted his previous party registration history on his sworn declaration of candidacy, which in turn resulted in the SOS to not display this information on its website.
It is critical to the Top 2 Open Primary that voters not be confused as to the meaning of party preference. The current maladministration of the Top 2 Open Primary by Debra Bowen and Dean Logan may materially harm the citizens of California and effectively cause their disenfranchisement.
Elections Code 338 does NOT define a political party. It defines the meaning of the word “party” within the Elections Code, “unless the provision or the context otherwise requires” (Section 4).
When a voter registers he may specify the name of a non-qualified party. The whole scheme of party qualification can not work unless a voter may register with a non-qualified party.
Michael Chamness has declared under penalty of perjury that the following is truthful and correct:
“I … am registered to vote in California Senate District 28, with the party affiliation of the Coffee Party, a “non-qualified” (i.e., minor) party.”
Let’s assume that he did not commit perjury. Then what he is really saying is that on his latest affidavit of registration he wrote “Coffee” or “Coffee Party” in the party affiliation box, reviewed the information he had entered on the form, signed it to certify that it was truthful and correct, and filed it with the Los Angeles County Registrar, either by mail or in person, and that he thereby registered his affiliation with the Coffee Party.
I assume he understood that unless the Coffee Party qualifies for the 2012 presidential primary, that he may be prohibited from voting (for example in 2008 he would have been limited to voting in either the Democratic and American Independent primary).
I doubt that he knows what “minor” party means under California law, but that is immaterial.
On January 1, 2011, Proposition 14 and SB 6 became operative, and under terms of 2151(d) his registration was changed to “Disclosed a Preference for the Coffee Party”.
Michael Chamness declared, “On January 3, 2011, I filed the Nomination Documents for the vacancy in Senate District 28 with the office of Respondent Logan.”
Under terms of Elections Code 300.5, the party affiliation of candidate Chamness was “Coffee Party”.
If candidate Chamness disclosed on his voter registration that he preferred the Coffee Party, then his party affiliation as both a voter and as a candidate is with the Coffee Party. He only filed one affidavit of registration, correct?
In context, “party” must mean that which Chamness disclosed on his voter registration, and not “qualified party”.
Chamness must have filed a declaration of candidacy.
Under terms of 8002.5(a) he had the option of declaring his party preference as disclosed upon his most recent affidavit of registration. Chamness only filed one affidavit of registration, correct? He didn’t perjure himself, correct? Then he had the option on his declaration of candidacy to have his preference for the Coffee Party. Dean Logan was required under terms of 8025(d) to provide a form where Chamness could specify his party preference. Did Logan fail?
Under terms of Elections Code 13105(a), Dean Logan is required to print “My party preference is the Coffee Party”. If Dean Logan does not do so he is not complying with the law.
Were Lucy Killea, Audie Bock, and Quentin Kopp minor-party candidates like your lawyer contends?
#9, I don’t agree. The case against top-two is very strong. The US Supreme Court said in 1986 that there is no constitutional distinction between a petition to get someone on the November ballot, and a vote showing in a prior election. And petition hurdles to the November ballot are unconstitutional if they exceed 5%. Ergo, vote tests prior to the November election are also unconstitutional if they exceed 5%. But top-two requires, on the average, support of 30%. Federal law establishes November as election day for congress and president, and states that want a run-off must hold it after November’s election.
Jim Riley
On an other posting you question how Dean Logan handled
the Statement of Registration of Carol Winkler. Do you
have information that Carol Winkler is an elector in Los
Angeles County? Please confirm. This will mean I do not have to go to Barkersfield, Ventura, & San Bernadino.
I have a meeting set up on January 26, 2011 with Dean Logan and Efriam Esobedo.
Just after the double bubble issue in February, 2008,
I talked with Debra Bowen about how the HAVA Statements
of Registration were viewed by the Imperial County Registrar of Voters, viz., “Independent Party” is the
“American Independent Party”. Our talk was in Los Angeles, just after a hearing on the double bubble matter. I was the first person to raise the issue
as a problem with the Secretary of State prior to that
primary. At the time I viewed giving instructions to
votes they had to due two step to vote, was more than
some of the could handle. I was correct.
Bowen told me that the Imperial Courty Registrar knows
the law and can reason what the HAVA statements of registration mean. This was at the same time she was
stating that electors were confused by Independent and
American Independent. Therefore when an elector wrote
under the place for naming a political party on the
then HAVA generated statement of registration form
the view was that “Independent” was the same as “American Independent” for the voters intent.
At that point I gave up.
The question is what Carol Winkler wrote on her statement of registration for her political party.
Did she write the word “Independent” on a HAVA form
like electors did in Imperial County. If it was in
Los Angeles County, did the election official view
the statement of registration the same way as they
do in Imperial County?
With all the persons trying to hijack the American Independent County Central Committees, I am concern
this is a new plot. Ms. Winkler if she was elected
a Senater would have a seat on the County Central
Committee according to the California Election Code.
The question at that time would go to court and they
would have to determine if “Independent Party” was the
same as “American Independent Party” was the same,
just like “P&F Party” is the same as “Peace and Freedom Party” or “GOP Party” is the same as “Republican Party”.
My first step is to review Carol Winkler’s Statement of
Registration and inquire if her registar included her
within the total of electors to the Secretary of State
for the posting of 15 days prior to the November, 2010
General Election, viz., 413,032 American Independent
Party electors.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Third—That [CA Const.] Section 5 of Article II thereof is amended to read:
(b) Except as otherwise provided by Section 6, a candidate for a congressional or state elective office may have his or her political party preference, or lack of political party preference, indicated upon the ballot for the office [[[in the manner provided by statute]]].
——-
Language in brackets = Standard statutory LOOPHOLE language for the robot party hacks to play games with ???
ALL voters are supposed to be aware of such language – just by being in CA.
# 14 — Where does 5 percent appear in the U.S.A. Constitution — implying a possible 20 candidates on the general election ballots for each single office ???
What did the SCOTUS party hacks do in the 2008 WA top 2 case ??? — gee UPHELD the FACIAL aspect of top 2
= even 33.33 percent may NOT be enough to get past the top 2 primary to get on the general election ballots.
Top 2 primary – percentages
A 33.336 with or without a party hack label
B 33.334 with or without a party hack label
Z 33.330 LOSES — very tragic. Better luck next time.
100.000
Gee – any recounts possible if there were a mere 100,000 votes involved ???
P.R. and App.V. = NO primaries are needed.
Z might have a chance to be elected in the general election.
#15 Carol Winkler apparently never took any official steps to become a candidate, at least not in Los Angeles County. She signed her motion to intervene in Santa Clarita.
If she did reside in Kern, San Bernardino, or Ventura counties she would have had to file in that county. I can’t imagine that her lawyer would seek to enjoin action by the county registrar of those counties without bothering to inform them.
Originally, George Runner was intending to resign from the Senate on January 3, at the time he was sworn in as a member of the SBOE. He then resigned on December 16 so that the SD 17 and SD 28 elections could be held on the same date. Maybe she wasn’t prepared to gather the 40 signatures on short notice.
#14a The 1986 Supreme Court case concerned an election in which candidates who received 19.63% and 15.15% of the vote were excluded from the special general election ballot. In fact thirteen candidates finished in front of the candidate you are concerned about. There is no requirement that special elections be held in November, or that there even be a runoff.
#14b In my country, we have a Congress which could refuse to seat representatives who were not properly elected, according to the time regulations that they themselves had passed. (Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own members). Assuming that you live in the same country, have you written your representative or senators about your concern?
#14 The 1986 Supreme Court case concerned an election in which candidates who received 19.63% and 15.15% of the vote were excluded from the special general election ballot. There is no requirement that special elections be held in November, or that there even be a runoff.
#14 Congress could refuse to seat representatives who were not properly elected, according to the time regulations that they themselves had passed. (Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own members).
Richard, could you please answer #7: “If I was registered as a republican could I indicate democrat as my preference?”
Thx.
Elections Code 325. “Independent status” means a voter’s indication of “No Party Preference” as provided in Section 2151 and Section 2154.
Is a California Court really going to interpret this as: “If a voter may only appear on the general election ballot by virtue of an independent nomination (which under California law only applies to the election of President), that not withstanding what the voter actually did indicate on their affidavit of registration (as provided in Section 2151 and Section 2154), that what they really intended was something else.”
or is a court going to interpret it as:
“If a voter indicates “No Party Preference” on their affidavit of registration (as provided in Section 2151 and Section 2154) that the voter has “independent status”, so that whenever the Elections Code refers to a voter with “independent status” it is referring to a “voter who indicated on their affidavit of voter registration that they had no party preference”?
Jim Riley,
I have a view from the registrar of voters for Imperial County, that “Independent” on the party line of the old HAVA statement of registration form means “American Independent Party.
Bowen’s comment that the voting officials are correct
in Imperial County means the voter that listed the
“Independent Party” on a HAVA form of statment of registration means they are in the “American Independent
Party”. It then follows that Dutta needs to move that
case to the Superior Court in Sacramento County, because AIP most be made a party and the place to sue
AIP is only Sacramento County.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Jim Riley’s posts alone demonstrate that, not only is “top-two” an evil attempt to create a one-party state, but it is just too complex to explain or be administered. Even he cannot explain it.
The bottom line on this whole Winkler mess is it looks like something Odom would do. It is such a non-working back door way to get on a County Central Committee.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
#21 Under the old system, if you were registered as a Republican, you could only appear on the Republican primary ballot as seeking the nomination of the Republican Party. In addition, if you had only been a Republican a short while, or had been a Democrat in the last year or so, you could not appear on the ballot seeking the Republican nomination.
However, you could simultaneously seek the nomination of the Democratic Party as a write-in candidate. It is conceivable that you could lose the Republican primary, but win the Democratic primary as a write-in candidate. In that case, you would have appeared on the general election ballot as:
Rosa
Blog Commentator
Democratic Party
This would not mean that you were a Democrat, but rather that the Democrats had nominated you.
Under the new system, when you register you register a preference for a political party. So you would have said that your party preference was Republican. You would sign the voter registration form to certify that the information is truthful and correct.
If you were to then become a candidate you would have two options what appears on the ballot. (a) “My Party Preference is the Republican Party” or (b) Nothing.
In addition to your current party preference, your party registration history over the previous 10 years would (or should) appear on the Secretary of State’s web site.
So rather than taking a regulatory approach, the new system takes a disclosure approach. If you happened to live in a heavily Democratic district, you could change your registration to say that you preferred the Democratic Party, sign the voter registration affidavit to certify that the information is truthful and correct, and later file for office.
You would appear on the ballot as “My Party Preference is the Democratic Party”, but it would be public information that for the previous 9 years that you had been a Republican.
If you finished in the Top 2 in the primary, your party preference must remain constant for the general election, so you can not switch at that time.
Question for everyone. Where is Carol Winkler registered to vote? I need to pull her statement of
registration and see what she wrote and how it was viewed by the election official of that county.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party.
#23 The most important part of Debra Bowen’s job (with regard to elections) is to ensure that election laws are uniformly applied and administered statewide.
She has an affirmative duty to call attention of any violation of the election laws to the District Attorney of the county or the Attorney General.
See Government Code 12172.5
Jim Riley,
How does this new thing work as to the one Year requirement registered in a party, or three months
if it was prior DTS?
What about raises for the County Central Committees of the American Independent Party under the CA Election
Code? They are still part of the Direct Primary in
2012 for the June election.
Due you agree with me that what Carol Winkler was misleading the voters with wanting a statement of the
ballot to say “My party preference is the Independent
Party”, when that Party is either an entity of unknown
form or in the alternative it was the “American Independent Party”.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Concerning several questions above, the California law says the candidate’s “party preference” as printed on the ballot must match the party the candidate is registered in when he or she files (except that the party must be a qualified party). However, a candidate is free to switch parties up to the moment he or she files for office. But regardless of any party-switching by the candidate after filing for the primary, the state will print the same party preference on the November ballot if the person qualifies for the November ballot, even if the candidate has switched in the meantime. The switch won’t be reflected on the November ballot.
# 18 A fatal oversight by the 1787 top secret Federal Convention folks regarding the date for electing U.S.A. Reps. ???
They actually trusted the party hacks in the State legislatures to be somewhat sane about election dates — until 1872 at least.
Thus the statutory screwing around with caucus, convention, primary election, primary election runoff, general election, general election runoff dates (and related ballot access dates) — by the EVIL party hacks in the gerrymander Congress and/or in the gerrymander State legislatures.
— along with the INSANE party hack Prez primary, etc. nomination stuff.
The EVIL bastards from Hell use ALL of the loopholes available — it appears to be in their EVIL genes.
See Hitler in 1933 using ALL of the FATAL loopholes in the 1919 Germany Constitution to de facto become a tyrant in 1933-1945. About 70 million DEAD in WW II due in major part to such FATAL loopholes — due in major part to the EVIL party hack arrogant MORON Allies in 1919 — esp. in the U.K. and France.
#30
Elections Code 8002.5. (a) A candidate for a voter-nominated office may indicate his or her party preference, or lack of party preference, as disclosed upon the candidate’s most recent statement of registration, upon his or her declaration of candidacy. If a candidate indicates his or her party preference on his or her declaration of candidacy, it shall appear on the primary and general election ballot in conjunction with his or her name. The candidate’s designated party preference on the ballot shall not be changed between the primary and general election. A candidate for voter-nominated office may also choose not to have the party preference disclosed upon the candidate’s most recent affidavit of registration indicated upon the ballot.
Where do you get the idea about “(except that the party must be a qualified party)”
Now that Top Two will be used this year, what makes a party a qualified party with Top Two?
Parties that got 2% for at least one statewide nominee in November 2010 will continue to be ballot-qualified until at least November 2014. But starting the day after the November 2014 election, the only qualified parties will be the ones with registration of at least 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. With current data, that predicts the Libertarian and Peace & Freedom Parties will cease to be qualified in November 2014, unless they each increase their registration. The Peace & Freedom Party will need to double its registration. Of course the law may change between now and then.
#32, I sympathize and acknowledge you have a strong argument. The problem is that the California state officials don’t agree with you, and they are in charge. I am tempted to ask you to write a letter to the Cal. Secty of State and make your argument to her.
Richard Winger
It is more than having 2% of the vote. The party needs
also 1/15th of 1 % registration.
What about the time required to be registered in the party, viz., 1 year or three month as before 1/01/2011?
What county was Carol Winkler registered in?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Pingback: Digest for 1/23 | Stuck in a Digital-Haze
Richard Winger,
You made a good point in #30. The question is how close of a match will Debra Bowen except. If the registrar of Imperial County states that Independent
Party is the same thing as American Independent Party,
will she keep the view the Imperial County Registrar
is legally correct?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
The bottom line on this whole Winkler mess is it looks like something Odom would do. It is such a non-working back door way to get on a County Central Committee.
= Gary lives in Pennsylvania and is registered to vote there. His concern is with Pennsylvania and the CP. Your paranoia is laughable.
Perhaps Ms. Carol Winkler was attempting to obtain the votes of all of those people in her district who were registered in the American Independent Party of California but who actually thought that they were registered in the “Independent Party of California.”
#29
SB 6 omitted Elections Code 8550(f) which restricted a candidate from seeking an independent nomination for a partisan office, if he were affiliated with a qualified party or if he had been recently been affiliated with a qualified party. The only remaining partisan office is for president, and 8550(f) did not apply to presidential electors (ie some of Ross Perot’s elector candidates might have been registered with qualified parties),
If Proposition 14 had not passed, then this provision would likely have barred Michael Chamness from appearing on the ballot in the special election, since he has apparently only recently changed his party registration. He was elected as a member of Los Angeles County central committee of the Green Party in June 2010 – so it is possible that he switched his party registration soon after, but it is more likely to have been around the first of November.
SB 6 did not change Elections Code Section 8001 which governs eligibility for election party county central committees or nomination for partisan offices.
However, the only remaining partisan office is for President. Nothing was changed with regard to election of delegates to the national convention, composition of the state convention etc. Presidential elector candidates are designated by the state convention. I don’t see a requirement that they be affiliated with the party, but this may have always been true.
How soon can the CA courts end the mess about party hack parties and party hack labels for candidates ???
See # 5 and # 16 above.
Some EMERGENCY orders with opinions to follow ???
SCOTUS in emergency backup reserve.
Does there have to be TOTAL court chaos regarding ANY change in election law stuff ???
#34 The question is why they think that it is true. The 2004 proposal did restrict candidates to being from qualified parties. Qualified parties could not screen candidates, but they could deny permission to all candidates from their party. I suspect that if that measure had passed, and went to the Supreme Court instead of the Washington law, it would have been overturned. It would look too much like candidates were representing the party. It may have been that the SOS was reading the law as if it were a reprise of that effort.
I don’t think there would be a problem requiring that the targets of preference be actual parties, such as had been proposed 2 years ago in Washington, or is proposed in Alaska, so long as there would be a reasonable size requirement. It would be hard to make a legitimate case that California was trying to guard against “idea crowding” by having few parties that may be preferred. California really doesn’t have a rational interest in ensuring elections are contested mainly on the basis of personality or hair style.
Registration of parties would have a number of benefits. It would address Mark Seidenberg’s concerns about party names. It would address election officials concerns about party names, and might provide standard translations, especially into Chinese ideograms. If the number of registrants was minimal, say 500, then California could do away with the current system of sign up, then qualify; and simply use a petition system, which if successful would change the party registration of the petitioners.
California, could then do like Alaska and have two classes of voters not affiliated with parties: undeclared and nonpartisan. There is no reason that candidates who had either designation could not be given a choice of ballot labels: “Independent”, “Nonpartisan”, “No Party Preference”, since none of these imply endorsement, and indicate a level of neutrality in the candidate’s party preferences. Voters who sign up with an unrecognized party, could simply be told that they have been switched to undeclared, and given a form to update their affiliation if they wished to.
With the potential for a large number of recognized parties, California has an opportunity to rip out Division 7, and simply identify the core functions that the State of California requires of a party:
(1) A name.
(2) A minimum number of registered voters.
(3) Bylaws that are approved by the party electorate, and have been precleared by the USDOJ under Section 5 of the VRA, and are filed with the SOS, including a process by which they are updated and approved by registered member of the party.
(4) Sufficient officers to officially to act on behalf of the party at both state and county levels, (whether the county official resided in the county, or represented the party in multiple counties would be at the discretion of the party).
(5) Finance reporting.
(6) Central committees and system of election. The constitution does not define the level that these are organized at, so this would be be a matter for the party to decide.
(7) Biennial convention, with an opportunity for all registered members of the party to participate directly, or indirectly through a delegate selection process.
The state currently administers party committee elections for the qualified parties (or have the Libertarians opted out?). I’m not sure that the incremental cost for small parties is that great. The counties either have to have envelope stuffing equipment, or to contract it out. A few more might not cost that much, especially if the party elections were made all mail ballots.
Presidential primaries might be similar. The state could give each party the option of having the primary be a direct nominating primary, in which case the winner goes on the general election ballot. Otherwise the party could nominate its candidate by petition (1/10 of 1% of the previous presidential vote), in which case the party name would appear on the ballot. Libertarian Party v Eu did not say that petition nominated candidates had to be designated “Independent”, but rather that it was constitutional OK for California to do so.
California could simply have the presidential candidate present the petition, with sufficient signatures, along with the authorization of the Vice Presidential candidate, the 55 elector candidates, and the state party.
NE has survived with NO party hack stuff for electing its ONE house NONPARTISAN State legislature.
When the NE party hacks speak, does ANY body listen ???
P.R. and App. V = ZERO party hack stuff (caucuses, primaries and conventions) is needed for civilization to survive.
Put ALL of the party hack stuff in the political history junkyard / landfill — having divine right of kings, nobility, slavery, etc. etc.
As to the earlier post on ex-Gov. Edwin Edwards: he created the “top two,” popularly called the “open primary,” for Louisiana. Edwards copied the bill passed by the Mississippi legislature in 1966 and 1970; it passed the LA legislature in 1974. Edwards in 1971 had to slug it out through the Dem primary and the Dem runoff, which he barely won over Bennett Johnston. Edwards resented the fact that his Republican opponent had only token opposition in the GOP primary, and he wanted to force Republicans to run in the same election with the Dems.
The Mississippi legislature passed the “open primary” for the third, fourth, and fifth times in 1975, 1976, and 1979.
# 3 The Ex. 1 obviously means it is a COURT EXHIBIT [evidence] in one of the zillion top 2 court cases.
Richard Winger & Jim Riley
In early 2010, I informed the staff of Neal Kelly that the statement of regestration of Damon Dunn was dated
March 15, 1976. The form it was printed on was the current form used by the Orange County registar of voters. It was signed by Damon Dunn under penalty of
perjury. See California Election Code section 2150(b).
When i showed it to Mr. Kelly’s staff that Mr. Dunn who
at that time was running for Secrtary of State as a Republican, I was told that no one notice the date on
the form. If they had he would have been rejected, because he was not properly registered to vote. They
said the mistake was to late to do anything about it.
I was told that if I had a problem with that send a letter to the Orange County D. A. Nine
mouth later and still no answer back from the Orange County D.A.
Only Orly Taitz took action about Mr. Dunn not being
properly registered as an elector. She got no where.
Bowen’s staff would do nothing about the status of Mr.
Dunn.
That makes you think that Bowen cares about the terms of
the California Election Code? Ms. Toben was the only
one running of Secrtary of State that want far elections.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
As with any business venture, it is of the utmost importance to do
your research before deciding to go in the business of web hosting reseller packages.
Dream – Host is an online hosting company that offers products like domain registration, shared website hosting,
Virtual Private Server (VPS), and public cloud services.
Elements such as text, graphics, images, font sizes and colors are used in designing and producing pages for
a web site.