Home General California Secretary of State List of Presidential Candidates Varies Somewhat from Wishes of Party Leaders

California Secretary of State List of Presidential Candidates Varies Somewhat from Wishes of Party Leaders

Published on February 6, 2012, by in General.

On February 6, the California Secretary of State determined which presidential candidates will be listed on the various presidential primary ballots. Ever since 1976, it has been a California tradition that the Secretary of State lists any presidential candidates in minor party presidential primaries who have been suggested by party leaders. The law itself, however, tells the Secretary of State to list candidates who are discussed in the news media.

For 2012, for the first time, a California Secretary of State has made her own independent evaluation of which minor party candidates are discussed in the news media. She has therefore listed some candidates who were not suggested by minor party leaders, and deleted some candidates who were suggested.

The Libertarian Party’s list of nine candidates was not altered. The Green Party had suggested only Jill Stein and Kent Mesplay, but the Secretary of State added Roseanne Barr.

The Peace & Freedom Party had listed four candidates, but the Secretary of State only listed two of them, Rocky Anderson and Stewart Alexander. She deleted the presidential candidate of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, Peta Lindsay, and the presidential candidate of the Freedom Socialist Party, Stephen Durham, probably because neither one of them has filed with the FEC or otherwise obtained much publicity.

The American Independent Party had listed fourteen candidates, but the Secretary of State will list only Ed Noonan, Max Riekse, and Laurie Roth.

The Republican Party ballot will include Newt Gingrich, Fred Karger, Ron Paul, Buddy Roemer, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. The Democratic ballot will only include President Obama.

Candidates may still withdraw, and there is a possibility that Rocky Anderson will withdraw from the Peace & Freedom primary ballot, because he is more interested in promoting his Justice Party. The California law provides a petition procedure for candidates who were not listed to obtain a place on the presidential primary ballot, which requires a petition of 1% of any party’s registered voters. Thanks to Mark Seidenberg for this news. UPDATE: here is the list, from the Secretary of State’s web page. It includes addresses for each candidate.

No Responses

  1. Humongous Fungus

    , Max Riekse,

    Isn’t it Rieske?

  2. Kevin

    Virgil Goode has been mentioned in the media. Just not as a AIP member.

  3. bruuno

    The P & F nomination would be huge for Stewart Alexander and the SP

  4. Demo Rep


  5. RJ

    #2 Virgil Goode has been mentioned as a Constitution Party candidate, not AIP. The AIP is not affiliated with the Constitution Party anymore. The CP will have to find a new party to hijack or do what Americans Elect has done.

  6. 1000 Possible Parties/Independents


    I am trying to team up with Roseanne Barr in a Green/Libertarian ticket in order to work with all parties and independents in a unity coalition, and I’ve been helping her campaign and have been working with her producer who is making a movie about her campaign.

    If anyone wants to help coordinate, we welcome all names to the nominations on the 1000-member board, you simply need to sign up your name/avatar/anonymous and nothing more is asked of you to be nominated.

    Then if you want to do more, of course that’s welcomed too.

    Thanks for your consideration! Just go to my campaign web page and click the “sign up” tab and write in your name/avatar/anonymous (you know who you are).

    –James Ogle
    (415) 686-1996

    Go BarrOOgle 2012

  7. Debra Bowen is the California secretary of state.

  8. Truth Seeker

    Finally, a true moderate Republican candidate is on the ballot. Vote Fred Karger.

  9. Mark Seidenberg

    I did place Virgil Goode on the list for American Independent Party, even though he is in the Constitution
    Party. It could be he was rejected because Secretary of State Debra Bowen ordered the removed the Constitution Party from the California Department of State website on Friday, February 2, 2012. I listed former US Congressman from Virginia on January 13, 2012.
    The reason CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen removed the
    Constitution Party of California was because the it was
    declared abandoned by Bowen, because its registration was down to 121 electors in the State of California as
    a political body under its leadership of its state chairman, Dr. Don Grundmann of San Leandro, CA.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party

  10. Mark Seidenberg

    On the rejected list of the American Independent Party
    for POTUS were three Hawaiians and two Alaskan Eskimos.

    Native Alaskan Eskimos were not citizens of the United
    States until January, 1941. Congress passed a collective naturalization act making Eskimos born in the United States declared United States Citizens. However, they were not 14th Amendment Citizens. In 1915, the Alaska legislature established a naturalization process for Eskimos if they were recommended for Alaska Territorial Citizenship by several “white men”. Under law if a person was 1/16th
    Eskimo and 15/16th “white” they are an Eskimo.

    Prior to Alaska become the 49th State in 1959, Native
    Alaskans had a hard time coming into California to reside. Even though Alaska Natives and Hawaiians have
    lived it California since before it became a State in 1850, the laws of California has been extra hard on those people.

    It looks now like the California Department of State does not what Native Hawaiians or Native Alaskans to run
    for POTUS. One of the Eskimo’s rejected by Secretary of State Debra Bowen was Todd Palin, husband of the
    former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party

  11. Richard Winger

    California law says when parties desire to qualify, they notify the Secretary of State. A group that has done that is a “political body.” Whenever a political body fails to qualify, immediately after the deadline for qualifying the Secretary of State writes a letter to that political body and says, “You didn’t make it.” Then the group must re-file as a political body all over again. That is not difficult; it just involves writing a letter. The Constitution Party, the Justice Party, and other bodies all got the same letter recently, and it is expected that they will now each re-file as a political body.

  12. Mark Seidenberg

    Richard Winger

    Section 5001 of the California Election Code requires a new caucus or convention first after the abandonment. Several steps take place first. Grundmann needs to get
    elected again as its Chairman. How many of the other 120 electors even want Dr. Grundmann as an officer!?

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party

  13. Well I for one am outraged, OUTRAGED, that California voters will not have the opportunity to vote for such fine candidates as Todd Palin and D. Clark Ambassador for Christ! IT’S A CONSPIRACY I TELLS YA!!!

  14. Richard Winger

    #15, California has write-ins on presidential primary ballots. Also anyone left off the Secretary of State’s list can still get on with a petition of 1% of that party’s registered voters. So maybe Todd Palin still has a chance.

  15. Jim Riley

    #14 Elections Code 5001 does not specify a time interval between organization of a political party, and the time which the party must inform the Secretary of State that the political party intends to qualify for the next primary.

    Elections Code 5003 makes it is clear that affiliations may have occurred prior to the formal notice in EC 5001. The 70 days refers to the time interval between the formal notice, and the date the party requests counting to begin (I suspect that most parties combine their formal notice and their request to begin counting in the same document).

    Elections Code 5004 does not say that a party that fails to qualify has abandoned its effort to qualify; it says that from the perspective of the State of California that the party has abandoned its effort. This relinquishes election officials from their obligation to count the voters. If the party has not in fact abandoned its effort to qualify for the subsequent primary, it merely has to send a letter to the Secretary of State apprising her of that fact.

  16. Jim Riley

    #13 In 2010, after the qualification deadline passed, the SOS issued CCROV #10086 (3/9/2010) clarifying that voters registered with nonqualified parties could request a Republican or Democratic ballot for the June primary. At that time, only 3 parties had notified the SOS that they were renewing their effort to qualify (for the 2012 primary). Ultimately, 21 parties attempted to qualify.

    The purpose of the CCROV was to make the distinction between Decline To State (DTS) voters and voters affiliated with nonqualified parties (Other parties). You said that in the past, the voting rolls distributed to polling places had erroneously conglomerated these two groups.

    So at the time of the June 2010 primary at which Proposition 14 was approved, it was the understanding of both the SOS and voters, that under California law, a voter could be affiliated with a nonqualified party. A voter’s party affiliation was what they wrote on their affidavit of voter registration, which they sign to certify that its content is truthful and correct.

    On what basis does the SOS believe that Proposition 14 changed this, and did she preclear the change in election practices? (Because of its history of discriminatory electoral practices, California, just like New York and some other States, is required to preclear changes to its electoral practices under Section 5 of the VRA).

  17. MAC

    Yes, yet another ballot with the mysterious “Buddy Roemer” listed among the Republican candidates. The media blackout keeps him off the TV screens but not off the ballots. Just gotta make sure people have heard of him and where he stands on the issues. The rest takes care of itself. It’s amazing.

  18. Phil Sawyer

    From Richard Winger’s article above:

    “The Peace & Freedom Party had listed four candidates, but the Secretary of State only listed two of them, Rocky Anderson and Stewart Alexander. She deleted the presidential candidate of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, Peta Lindsay, and the presidential candidate of the Freedom Socialist Party, Stephen Durham, probably because neither one of them has filed with the FEC or otherwise obtained much publicity.”

    Phil Sawyer responds:

    It seems to me that the California Secretary of State was incorrect in her action about this on several different levels. After a long, hard, day at work, I do not want to go into great detail about it all (and many people probably do not have the time to read a lot of long messages anyway). What I would like to point out right now is that (contrary to her intentions) she is most likely helping to shore up the moral and political arguments of the two candidates (and their supporters) that are being denied ballot access. Furthermore, I would expect that those candidates will get on the primary ballot through the petitioning process. If they do not, and if they are not official write-in candidates, there are probably going to be many more unofficial write-in votes than usual. That will cost a lot of money to the various county election offices responsible for counting the votes.

    More will be written on this, most likely. I may make more comments later, also. I am concerned, though, that this is going to become buried in old pages on this website – as time goes by. Most of us only have the time and/or inclination to read the most recent pages.

    Philippe L. Sawyer, Member:

    Sacramento County Central Committee
    Peace and Freedom Party of California

  19. The Peace and Freedom Party’s statement is here.

  20. Phil Sawyer

    To Bob Richard:

    Thank you very much for that information. It is very helpful – and the statement made by C.T. Weber, the State Chairperson of PFP-CA, is excellent.

    It seems to me that the notion of executive moderation and restraint, even by itself, should have been enough for the Secretary of State to list the names of all four candidates that were submitted to her by the Party. For her to disregard that advice comes across as just the opposite. It appears to be arrogant, high-handed, and irrational flexing of bureaucratic muscle. I do hope that she realizes that to be the case and reverses her decision to deny ballot access to all of the legitimate candidates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *