On August 27, the California Senate Appropriations Committee passed AB 1461, the bill to provide that all adult citizens known to the state should be automatically registered to vote. Such individuals would be informed that they had become registered, and would be given a chance to opt out.
The bill was amended on August 27 to provide for a new category of registered voters, relative to party affiliation. Individuals who were automatically registered, and who did not choose to then make a decision about affiliation, would be categorized “unknown.” This would be a new, separate category from “independent”. Other states that have separate categories for voters who didn’t fill out the affiliation question, versus independent voters, are Alaska, Kentucky, and South Dakota. Thanks to C.T. Weber for the news about the amendment.
The bill is likely to pass. It had passed the Assembly on June 2. The Republican leader in the Assembly, Kristin Olsen, had voted “No” but now she appears to support it, according to remarks she made at a public meeting on August 19.
If they are messing with party affiliation, they should go ahead and make the changes necessary to permit all candidates to have their party preference appear on the ballot and comply with the 1st Amendment.
The interest of the State of California with regard to party preference is similar to that with regard to designation of occupation/profession/office – that it be truthful and accurate. California may not discriminate, (dis)favoring candidates based on their occupation. California may ensure that the candidate actually practices the occupation, and that there is no implied endorsement.
A voter’s party preference is presumably truthful, since they sign their registration affidavit, subject to perjury charges, that it is truthful. California may ensure that the party actually exists. A candidate may not say that he prefers “Good Roads”, but may prefer the “Goods Roads Party” if that party exists.
California may not discriminate based on the size of the party. That would be equivalent to the government telling someone that they may not express unpopular viewpoints. The 1st Amendment is primarily to protect expression of unorthodox or unpopular speech.
California should recognize any group that can demonstrate that they are a political party:
(1) Registration with the state.
(2) A name that won’t be confused with that of other parties, including expression in all languages used on ballots and other election materials in California.
(3) Party rules that provide for necessary activities of a party.
(4) Party officers who represent the party officially.
(5) Contact information: Mailing address, with phone number, e-mail address, and web address optional.
(6) A minimum number of registrants (say 50 or 100).
(7) Ultimate control of the party by registrants.
(8) Compliance with campaign finance laws.
(9) A biennial state convention.
California should eliminate the current process by which voters write-in the name of a non-qualified political party, or a non-existent party. Instead, a new party registration would be accompanied by a petition by the voters who are forming the party. If the party registration is accepted, the party registration of the initial members would be changed.
NO party hack PURGE lists.
How many foreign ILLEGAL INVADERS will be counted as being USA citizens by the California Soviet Socialist Republic of California – CASSOR ???
Jim,
They do have other parties.They class all qualified parties as “Qualified”:
Dem
Rep
American Independent
Green
Libertarian
Peace and Freedom
And this is interesting:
Constitution is attempting to Qualify for November ’16 under Don Grundmann. Thought AIP was Constitution.
American Freedom, Transhumanist, Veteran’s Party and UCES Clowns are “attempting to Qualify” for The Primary.
I would assume you could register to any Qualified party or Independent.
Unknown would be the default to new registrants under this bill.
Losty,
Voters have a 1st Amendment right to organize into political parties. When a voter signs their voter registration affidavit, they are indication that the information therein (name, age, address, party affiliation, etc.) is truthful and correct, subject to perjury charges.
Back when California had partisan nominations, party affiliation was aspirational. If a party had enough registrants, the State would pay for and administer their primary. A party could qualify by adding new registrants, or could be considered abandoned if it lost registrants.
But California no longer has partisan nominations other than for President. The California Constitution says that the State shall _not_ have regard for the party affiliation of candidates or voters for all offices bur President.
In approving Washington’s Top 2 system, the SCOTUS accepted that a candidate’s party preference was his expression, and not that of the political party that he preferred.
California in essence is telling a candidate who prefers the Constitution Party, or any other small party, that they are forbidden from expressing their political views, because those beliefs aren’t popular enough.
In so doing, the State of California, is taking into regard the party preference of the candidate and muzzling the speech of candidates.
Jerry Brown, Kamala Harris, and Alex Padilla simply do not have the right to prevent voters from hearing speech because it might not be popular.