Citizens in Charge has filed this amicus curiae brief in Independent Party v Padilla, 17-1200. The issue in the case is whether the California Secretary of State violated the rights of the voters who formed the Independent Party, when he refused to instruct county election officials to tally up how many registered voters the Independent Party has. If that party has approximately 62,000 registered voters, then it should be recognized as a qualified party.
The amicus is very short and demonstrates that it has been very common for states to allow two parties to be on the ballot, even though both shared a common word in their name. The California Secretary of State had said there cannot be a party named “Independent Party” because the American Independent Party is on the ballot.
How many *Socialist* = communist Parties in the USA since 1776 ???
— NOT counting the Donkey Party since about 1888.
The brief is well-stated and the listing is good. The listing of incidents however omitted a more recent example for Alabama (and, I believe, Mississippi also). When George Wallace ran for President in 1968, he was on the ballot as the candidate of the Democratic Party and to get Hubert Humphrey on that ballot there was organized a “National Democratic Party.”
That’s a great point, Gene. In 1968 there were three parties on the Alabama ballot with “Democratic” in their name. Alabama Democratic Party nominated electors pledged to George Wallace. Alabama Independent Democratic nominated electors pledged to Hubert Humphrey. Also the National Democratic Party of Alabama nominated presidential electors pledged to Hubert Humphrey, but they weren’t the same people as the AID electors, so if Humphrey had been competitive in Alabama, the votes for his two slates of electors could not have been added together. But it was a moot point because Wallace got the most votes by far.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
Look for *socialist* — left and right versions.
Why is it we still don’t know who the state officers of the California Independent Party are? And why don’t they have their own website yet?
What ideology would this supposed CAIP represent? What is its purpose? It has been demonstrated time and again that most members of state parties with “Independent” in their name, do not realize that they are actually registered members of a political party. Rather, they believe they are registering as Independent voters, without party affiliation. Those who pursue this course of action are fully aware of this, making it a cynical attempt to fashion confusion into a party. To what end?
J.R., there is no ideology. All of the briefs and evidence from the party at all levels of court have explained that because California’s legislature removed the ability of independent candidates to have the label “independent” on any ballot (for congress and partisan state office), the party’s purpose is to help independent candidates. If the Independent Party were qualified, independent candidates could register into the party and then the ballot would say “Party preference: Independent” instead of “party preference: none.” The California ballot labels don’t include the word “party” at the end.
This is the same motivation that caused the Oregon, Delaware, Hawaii, North Carolina, Maryland, New Mexico, and certain other Independent Parties to form. All those states had made independent candidate ballot access unreasonably difficult, so various candidates and groups formed an Independent Party as a way around that injustice. Also the Louisiana Independent Party was organized because Louisiana, like California, won’t allow the word “independent” as a label for independent candidates for Congress and partisan state office.