California State Senator Tom Umberg, chair of the Senate Elections Committee, is about to amend one of his bills to make it illegal for any party to have the word “Independent” in its name. The deadline for introducing new bills in California has passed, so Umberg will amend SB 696 to include that idea. See this story.
The American Independent Party, which has been ballot-qualified continuously starting in 1968, would be given the opportunity to choose a new name.
In the past, California also had the Independent Progressive Party on the ballot 1948-1954, and the Independence Party 1906-1910. The bill’s wording is not yet available publicly, but presumably it won’t ban “Independence”, and conceivably, if the bill passes and is not invalidated in court, the AIP could change its name to “American Independence”.
One more statist RED Donkey communist TYRANT at work.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/independent
ADJECTIVE AND NOUN — VERY DANGEROUS FOR DEVIL STATISTS FROM HELL.
They should also ban the term “American” from a perty’s name. It is inflammatory after all.
Perty? Party, maybe?
Actually there are states like NY which ban the word “America(n)” from a party name. That’s why the new “Serve America Party” in NY is officially just called the SAM party, so the American Independent party could go with the AI party, though people might think they’re transhumanists.
American Declaration of Independence Party ??? — born on the 4th of July ???
That thar party sure is perty!
Brandon, New York state doesn’t ban independent candidates from using “American” as their ballot labels. It only bans qualified parties from using that word. The New York law has never been tested in court. I doubt it would be upheld.
Wasn’t Governor Wallace was banned from using “American” for his party name and had to go with “Courage Party”? His party hadn’t qualified yet.
I was referring to the newly qualified SAM party, now that they are a recognized party they only go by “SAM” on voter forms
George Wallace could have used “American” in New York if he had wanted to. The New York law just says 2-124.2. “The name of a party shall be in the English language and shall not include the words American, United States, National, New York State, Empire State, or any abbreviation thereof, nor the name or part of the name, or an abbreviation of the same, of an existing party.” But independent bodies weren’t affected by that law, which is why the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Labor Party were both on the ballot in New York, both using their names, in the 1960’s and early 1970’s.
… I wonder how the AIP’s Mark Seidenberg & Markham Robinson feel about this?
SWP — one of the longest party names — letters and spaces ???
History —
What party names in State elections in 1776-1788
— BEFORE the USA elected regime and *national* parties ???
CQ- MS comment in story immediately below this one.
I wonder if California has a law against any party with democratic or republican in their name.
Cody, Mark Seidenberg and Markham Robinson are aware of the bill and will testify against it. It will probably have a hearing on July 3.
Oh ok.
If the story is accurate, it would violate due process by requiring the party to change its name after candidates had already filed.
The party name has been in use for half a century. THe American Independent Party should be grandfathered in.
California should eliminate write-in party registrations and adopt a system like Florida, where a party must demontrate a cognizable organization. Perhaps a small number of voters (50 or 100) could qualify a party, and have their registration changed.
An active party would have bylaws approved by registrants; a state executive body, including officers; campaign finance compliance; election of officers by registrants; and a biennial state convention.
This would address the 9th Circuit’s concern about radical self-identification, and ensure that candidate party preferences are for an actual party. This is similar to the screening of occupation/profession/office designation which must be verifiable.
In odd years, there could be all-mail party elections. The county election officials would collect the returned ballots and hand them over to the parties for tabulation. The parties could contract withelection officials to tabulate the ballots. This would provide maximum flexibility in organization of parties, and election methods. A party could also use the mailing to invite registrants to party meetings.
Parties without an active organization such as the Reform or Natural Law, but with more than the minimum number of registrants, could become active through a re-activation procedure. Registrations would not be changed, even though the party is dormant.
If registration fell below the minimum, after a warning period, the registrations would be changed to unknown.
“Independents” would be given an opportunity to choose new names for their party(-ies). After this transition it would beimpossible to register as an independent.
Larger parties could be designated as major parties, and be permitted to have a presidential preference primary. Smaller parties could petition for presidential candidates.
This would eliminate “independent” nominations and permit use of “independent” as an alternative to “party prefence none”.
Over 5 and a half million California voters checked the No Party Preference when registering to vote. What we have here is a small group of low information voters who don’t take the time to check the correct box on the registration form. Even Governor Newsom’s wife registered American Independent after leaving the Republican Party. Over 28% of voters are now no party preference in California, Democrats are around 43% and Republicans around 23%. The AIP and other 3rd parties make up the remaining percentage. I doubt if this bill will pass but I still think the American Independent Party would survive even if it does pass.