SB 696 is pending in the California legislature. It would make it illegal for any political party to have “Independent” or “Independence” in its name. It has already passed the Assembly Elections Committee, and has a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 14 at 9 a.m. Although it had already passed the State Senate, back then the same bill had was on another subject; the original contents had since been deleted and replaced with the party name provision.
The American Independent Party, which has been ballot-qualified since 1968, has decided to sue if this bill is signed into law.
What’s in a name? Perhaps the state will allow them to change it to Democratic Republican Party. That wouldn’t be confusing now would it?
California law already has a provision that a party name can’t be “so similar to the name of an existing party so as to mislead the voters.” However, in 1896, the State Supreme Court said it was OK for the National Democratic Party to be on the ballot, notwithstanding that the Democratic Party was on the ballot. The National Democratic Party of 1896, a new party that year, believed in the gold standard, whereas in 1896 the Democratic Party had nominated William Jennings Bryan and declared for silver.
Since 1914 Fed Res Act – just JUNK PAPER.
1933-2019 about 95 pct loss in dollar purchasing power – USA econ banana republic.
Compound 0.98 x 0.98 x 0.98 etc.
STATISTS at work — INTENTIONAL econ destruction of lower and middle classes.
I don’t think Demorep is even reading the blog posts before he writes a comment.
States are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by Article I, Section 10, clause 1.
MV – RW did mention gold and silver in his post — now in teeth fillings and electronics — GONE from coins.
1775-1780 bills of credit HYPER-inflation *almost* caused total collapse of USA economy –
only French coins saved the mess.
—
FWW – also NO Bills/Acts of attainer – specific purge laws.
Paul Mitchell the Democratic consultant, not the hair stylist, used to get his jollies by sending post cards to AIP voters on April Fools Day telling them that he was so much smarter than them or words to the effect. It appears that Mitchell convinced Senator Umberg to gut his bill after he had pushed it through the Senate.
At the committee hearing, words like confusing, misleading, or even deceptive were bandfied about. But if there is confusion or voters are mislead it is a consequence of state action, not that of the party.
Several Democrats who voted the bill out of committee expressed an opinion that a better solution would be to permit a voter to say they were independent. That is, the words No Party Preference and Declined To State are meaningless to an ordinary decent citizen. This is particularly true of “No Party Preference” which the SOS has decreed means different things depending if applied to a voter or a candidate.
If a voter says that they prefer Socialist Party USA, Dean Logan records that, and tabulates it as registered with a miscellaneous other parties. “miscellaneous” simply means mixed or a mixture. On an expense form a “miscellaneous other expense” does not mean it is not a legitimate business expense, but rather that it does not fit categories such as lodging, transportation, or food. Just because a voter does not prefer the Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian, or Peace and Freedom party, does not mean that they prefer no party.
But if that same voter runs for office, they are told by Dean Logan and Alex Padilla that they have No Party Preference, and that is what will appear on the ballot. A voter might see the name of Mimi Soltysik and assume that he is no longer a Socialist. Who is misleading or deceiving? Clearly it is Alex Padilla.
An American Independent voter who said that he thought that Donald Trump was the greatest president since George Washington, suggested a simple fix. Go back to the 2000 ballot format. Let each party determine what to do with cross-over votes. Or the Democratic Party could sue to permit voters from select other parties vote in their primary. They ignored him, perhaps because he was black, the size of a football lineman, andx an ex-Marine.
C.T. Weber indicated that he had an alternative. He was told to present it in writing. He said that he had, but didn’t think anyone read it. I suspect he is right.
California should eliminate write-in party affiliation, but permit qualification with a minimal number of registrations (say, 50 or 100). Have an annual registration of the party, and require a tangible organization including bylaws, party officers, biennial state convention, and republican form of governance, and a website.
Switch party elections to all-mail elections with the state sending out ballotd and collecting them, and the parties interpreting them. If a party prefers, they can have a notice of cvonventions sent out.
This resolves the Soltysik lawsuit, and addresses the concern that a candidate might say he favors Blue Skies when there is no Blue Skies party.
Candidates who have no party affiliation should be able to choose to appear as “independent” or “no party preference”. All candidates should be able to omit their party preference. That is compelled speech.
If someone thinks it is confusing, change the terminology for presidential candidates to “by petition” The last such candidate was 27 years ago.
Change qualification of all presidential candidates to be by petition, and let political parties indicate their endorsement.
The statute represents an unlawful taking (assuming California has an equivalent of the 4th Amendment). It would cost millions to have a consultation with registrants.
There are also due process issues. The SOS will be recognizing candidates for appearing on the presidential ballot, while at the same time possibly disqualifying the party or soliciting changes in registration.
The CA Legislature & SOS is overreaching with this bill.