On August 21, the California Supreme Court issued an order for the Secretary of State to explain why the court should not strike down the new California law requiring presidential primary candidates to disclose their income tax returns. The Court also expedited the case. The state’s response is due September 4, and the California Republican Party and its state chair, Jessica M. Patterson, must respond to the state’s filing by September 11. Patterson v Padilla, S257302.
The Court also directed both sides to discuss the legislative history of the part of the California Constitution that tells the Secretary of State to put “recognized” presidential candidates on presidential primary ballots. And it wants information from the Secretary of State about how past and current Secretaries have decided who is “recognized.” The court wants all the internal measures and protocols on that subject. This will be fascinating. Secretaries of State prior to the current incumbent have always let the qualified minor parties simply tell the Secretary of State whom to list. But the incumbent Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, broke that tradition in 2016. He disallowed many of the names suggested by the American Independent Party. Also he refused to let the Peace & Freedom Party list Jill Stein on its primary ballot. He has never publicly explained why he did that, but presumably he will be required to explain.
It seems somewhat likely that the California Supreme Court decision on this matter will be quicker than the decision of any federal court, in the federal challenges to the new California law.
At least the CA Supremes can detect the CRISIS — ie impending Civil WAR II.
*recognized* = void for vagueness.
IVN should intervene.
Ross Perot and John Anderson were nationally recognized presidential candidate.
If a state provides a presidential preference primary, is it a contribution in kind to the political parties? Do the income tax provisions violate LaFollette? Could the Democratic Party for example exclude allocation of delegates to candidates who have not disclosed their income tax returns?
The state may provide partisan nominating primaries for other offices, regardless whether it is misguided policy or not, since it is part of the process of determining who the people want as there officers. But that is not true for president.
SB 27 also covers gubernatorial primaries, but the provisions are duplicated. They are mechanically severable. Can they be severed even if the law itself did not say that it was?
California should adopt Top 2 for presidential elections and move the primary to September. They could pass a law permitting an all-mail primary if a political party wished to fund it.
John Anderson was on the California Republican presidential primary ballot in 1980. He placed 2nd to Ronald Reagan.
How many of the current crop of Donkey wannabee tyrant Prez candidates are *recognized* —
by mere voters ??? — as compared to Donkey oligarch elites and the mindless media with its moron talking heads — esp in CNN debates ???
STATIST communist/fascist CONTROL FREAK laws vs FREEDOM laws — being enforced by exec/judic HACKS.
John Anderson withdrew April 24, apparently too late to remove him from the ballot.
Was Ross Perot a nationally recognized presidential candidate in 1992?
A blanket primary like in 2000 would protect political associational rights.