On May 30, the California Assembly suprisingly defeated ACA 9, which would have provided that a write-in candidate for Congress or partisan state office who places second in the June primary cannot advance to the November ballot, unless the candidate polls a substantial number of write-ins. The number would be approximately 2,300 for U.S. House, 3,000 for State Senate, 1,500 for Assembly, and 120,000 for statewide office.
Because the measure is a constitutional amendment, it needed two-thirds of the entire membership of the Assembly to pass. It needed 54 votes, but it only received 46 votes. The number of “no” votes, 19, included six Republicans and 13 Democrats. The author, Assemblymember Jeff Gorell, has asked for reconsideration. Because there are 15 Assemblymembers who didn’t vote the first time, it is possible reconsideration will succeed if there are more members on the Assembly floor next time.
ACA 9 is linked to AB 141; one is a bill and one is a constitutional amendment. The bill, AB 141, had already passed the Assembly floor on May 23, and when it passed, the vote had been 65 in favor and 8 against. There seems to be no logical reason why a member would vote for one and against the other, except that apparently some members changed their mind between the vote on the bill and the vote on the Constitutional Amendment.
Republicans who voted “no” on ACA 9 are: Travis Allen, Connie Conway, Tim Donnelly, Shannon Grove, Curt Hagman, and Allen Mansoor. One Republican, Jim Patterson, had voted “no” on ABA 141 yet voted “yes” on ACA 9. All of the other Republicans who voted against ACA 9 had also voted against AB 141.
Democrats who voted “no” on ACA 9 are: Speaker John Perez, Tom Ammiano, Bob Blumenfield, Susan Bonilla, Jim Frazier, Mike Gatto, Lorena Gonzalez, Jose Medina, Kevin Mullin, V. Manuel Perez, Anthony Rendon, Nancy Skinner, and Philip Ting.
Any PURGE coming for the folks who did NOT vote the DICTATOR party line ???
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
NO primaries.
Pingback: Homepage
ACA 9 not getting a supermajority requirement is fortunate. It is or was a version of AB 141 that was meant to wrap the state constitution around what is otherwise a constitutionally suspect proposed law.
Is this horrible idea dead yet?