The Peace & Freedom Party of California has enjoyed ballot status in all presidential elections 1968 through 1996, and 2004 to the present. PFP was a nationally-organized party in 1968, but the other state units of PFP ceased to exist shortly after 1968. Then the California Peace & Freedom Party became part of the nationally organized Peoples Party, which ran Dr. Benjamin Spock for president in 1972, and Margaret Wright in 1976. Then, the other state units of the Peoples Party ceased to exist.
Ever since then, the California Peace & Freedom Party has been a magnet for nationally-organized parties of the left. California law makes it extremely difficult for a new party to get on the ballot, and also makes it extremely difficult for an independent candidate to get on the ballot. But California makes it fairly easy for an already-qualified party to remain on the ballot. So, various nationally-organized parties of the left frequently try very hard to persuade PFP to give their own presidential candidates a lift, by putting that candidate on the California ballot. PFP always chooses its presidential candidate at a state convention in August.
In the past, the Citizens Party, the Communist Party, the New Alliance Party, the Socialist Party, and the Workers World Party, all tried to win the PFP presidential nomination. The only one of these parties that ever succeeded was the Citizens Party in 1984. In that year, PFP nominated Sonia Johnson, the Citizens Party presidential candidate. But in all other years, PFP has always said “no” to the nationally-organized parties. In 1980 and 1996, it nominated one of its own California activists for president, even though that person was not on the ballot in any other state. In 1992, it nominated independent Ron Daniels for president (he was from Ohio and was on the ballot in 9 other states). In 1988 it was unable to agree on a presidential candidate. In 2004 it nominated Leonard Peltier, who did not appear on the ballot in any other state.
This year the same pattern may repeat itself. Gloria La Riva, presidential candidate of the new Party for Socialism and Liberation, is seeking the PFP nomination, as this article in the party’s web page describes. The Socialist Party nominee, Brian Moore, is also seeking the nomination. Some PFP leaders wish to nominate Leonard Peltier again.
The Peace & Freedom Party has never nominated a presidential candidate who was on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the election, and PFP has never polled as much as 1% of the presidential vote in California. Its best showing was in 1972, when Dr. Spock polled .66% in California on the PFP line.
The Sacramento Bee of April 6 has this article about PFP, and specifically a PFP plan to bring a challenge to a ludicrous California election law that makes it virtually impossible for a write-in candidate at a small party’s primary to win that party’s nomination.
What about Ralph Nader? He won their primary. Isn’t he seeking the ballot line?
He would certainly like to have it, but he asked for it in 2004 and was refused. He was told that only a socialist is eligible (however, Leonard Peltier has not said he is a socialist, so the party is inconsistent on that point).
Someone forgot to tell PFP that all they need to do on that write-in law is to change their own bylaws to address it like the LPC did…
There was a lawsuit in 2006 brought by a Republican candidate for Assembly in Sonoma County. Even he couldn’t get the 1%, and he sued, but Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian said she didn’t think the legislature intended to help write-in candidates in primaries, when the legislature wrote Prop. 60, which says, “A political party that participated in a primary election for a partisan office has the right to participate in the general election and shall not be denied the ability to place on the general election ballot the candidate who received, at the primary election, the highest vote among that party’s candidates.” That is part of the California Constitution, so it ought to override sec. 8605 of the election law. But Judge Ohanesian said she didn’t think the intent of the legislature, when it wrote that constitutional change, was to help write-in candidates. But she was wrong to say that, because legislative intent is irrelevant if a law or constitutional provision is unambiguous. I don’t think Prop. 60 is ambiguous.
Just changing party bylaws isn’t enough. In 2005 the US Supreme Court denied the Oklahoma Libertarian Party to ability to invite all Oklahoma registered voters to vote in the Libertarian primary, even though the party had a bylaw in place. The US Supreme Court is not consistent about political party rights any longer. The decisions in 2005 and 2008 have made a big muddle of political party rights.
Regarding Richard’s comments on Proposition 60 and Elections Code section 8605, even if the language were ambiguous, the legislative intent isn’t solely the intent of the legislature in placing the measure on the ballot but also the intent of the voters in approving it. During the campaign on Propositions 60 and 62, Richard was telling voters that Proposition 60 would have the positive effect of knocking out the Elections Code’s unfair provision making it virtually impossible for smaller parties to nominate by write-in, in addition to its more obvious effect of preventing Proposition 62 from taking effect if both passed. Thus at least some voters supported Proposition 60 because they believed that it would make nominations by write-in easier.
Addressing Michael Seebeck’s point, the Peace and Freedom Party has long had bylaws provisions addressing nomination by write-in.
The provision in effect from some time before 2000 until 2005 said “A person seeking the Peace and Freedom Party nomination by write-in vote in the direct primary election shall be deemed nominated and shall have her or his name printed on the general election ballot as
Peace and Freedom Party nominee if she or he receives a total number of votes in the Peace and Freedom Party direct primary election for that office equal to or greater than one (1) per cent of the number of Peace and Freedom Party registered voters eligible to vote for that office. This requirement shall replace that of the California Elections Code for Peace and Freedom Party direct primary nominations by write-in votes.”
The relevant language was changed in 2005, so that it now reads “A. A person who is a Peace and Freedom Party registrant as of the close of voter registration for
the primary seeking the Peace and Freedom Party nomination by write-in vote in the direct primary election shall be deemed nominated and shall have her or his name printed on the general election ballot as Peace and Freedom Party nominee if she or he receives a total number of votes in the Peace and Freedom Party direct primary election for that office equal to or greater than two (2) per cent of the number of Peace and Freedom Party registered voters eligible to vote for that
office and voting in the primary election, or more than a candidate whose name appears on the primary ballot. This requirement shall replace that of the California Elections Code for Peace and Freedom Party direct primary nominations by write-in votes.
B. In addition, a write-in candidate who receives the most votes, but who does not qualify under paragraph A of this section, shall be placed on the general election ballot only if ratified by a majority vote of the State Central Committee, or, if the State Central Committee fails to consider the question, by a majority vote of the State Executive Committee. If the write-in candidate is not a Peace and Freedom Party registrant, then the ratification requires a 75% majority of the appropriate body.”
Peace and Freedom Party activist 1992-2002
Peace and Freedom Party candidate 1994
“PFP is their own worst enemy!”
Thank you very much for the nice article about the Peace and Freedom Party, Richard.
The Nader-Gonzalez campaign is actively seeking the Peace and Freedom Party presidential and vice-presidential nominations. I am one of the that campaign’s supporters.
Philip L. Sawyer, Member
Sacramento County Central Committee
Peace and Freedom Party of California
Ah, when the media won’t cover a party, people just come up with the strangest stories instead. (Of course, the media can come up with some strange stories too. For example, the Bee article fails to make it plain that the Sacramento meeting was of the Sacramento County Central Committee, with good attendance, rather than a mass meeting with small attendance.) Let me deal with some of the points raised.
* Leonard Peltier is not running for President, and will not be nominated. No one on the SCC is pushing for his nomination this year. (We are all pushing for his release from prison.)
* There are four serious campaigns for the Peace and Freedom Party nomination this year, and all four candidates will appear on the ballot in at least some other states: Gloria La Riva, Cynthia McKinney, Brian Moore, and Ralph Nader. While each has a cheering section on the P&F SCC, it is not at all clear yet who has the advantage.
*No one “won” the Peace and Freedom Presidential Preference Primary, which is non-binding. Nader got the most votes with around 40%, McKinney and La Riva each got around 20%, and the SP ticket of Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander got around 10% combined. (John Crockford is not pursuing the nomination, and Stanley Hetz does not appear to be doing so.) As no one got anywhere close to a majority, the SCC members do not appear to feel bound to vote for the “winner.”
*Nader is now actively campaigning for the nomination, and states that he is not seeking the nomination of the Green Party (whose California primary he won overwhelmingly). (He is not in a good position to insist on support based on his vote, as in 2004 he asked that the PFP displace clear primary winner Peltier in his favor. But he is in a better position this year because he is doing an active campaign for the nomination much earlier.)
*Cynthia McKinney is also campaigning for the P&F nomination, as well as for the Green Party nomination that she appears likely to get. This is the first time that someone has actively sought the nomination of both these parties at the same time, which raises interesting technical questions I won’t go into now about selection of elector candidates, etc.
*La Riva (a former P&F candidate for Governor) has a number of active supporters being elected to the Central Committee, more than any other candidate, though the majority of those to be elected appear not to be committed to anyone in particular. Another interesting aspect of her campaign is that her running mate is not yet 35, and is thus ineligible for placement on the California ballot (some states are not so fussy). This raises more technical questions, and may mean that she will have a different running mate on the ballot in California, though all will definitely not become clear until the August P&F convention.
*Moore and Alexander also have some identified supporters among SCC candidates, though fewer than La Riva, and Alexander was the P&F nominee for Lt. Governor in 2006. They, like the other candidates, will be campaigning for the nomination through mailings and other messages to those who appear likely to be elected to the SCC.
*Soon, perhaps within the week, statements and biographical material on all four candidates will be carried on the Party’s website at http://www.peaceandfreedom.org (the statements are now being submitted for printing in The Partisan, the Party’s paper).
*Just to confuse everyone still further, anyone at all may be nominated from the floor at the convention and will have equal status in discussion and voting there. (However, the serious candidates appear to be limited to the four already mentioned.)
-Kevin Akin, South State Chair, Peace and Freedom Party
One additional correction: The Peace and Freedom Party does not have any policy limiting nominees to those who state they are socialists, though most members of the SCC would prefer that their candidates are pro-socialist. So Nader is eligible, despite not being a socialist. And Leonard Peltier did quite clearly endorse every plank of the Peace and Freedom Party Platform in 2006, specifically including those calling for socialism.
Again, the PFP is the Peace and Freedom Party’s biggest foe!
Why is Ralph so determined to get the PFP nomination when he has made it clear numerous times that he is not a socialist? The PFP makes no secret of the fact that it is a socialist party, and its agenda and platform are noticeably more radical than even Nader’s is. What would he do to advance the PFP’s core values if he’s their nominee? Isn’t this akin to Keyes/Constitution Party or Gravel/Libertarian Party? Is this the big year for everyone to use 3rd parties simply as ballot access vehicles? I worked on the 2000 and 2004 Nader campaigns and no one’s a bigger Ralph fan than I am, but his strategic thinking this year truly confounds me.
Don,
You and your friends need to come back to the Peace and Freedom Party (ASAP). You can help to bring about the changes that you desire much better by being members of the Party.
Phil