Cody Quirk, one of the editors of Third Party Watch, has done some hard work analyzing the rules for American Independent Party structure. See here. Of course, this subject is timely because of the recent dispute in the California AIP, over whom the proper state officers are, whom the presidential candidate should be, and which state convention (Los Angeles at the end of June, or Sacramento on July 5-6) is valid.
The California legislature passed a bill in 1975, setting out the rules by which the American Independent Party, and also the Peace & Freedom Party, should organize themselves. Back then, state legislators in some states, including California, thought it was the duty of government to place party organization rules in the election laws.
In 1984, some county units of the Democratic and Republican Parties of California, and the state Libertarian Party, brought a lawsuit in federal court, alleging that the First Amendment protects the right of political parties to decide on their own organization and rules, without government involvement. The parties won that lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1989; the decision is Eu v San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee.
Neverthless, the bills passed by the California legislature in 1975, setting forth internal party rules for PFP and AIP, had been written by leaders of those two parties. The California election laws governing those parties’ rules are still in the Election Code. Both parties, in their own Bylaws, do acknowledge that the parties accept those parts of the Election Code as their legitimate rules. There are no California election code sections that apply specifically to the Green Party, or the Libertarian Party. When the Libertarian Party qualified for the ballot in 1980, and when the Green Party qualified for the ballot in 1992, both parties told the Secretary of State that they wish to follow the Peace & Freedom code sections, although since then both parties have made changes.
This is a truly fascinating situation and it sure gives a mile-wide opening to the Reform Party of California (which is not on the ballot now). The center-right forces in the Reform Party could form a Reform Caucus and go into the American Independent Party with the goal of taking control in 2010. For the center-left forces in the Reform Party, please declare your Independence and start the Revolution! The Peace and Freedom Party is on the ballot and is doing lots of progressive political work. Please join us today!
Philippe Lawrence Sawyer, Member
State and County Central Committees
Peace and Freedom Party of California
Hmm. Well, I suspect it would be what the party agreed to do. Even if the court invalidated the law, if the party chose to follow the rules set up by the state then those rules will probably prevail.
The question then becomes which set of rules did they ‘agree’ to follow? That would require looking at how the party has operated in the past, party documents, etc.
Also, the Peace and Freedom Party only exists in one State and may be too leftists for centrist Reform Party advocates. Then again these people were really into the Natural Law Party’s guy a few years back…
Phil, any word on the PFP primary central committee elections?
Edward: Sometime after the Reform Party lost its ballot status in California (and before the 2004 election period started), I followed the lead of Izola Foster and Reed Heustis (though from the opposite end of the political spectrum) and joined up with the American Independent Party. After I became convinced that there was no hope (at the time) to reform the AIP, I changed to the Natural Law Party (then, eventually, the Peace and Freedom Party, then the Green Party, then back to PFP). The Peace and Freedom Party, indeed, is very leftist and may not be the “cup of tea” for all center-left Reform Party members. I consider myself to be a Left Conservative (a la the late Norman Mailer) and I feel very at home in the PFP.
Mike: From what I have heard, the results of the PFP Central Committee elections are showing the La Riva-Puryear forces and the Nader-Gonzalez forces in the front (about equally). That, combined with plenty of support for Cynthia McCinney and a still strong Old Guard faction, gives us a fascinating and volatile situation. There has even been talk of a “Socialist Coalition” forming around many of the members of the Moore-Alexander faction, the La Riva-Puryear group, and the Old Guard faction. That, of course, would not include all members of all factions because there are members of the Socialist Party USA that would not work with the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
As I have been saying and writing for quite some time now, this is the order of my preferences and this is how I will be voting at the convention: (1) Nader-Gonzalez; (2) Cynthia McKinney; (3) Moore-Alexander; and (4) La Riva-Puryear.
Wow, what a “donnybrook” this could be!
I am the Vice Chairman of the AIP. I was first elected to that office with the AIP Chairman Edward C. Noonan on September 3, 2006. By Election
Code section # 7640 which was past in 1994 (not
as Cody Quark thinks in circa 1975), it states that
“(T)he chairman of this committee shall serve a two-year term, but shall not succeed himself or herself”. This means that Ed Noonan stays in office until September, 2008.