On May 11, the California Assembly unanimously passed AB 1396. It deletes code sections that tell the Democratic Party how to structure itself. Instead the party is obliged to keep an up-to-date copy of its Bylaws on its webpage.
On May 11, the California Assembly unanimously passed AB 1396. It deletes code sections that tell the Democratic Party how to structure itself. Instead the party is obliged to keep an up-to-date copy of its Bylaws on its webpage.
What a bunch of morons. You have 4 sections of code dictating how each party organizes itself. Instead of ripping out all of them and setting the same generic requirements for all parties, they replace only one.
And they left all the party-specific junk for county central committees.
Public nominations by PUBLIC Electors = Public business.
Clubby stuff = PRIVATE business.
Too hard for the gerrymander MORONS in the various party hack State legislature regimes to understand.
To Mr. Riley this just part of a plan to open membership to the Dems State Central Committee to people that can not register to vote. viz., non-citizens.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party.
Mark
Their is no legit State interest in that level of control over a political party. Certainly, some regulations may need to exist, but this just plain silly.
Letting non-citizens vote is actually not a new idea within the United States. I am not in favor of it, but it is a different issue and a different set of election laws.
ETJB reply, Why do you believe there is no legit
State interest in none of the statues covered under
AB 1396 for repeal?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party
Mark;
How a political organization chooses to conduct its own internal affairs is — IMHO — akin to how a religious organization chooses to conduct its own internal affirs.
Also, the State should be required to make the case for such a law. Frankly, I do not see what sort of argument they would make. Given how extensive the regulations are.
I am, in general, in favor of reducing government interference in the internal affairs of political parties. But this bill is suspect to the extent that it singles out one political party for treatment that differs from the regulation of the other parties. Can somebody explain why that is justified?
ETJB (#4): Letting non-citizens vote is actually not a new idea within the United States. I am not in favor of it, but it is a different issue and a different set of election laws.
For the same reason that no party should be required to let non-citizens participate in its internal affairs, no party should be prevented from doing so either. So I agree with ETJB, except that I favor including non-citizens in my own party (California Peace and Freedom).