C. T. Weber, a veteran activist in the Peace & Freedom Party and a former state chair of that party, has this commentary on the California measure known as the “top-two open primary”. Weber’s commentary appears on the Peace & Freedom Party’s blog.
C. T. Weber, a veteran activist in the Peace & Freedom Party and a former state chair of that party, has this commentary on the California measure known as the “top-two open primary”. Weber’s commentary appears on the Peace & Freedom Party’s blog.
There is no requirement that a party be “ballot-qualified” in order for a voter to affiliate with that party, whether under the current interpretation of a “declaration of intent to affiliate with the party at the next primary”, or the prospective interpretation of a “disclosure of party preference”.
Under the Top 2 Open Primary, a candidate may have his party preference, as disclosed on his voter registration, appear on the ballot; or he may have it left blank. So the ballot would look something like this:
[ ] Bill Fish – My party preference is the SalmonYoga Party. Doctor
[ ] John Doe – Lawyer
[ ] Andy Indy – No Party Preference. Merchant
In addition, a 10-year history of party affiliation for each candidate will be posted in a prominent location on the Secretary of State’s website.
Mr. Fish could only have his preference for the SalmonYoga Party appear on the ballot if he had disclosed it on his party registration. But voters who had disclosed a preference for the Reform Party or the Constitution Party would be able have that preference shown on the ballot if they were to run for office. This is no different than for ballot-qualified parties such as the Democratic, Republican, or Peace & Freedom parties.
The number of signatures to qualify for the primary ballot is quite modest, especially compared to the current 175,000+ signatures needed for a statewide independent candidate, or 10,000 or so needed for an independent congressional candidate. There is also a filing fee which is based on the salary for the office.
While political parties will not have the ability to formally nominate candidates in a manner that the State will recognize, they will be able to make endorsements, and have those endorsements appear on a sample ballot distributed to voters. Parties may endorse multiple candidates, and are in no way restricted to making endorsements only of members of their party.
About half of California voters are permanent by-mail voters. They are likely to consult the sample ballot as they complete their ballot. So this endorsement power may in practice be a more powerful tool for parties than nomination, especially in races for which the party has no candidate.
Mr. Weber has a misunderstanding in his commentary. The top 2 candidates in the general election are not nominees for their party, and therefore there will be no way for a party to maintain its “ballot-qualification” by performance in statewide races beginning in 2014. Instead, “ballot-qualification” will be based solely on maintaining the requisite number of registered voters. It may be easier to keep voters from changing their registration under the Top 2 Open Primary. Under the current partisan primary system, there is little incentive to maintain a minor party registration, since it precludes them from voting in almost all primary races.
Under the Top 2 Open Primary, “ballot-qualified” parties will retain 4 powers:
(1) Hold a partisan presidential-preference primary;
(2) Place a presidential candidate on the general election ballot;
(3) Have a sample ballot distributed to party-affiliated voters; and
(4) Election of official party committees at the primary.
Instead of maintaining the current closed system, perhaps the effort would be better placed in opening up current system. It is ridiculous to require 100 signatures for an independent gubernatorial or US senate candidate; while requiring 175,000+ signatures for an independent presidential candidate:
For example:
(1) Convert the presidential preference primary into a direct primary.
(a) Any candidate who wants to be on the presidential election ballot collects 100 signatures, plus a slate of presidential elector candidates (their party preference would determine the party preference of the presidential candidate).
(b) Voters could cast a vote for any candidate, but the voter’s party affiliation would be indicated on his ballot, so that votes could be tabulated by party for parties that base delegate selection on votes cast by party members (as was done in 2000).
(c) Any candidate who received the support of 1/5 of 1% of the voters would appear on the general election ballot. In 2009, this threshold would have been about 18,000, and 13 candidates would have qualified for the general election ballot.
(d) Candidates, including those who did not appear on the primary ballot, could supplement their vote totals with petition signatures gathered after the primary, and candidates who withdrew could transfer their support to other candidates.
(2) Further deregulate the internal operations and activities of political parties. The State’s interest is solely in knowing which party officials are authorized to act on behalf of the party, and ensuring that party-affiliated voters form the basis for control of the party.
Move the election of party officers to odd-years using all-mail elections. Let the parties designate their own party committee structures. If a party prefers to use conventions, then the State’s role would be to simply send out notices of the time and place of the conventions to affiliated voters.
(3) Reduce the level of support needed for continued ballot-access. Since statewide independent candidates can qualify for the ballot with 100 signatures, there is no reason to maintain such high standards for party recognition, especially since access to the ballot would no longer be based on basis of party affiliation, but rather actual support for the candidates.
Perhaps two levels of support could be used:
(1) For a candidate to have his disclosed party preference appear on the ballot, 500 registered voters, and a demonstration of an actual party structure.
(2) For separate tabulation of presidential primary ballots; state assistance in the conduct of party elections/conventions; and authority to have sample ballots distributed, 5000 registered voters.
Former California State Senator Steve Peace, who heads up the drive to pass the top-two ballot measure, says that members of the Reform Party, and members of other unqualified parties, could not list their party preference on the ballot. The county elections officials of California agree that such labels would not be permitted. They discussed it at their recent statewide meeting and think it’s obvious that Steve Peace and I are right about this.
#1 NO need for even the four party hack items —
(1) Hold a partisan presidential-preference primary;
(2) Place a presidential candidate on the general election ballot;
(3) Have a sample ballot distributed to party-affiliated voters; and
(4) Election of official party committees at the primary.
P.R. and A.V.
The EVIL party hacks have de facto caused the national bankruptcy of the U.S.A. — see the about $$$ 16 TRILLION in U.S.A. / States / local regimes debt since 1929.
Great Depression II continues with more and more govt debt — until Dollar Judgment Day — when foreign folks pull the financial plug on the U.S.A. and let it totally rot into hyperinflation and civil war.
See the ROT of the old British Empire — warfare, welfare, then economic collapse after World War II.
#2 Californians currently have a right to affiliate with a non-ballot qualified party. There are two ways that party affiliation may change: (1) the voter changes it; or (2) the registration become void, due to death, moving; failure to vote, etc.
California requires its election officials to tabulate and report the number of voters affiliated with non-ballot qualified parties, as distinct from the number of voters who simply have declined to state a party affiliation. It also requires election officials to count voters who have (previously) registered an affiliation with a non-ballot qualified party, upon the request of the officers of a party that is seeking to qualify.
When the Peace & Freedom Party lost their ballot qualification, they were able to regain their qualification by counting existing registrations (ie made before they requested that a count be made). The Reform Party continues to seek to (re)qualify by including previous registrants. They have to periodically restart the procedure, but they always start with remaining existing affiliated voters.
Registrants are not considered to be members of a party per se, but rather having declared an intent to affiliate with a party at the next primary . That is, they’re saying they intend to vote in the next primary of the party. It is wholly aspirational, contingent on a party actually holding a primary. There are provisions in California law for the cancellation of primaries when there are no candidates who have filed, even though the party may have qualified to have a primary on the basis of the number of registrants or past performance in statewide elections.
Voters are required to sign their voter registration affidavits, subject to perjury prosecution, if they are not correct and truthful. If a voter were denied the right to declare an intent to affiliate with a party that is not (currently) qualified to hold a primary, then a voter would have to perjure themselves by declaring that they intended to affiliate with one of the qualified parties, or coerced into “declining to state” an intended party affiliation. While a voter may voluntarily choose to remain silent on the question of his intended affiliation, he may not be forced to do so by the State.
SB 6 recasts party affiliation from a “declaration of intent to affiliate with a party at its next primary” to a “disclosure of party preference”, but otherwise does not change the party affiliation procedure. While California may legitimately withhold certain recognition and privileges to a party based on it demonstrating a modicum of support, it may not prevent individual voters from expressing support for that party. The purpose of the 1st Amendment is not to protect relatively popular speech, but rather to protect speech that may be unpopular or relatively unpopular.
If a voter prefers the Constitution Party, but on his registration affidavit says that he prefers the Republican or Peace&Freedom Party, he is not being truthful. If he declares that he has “No Party Preference” he is also not being truthful. A voter must sign his affidavit to indicate that it is correct and truthful. The voter who prefers the Constitution Party could not sign his affidavit, or in doing so would be committing an act of perjury. If a voter does not sign his registration, he may be denied the the right to vote.
California might place certain reasonable restrictions on expressions of party preference, such as limiting the length of the name, and which characters are used, and perhaps expressions that are libelous or obscene. But it certainly may not outlaw expressions of party preference on the basis that they are not as popular as other parties.
SCA 4 sets out a number of findings that may be regarded as the legislative intent of People if they enact the amendment to the Constitution. If there are any provisions in SB 6 that are contrary to the constitution, they are legally void.
The People declare that the purpose of the act is to preserve the right of every Californian to vote for the candidate of their choice. If a candidate may not have his actual party preference appear on the ballot, then the right of the voters to vote for that candidate is being infringed on.
The People declare that voters have a right to disclose their party preference when they register to vote, and that existing party affiliations will be considered to be expressions of party preference. If a voter prefers the Constitution Party, but is prevented from voluntarily disclosing that preference, that is a violation of his right to disclose their party preference.
The People declare that candidates may declare a party preference when they file to run for public office. If they do not have a party preference they may specify “No Party Preference”. If a candidate were required to specify a preference for a party they had not disclosed a preference for on their voter registration or specify “No Party Preference” when they had disclosed a party preference on their voter registration, it is not a voluntary choice on behalf of the candidate.
The People declare that “nothing in this act shall restrict the right of individuals to join or organize into political parties or in any way restrict the right of private association of political parties.” It would be a restriction on the right to organize into political parties, if a voter or candidate could not express a preference for their political party, even if that party is not qualified to hold a presidential primary.
The whole point of political parties is to support candidates for political office. If candidates may not express a preference for their political party it is a restriction on the right to organize into political parties.
The People declare that there is no change in the current law with respect to presidential primaries. That is, they make a distinction between presidential primaries and nominations, where party qualification does matter, and elections for other offices, where it does not.
Let’s look at the substantive part of the constitutional amendment then, since it is certainly not the expressed intent of the People to restrict party preference to “qualified parties”.
Article II, Section 5(a) as amended provides that a voter may vote for any candidate without regard to the political party preference disclosed by the candidate. If some candidates were permitted to have their political party preference expressed on the ballot, while others were not, then California would be restricting the right of a voter to vote for any candidate – since California would be making a regulation with regard to some candidate’s political party preferences and not others.
Article II, Section 5(b) as amended provides that a candidate may have his political party preference indicated on the ballot in the manner provided by statute. While legislation may regulation presentation of the party preference, it may not regulate the content. A law that purported to restrict expression of party preference to so-called qualified parties would violate the constitution.
Article II, Section 5(b) as amended further provides that a political party may not nominate a candidate for elective office at a voter-nominated primary. If candidates were restricted to expressing a preference for a so-called ballot-qualified party, then it is more likely that the California Top 2 Open Primary will be overturned in federal court. If the only party preferences that are permitted to appear on the ballot are those that were previously qualified to nominate, it increases the appearance that the preferences are really nominations in disguise.
And even if California sought to restrict the expression of party preference to that of more popular parties, they would be in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. California has no more business limiting expressions of party preference to more “popular” positions than they do to limit candidate occupations to more popular occupations (eg optometrists could run, but not ophthalmologists, or ophthalmologist would be prohibited from having their occupation appear on the ballot).
And let’s look at SB 6, the statutes that actually implement the Top 2 Open Primary
SB 6 adds Elections Code Section 300.5 to define “Affiliated with a political party” as used in reference to a voter or to a candidate for a voter-nominated office means the party preference that the voter or candidate has disclosed on his or her affidavit of registration.
Because this definition is specific to voter-nominated offices, it supersedes the definition of “party” found in Section 338 with respect to party affiliation of voters and candidates in voter-nominated offices (in particular, the Top 2 Open Primary).
New Section 8002.5 says that when a candidate files for the Top 2 open primary he may indicate his party preference, or lack of party preference as disclosed on his voter registration. If he has disclosed a preference for the Constitution Party, he does not lack a party preference. Therefore his only choices are (1) have his preference for the Constitution Party appear on the ballot; or (2) not have any party preference shown on the ballot.
Section 8002.5(e) directs the modification of the form for declaration of candidacy defined in Section 8040: “except that the declaration of candidacy required by Section 8040 shall include space for the candidate to list the party preference disclosed upon the candidate’s most recent affidavit of registration, in accordance with subsection (a).”
A declaration of candidacy must be sworn to and notarized.
So is your position that a candidate who has disclosed a preference for the Constitution Party on his voter registration must:
(1) Deliberately falsify his declaration of candidacy for a voter-nominated office;
or
(2) May not run for a voter-nominated office.