On March 10, a Superior Court in Sacramento, California, upheld the Secretary of State’s decision to list Tom Berryhill on the Republican primary ballot for State Senate. Berryhill is an Assemblymember who hasn’t lived in the State Senate district he seeks to run in for a year before the election. He moved into the district on December 30, 2009.
The State Constitution, since 1879, has required candidates for the legislature to have lived in the district for at least a year before the election, but the Secretary of State and the Attorney General determined in the mid-1970’s that that part of the California Constitution violates the U.S. Constitution. The case is Fuller v Bowen, 34-2010-80000452. The plaintiff, Heidi Fuller, is also a candidate for the same State Senate seat. The judge ruled from the bench and has not yet put his opinion in writing.
The State Constitution of 1879 included provisions for the residency both in the State (3 years) and District (1 year).
The 1879 Constitution also provided (Article II, Section 5) that each house of the legislature would be the judge of the qualifications, elections, and returns of its members. The Constitution (Article III) also provides for the separation of powers, and forbids anyone belonging to one branch of government from exercising the functions of another branch, without explicit provision in the Constitution.
The opinion of the Attorney General relied on Article II, Section V.
If Heidi Fuller doesn’t believe in the independence of the legislative branch, she shouldn’t be running for the Assembly.
Then should California elections officials put everyone on the primary ballot, regardless of whether they are at least age 18?
Richard,
I believe the 18 year mark is important, otherwise the
parants of the under age crowd would have to be in the
legislative Senate and Assembly to cast the votes for an
under age legislator.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party
I don’t think that minors can execute a declaration of candidacy since it must be sworn to.
The Secretary of State and the courts are incompetent under the California Constitution to determine whether a candidate is qualified. Only the house that someone is elected to may make such a determination. The legislature may not delegate their authority to the Secretary of the States, even if they wanted to.
Dollars to donuts says the court ruled on the basis of Article II, Section V.
still no docketed written decision or other information on the outcome of the hearing in Fuller v Bowen. Some of the issues raised in the briefs would also apply to the Taitz / Dunn eligibility for ballot access to GOP line in this year’s SOS election challenging Bowen
TO: natural born citizen party:
Please explain what you mean by Taitz/Dunn eligibility
for ballot access to GOP? Did the Orange County registrar of voter “flag” Orly Taitz’s signatures in lieu? Like Los Angeles County “flagged” Chelene Nightingale’s signature in lieu, because she was registered Republican in 2009. Even William Wallace Murray got past the issue on running in the 2010 race
for Governor without being “flagged” by the Orange County Registrar of Voters until the issue of one year
in the American Independent Party was raised by the Orange County Central Committee of the American Independent Party. Murray was removed by Mr. Kelley,
because the OCC AIP informed his office that he did not
meet the requirements of the AIP to run for Governor as
stated in the Election Code.
I can not see why it is okay to fix one year in the qulified party and not fix one year in the district.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, Orange County
Central Committee, American Independent Party
TO: Jim Riley:
In your post # 4 was a good point. However look what happened in the 2008 general election. On the list of
California electorial college electors was a Ms. Huber. She was died when Congressman Berman appointed the non-person (because of death) as an elector. Secrtary of State Bowen let a dead person remain of the
list of electors during the general election. I informed the Department of State and all registrar of voters in California that Ms. Huber had died prior to the appointment by Congressman Berman.
Bottom line was the Chairman of the Democratic Party
replaced for the meeting of the Electorial College some
one else, by claiming a staff member of the Democratic
Party gave the wrong name to Secrtary of State Bowen
for Congressman Berman. The electors of California that
voted the ticket of Obama/Biden in 2008 voted in a non-
person (who was replaced by the Chairman of the Democratic Party) as a member of the Electorial College.
However, the California Election Code requires that the
shortage of Presidential Electors shall be filled by the
body of the Electorial College at the meeting of the Electorial College. That was not done, because Sectrary
of State Bowen went along with the Chairman of the Democratic Party with the sham replacement.
Therefore, do you believe the Courts have the power to
intervene in preventing the Chairman of the Democratic
Party from doing sham replacement to the Electoral College? Or the Sectarary of State require only live persons to be on the list of electors to run for the
Electorial College? Or should it be just left to Congress to work out?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
In my opinion this is what the small portions of the republican party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” have brought you. They are good at “Follow the Leader” of their dullard leaders, they listen to Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush and Savage and the rest of the Blowhards. Are you surprise at what they do when you know what they think? The world is complicated and most republicans (Hamiliton, Lincoln, Roosevelt) believe that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now its about dancing around the claim of government is the problem. The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition. Although most republicans are trying to distant themselves from this fringe they have a long way to go.
#7 The California Constitution makes a clear distinction between elections for the legislature and other elections.
The California legislature has provided that presidential electors be appointed based on the popular vote, and has provided an elaborate, albeit bizarre, scheme by which elector candidates are designated.
California has provided that Secretary of State be in charge of elections, in California, and her actions are subject to review by the courts. And Congress could have also reviewed the circumstance of the appointment. Their authority to “count” is deeper than merely counting 1, 2, 3.
I don’t see any reason for the legislature to intervene, other than to review the circumstances of the Berman appointment. They really ought to rip out most of the Elections Code dealing with political parties. Presidential candidates should be able to designate their associated elector candidates.