California Republican Party Vice-Chair Blogs About Six-Party Press Conference Against Proposition 14

Tom Del Beccaro has this article in Fox & Hounds blog, about the press conference held in Sacramento on May 11 concerning Proposition 14. The press conference was held to highlight statements of opposition to Proposition 14. Spokespeople for each of California’s six ballot-qualified parties spoke. Approximately 20 to 25 reporters attended.


Comments

California Republican Party Vice-Chair Blogs About Six-Party Press Conference Against Proposition 14 — 11 Comments

  1. Richard Winger,
    Thank you for the work you are doing against Prop. 14. If Prop. 14 passes it will end a whole class of delegates to the American Independent Party State Conventions, viz., “Nominee Delegates”, because of the
    wording in California Election Code 7551(b). California
    Election Code section 7551(b) has the requirement that to be a “Nominee Delegate” one has to be “nominated at the direct primany election by that party”. Under the
    Prop. 14 plan the American Independent Party is not going to nominate anyone, therefore the class of delegates call “Noninee Delegates” will end. That will
    create a major reduction on the delegate court to the
    state conventions in the future.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party, affiliated with the America’s Independent Party since June 27, 2008.

    P.S. It was good to learn my friend Gary Odom is against Prop. 14, even though he has no direct interest
    in its outcome, because he lives in Lancaster, PA.
    However, I have no idea what he is upset about. Please
    explain?

  2. Hello Mark, I think Gary Odom is very happy about the press conference. And hello Jim, it’s nice we are in agreement for a change. Division 7 is “Political Party Organization and Central Committee elections.”

  3. One of the last meetings of the party hacks — pending Prop 14 Party Hack DOOMSDAY ???

    P.R. and A.V. = NO primaries are needed.

    Some party hacks might actually like having P.R. — win a few seats and shoot off a party hack mouth in a State legislature — before being ruled out of order.

  4. Jim Riley,

    Why do you take the view that Division 7 of the election
    code should be incinerated? I do not understand why you
    take that view.

    The State Central Committee of the American Independent
    Party supports Division 7 as it effects the AIP.

    Dr. Don Grundmann term on the AIP State Central Committee ended at mid-night upon the start of September
    3, 2008, because of related sections in Part 4 of Division 7 of the CA Elections Code.

    That also goes for Jim King, because of the events on
    September 3, 2006.

    Division 7 also requires the the State Central Committee
    Organizational Meeting and State Convention meet in Sacramento County in the same one of the 25 communities
    that cover that county. The State Central Committee
    designates the location of the State Convention with
    Sacramento, which binds the State Chairman to follow it
    lead. Without Division 7, under Roberts Rules of Order
    it would be up to the State Chairman to designate the
    location. I believe this is reasonable power sharing.

    It should be noted that on May 17, 2010 near the Ontario
    Airport, CA, Mr. James King will be deposted at 9:00 a.m. in the case of KING vs. ROBINSON. Note that Mr.
    James King was purpored to be the “credentials chairman”
    of the State Convention and State Central Committee of
    the American Independent Party. That was the State
    Central Committee organizational meeting that elected
    Edward C. Noonan, Chairman of the American Independent
    Party. Mr. Noonan is now running for the United States
    Senate and I have endorsed him.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party, affilated with the America’s Independent Party since June 27, 2008

  5. #5 It is improper for the State to micromanage the organization of political parties, particularly in the fashion of California where the State dictates different organizations for each party (until they got tired of doing it). Any party that wants to bother with suing the State will be able to overturn any part of Division 7 that they don’t like.

    All the State needs to do is ensure that the party is organized in a republican form, where the ultimate control is vested in the voters; has a set of bylaws filed with the SOS; and has designated officers for interacting with the State and counties where necessary.

    This can be done in a very generic fashion.

  6. #3. BTW, do you know what an “Open Presidential Primary” is? That was the actual ballot title in June 1972 when Proposition 4 was adopted.

  7. #6 See the Eu case in 1989 [?].

    PUBLIC nominations versus PRIVATE internal clubby party hack stuff.

  8. Jim Riley,

    What if the State Central Committee likes to be micromanaged, as in the case of the American Independent
    party?

    I admit we have some problems with the micromanagement,
    but since the party his been in three lawsuits over the
    past two years, this micromanagement has helped the
    party, because the plaintiff has not followed the
    election code and the State Central Committee has followed the law.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party

  9. #2 and #6: We’re on the same side for a change. I wish a California party or parties would bring a suit against Division 7.

    It’s a little strange to see you defending the autonomy of political parties.

    If only you would also defend the concept of parties performing their basic function of officially nominating candidates…

  10. TO: Steve Rankin,

    I do not understand where you are coming from, viz., it “is a little strange” to see Jim Riley “defending the autounomy of polital parties.”

    I also do not understand how one brings a “suit against
    Division 7”.

    As long as it is the wish of the AIP State Central Committee, the AIP will defend any attack on the remainder of the laws in Division 7. Jim King’s
    lawyer in KING vs. BOWEN in 2008 attacked part of
    the laws in Division 7, before Judge Kenny in the
    Sacramento Superior Court and lost twice during
    a demurr hearing and a hearing for retrial.

    Currently the California Election Code directs the
    AIP hold it State Convention in the County of Sacramento
    and requires both the State Convention and organizational meeting to take place in the same community in Sacramento County (out of the 25 communites
    in Sacramento County. It requires the Chairman to call
    both the State Convention and organizational meeting to
    order.

    That is one of the ways where Ann E. Thomas failed in
    her attempt with Jim King and Don Grundmann on June 28
    and 29, 2008 to hijack the AIP. Because Chairman Ed
    Noonan did not call there bogus cabal to order. Noonan
    called the real AIP State Central Committee and organizational meeting to order in the same Sacramento
    Community on July 5 and July 6, 2008. See how following
    the law to the letter helps stop hijackers.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party, affiliated since June 27, 2008 with
    the America’s Independent Party.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.