As of November 29, two potential candidates for upcoming California special legislative elections asked the California Supreme Court for judicial relief, to give them accurate ballot labels, instead of the label “no party preference.”
The upcoming California special legislative elections are the first elections in which California’s top-two system will be in effect. The candidates are Michael Chamness in the 28th State Senate election, and Carol Winkler in the 17th State Senate election. Chamness is a registered member of the Coffee Party, and he wants to run with “My party preference is the Coffee Party” on the ballot next to his name. Winkler’s voter registration card is filled out to show that she is an Independent (not just a normal Declines to State voter). She wants “Independent candidate” on the ballot next to her name. But under the implementing law for California’s new election system, they cannot have those labels on the ballot. Yet, members of the six ballot-qualified parties can have their parties identified on the ballot.
The proposed intervenors wish to become part of the lawsuit Field v Bowen, which has this case number in the State Supreme Court: S188436. Here is the brief of the original plaintiffs in the State Supreme Court.
As for Carol Winkler, asking to be listed as listed as “Independent candidate”, it is my view that it would
confuse the California electors, they might think they were
voting American Independent. I will check with the other
leaders of the AIP to see if we should enter the case against
Winkler’s attempt to confuse the electors with using “Independent”, viz., “Independent” is part of the name
“American Independent”.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
The law in California that was in effect in 2010 and all previous elections back to the 19th century let independent candidates have “Independent” on the November ballot. There were 3 U.S. House candidates on the California ballot of November 2010 that had “independent” next to their names. Winkler is just asking to preserve the status quo.
That all is pretty funny. I guess that of all the people who who would not think that they were voting for the American Independent Party of California, some of them would be those AIP-CA registrants who think that they are registered to vote as independent and not as members of any politcal party (i.e., people who mistakenly registered AIP-CA).
One more frivolous case deserving major sanctions on the lawyers involved ??? Duh.
Each State is a sovereign NATION-State — 1776 DOI, 1777 A.C., 1783 Peace Treaty, 1787 Const. Art. I, Sec. 10 and Art. VII.
— with the sovereign power to hold ITS elections with ITS labels for candidates.
P.R. and App.V. = ONE election — every election is NEW — all candidates with all labels – subject to equal limits on letters and spaces for labels.
Where is the P.R. and App.V. petition in CA — to END the mess about separate and unequal caucuses, primaries and conventions ???
Why does the SOS intend to conduct the special election for Senate District 28 based on laws not in effect when the governor calls the election. How is it different than the special election for Senate District 1?
Does Gautam Dutta not realize that what Dean Logan was talking about at the legislative hearing was the incapacity of the Los Angeles County system used to handle a statewide primary under Top 2, because it requires that all candidates in all districts have a unique position on the ballot? The SOS disagreed with Logan’s assessment. Logan was run out of Seattle after the 2004 gubernatorial election, and goofed up the 2008 presidential primary in Los Angeles, so that votes for Don Grundmann and Hillary Clinton could not be reliably distinguished. But that does not mean that Los Angeles County could not conduct a Top 2 special primary election.
Is Gautam Dutta actually arguing that because the SOS suggested clarifying language for SB 6, that SB 6 is invalid (noting that “No Party Preference” may not be accurate if the voter had a party preference but chose not to express it on their voter registration? “Declined To State” implies an active decision to not indicate which party a voter intends to affiliate with at the next primary, when it may mean they skipped the question on their registration form.
Gautam Dutta acknowledges that notwithstanding Elections Code Section 338, that voters have always been allowed to register with non-qualified parties. Section 338 was not changed by SB 6, as Dutta admits. The only way that this can be true is that Elections Code Section 4 restricts 338 with respect to voter registration. California’s voter registration and party qualification scheme simply does not make sense if a voter could not register with a non-qualified party. So “party” in terms of voter registration must be interpreted in context, and not limited to the definition of Section 338.
SB 6 added Section 300.5, which defines a candidate’s party affiliation as that disclosed on his voter registration. 300.5 is more specific than 338, and therefore overrides 338. A candidate’s party affiliation therefore need not be with a qualified party. The legislature carefully crafted SB 6 so that a candidate could not claim to represent a different party when he ran as a candidate, than he had disclosed as a voter.
SB 6 added Section 8002.5 which limits a candidate to expressing the same party preference on his candidate application as he disclosed on his voter registration. This is entirely consistent with 300.5, which overrides 338, with respect to a candidate’s party affiliation.
The interests of Jeff Mackler, Rodney Martin, and Michael Chamness are not aligned with that of the other plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs prevail these 3 prospective candidates will be denied the opportunity to run under the name of the parties which they have registered with. Further, it will be much more difficult for Mackler and Martin to qualify for the general ballot under the scheme that Dutta advocates returning to. I hope Mackler and Martin aren’t funding Dutta’s misguided effort.
Shouldn’t San Bernardino and Kerr counties be brought in as parties if the special election in Senate District 17 is involved?
Is Dutta claiming that there could be a December 20 filing deadline for Senate District 17, or was he just careless?
#2 The term “independent nomination” (ie nomination by petition) has no meaning with respect a voter-nominated office.
If we assume that Carol Winkler did not commit perjury on her voter registration affidavit, then she has declared her intent to affiliate with the Independent Party at the next primary. If Dean Logan filed her registration under DTS, then he made a mistake. Her registration should be reported under Other parties, unless the Independent Party files to have its registration counted as part of an attempt to qualify.
Under terms of SB 6, is she is a candidate for the SD 17, she has the choice of “My party preference is Independent Party” or nothing at all.
Pingback: Potential Candidates in Two Upcoming California Special Elections … | The Daily Conservative
To Jim Riley (#6):
There is no Independent Party in California that I am aware of. The state will not allow a new party to utilize a name that is so close to the American Independent Party. That is the why the state affiliate of the Patriot Party, during the early 90’s, used the name California Party. That is also one of the main reasons for the national Reform Party to select Reform rather than Independence in the mid-90’s. I know this for a fact because I used to be a member of both of those parties (including being a founding member of the Reform Party).
Well, actually, I should have written “the state affiliate of the national Independence Party, during the early 90’s, used the name California Party.” I remember that I was a member of the California Party and after that I was a member of the Patriot Party. Some of the details are a little hazy to me now days. I do remember for sure that the Patriot Party folded into the Reform Party and I was very happy when that took place.
I don’t understand why/how this case is going directly to the state Supreme Court. Wasn’t the Superior Court decision appealed to the intermediate level (Court of Appeals) in late September? What happened to that step of the process? Thanks!
The lower courts have declined to issue any orders, partly because they think there is no problem, and partly because they say this case need not be rushed because the new system doesn’t start until 2012.
#10 , #11 What kind of MORON judges are in the lower courts in CA ??
Election stuff is one of the very few things that the State regimes MUST DO — with nonstop deadlines.
As mentioned in earlier stories CA top 2 takes effect Jan. 1, 2011 [???] Thus top 2 is IMMINENT — about 1 month away — and NOT in the super-distant future.
#8 California has no law restricting with which parties a voter may affiliate with. If Carol Winkler declared on her voter affidavit that she intended to affiliate with the Independent Party at the next primary, then there is no basis for the State of California to presume anything else.
If she was merely intending to indicate that she was not declaring her intent to affiliate with a party at the next primary, then she should have registered as a DTS.
California does restrict a party with a similar name from becoming a “qualified” party, which beginning in January 1, 2011 permits a party to hold a presidential preference primary; have a presidential nominee on the ballot; have party endorsements for voter-nominated offices distributed to voters; to have their name on voter registration forms; and to have party officers elected at the primary. So an “Independent Party” could not become a qualified party in California.
The concept of an “independent nomination”, that is to say independent of any qualified party nomination, is meaningless for Voter-Nominated offices, because there are not party nominations for Voter-Nominated offices.
The party preference designation is simply information for the voters, similar to the office/professional/occupational designation.
California has an interest that it be accurate and be a reasonably fit on the ballot. SB 6 requires a candidate’s party preference to match that of his voter registration. It requires the SOS to display a 10-year record of a candidate’s party registration on its web site. I’d expect that the SOS could provide regulations regarding length, and standardized translations.
California could define parties, so that it can determine whether a party preference is for an actual party. California could not restrict this definition to include more popular parties, any more than it could restrict candidates to more popular professions. It might well apply name restrictions, such that the American Independent Party could block recognition of an “Independent Party”.
If California decides to retain party registration, they should switch to a two-level standard of qualification, and switch to two or more levels of support for various activities. For a “political party” to be recognized by the state, a low level of support could be required (a few 100 registrants), along with bylaws, officers, and election of party officers by party registrants. With a low level of support, California could switch to qualification by petition.
It could then require voters to register with a recognized party, after providing a method for existing collections of voters to organize.
California could greatly reduce the number of signatures required to be on the presidential ballot, and permit party-supported candidates to be on the ballot even if they were not on the ballot. It could require a petition if a party that held a primary did not place its primary winner on the general election ballot (in 2008, the Democratic, Libertarian, Green, and American Independent parties did not place their primary winner on the general election ballot).
There could be a higher level of support required before a party could hold a presidential primary.
It may be feasible for California to conduct an election for party offices for very small parties, especially if it were to switch to all-mail ballots for that purpose. The distribution of contribution envelopes and letters would be better suited to that sort of election.
And California might be able to set a medium standard for participation in distribution of party endorsements on the sample ballot.
A State has ZERO business in helping a group of party hacks to choose the party hack group leaders.
— like having the public pay for corporate stock holders choosing corporate officers.
See the EU case —
PUBLIC nominations of candidates stuff versus
PRIVATE internal clubby party hack stuff.
#14 If a State vests certain authority to political parties, it has an interest in ensuring that the party officers are chosen by those registered with the party and form the basis for state recognition.
#15 How about having NO authority for the party hacks to do anything regarding PUBLIC nominations by A-L-L PUBLIC Electors ???
On to the next step in CA — wipe out any such remaining authority in the party hacks and their clubby regimes of closed door conspiracies.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Washington State continues to survive with its recent top 2 system.