At least 137 bills have been introduced in the California legislature, for the 2011-2012 session, according to the legislature’s web page. But there seem to be no bills changing the way candidates for federal or state office are elected. The California Secretary of State, and the California Association of County Election Officials, both seek changes to the law that implements the “top-two” system. The counties are worried that the administrative cost of printing ballots will be significantly higher than in the past, if no changes are made.
There is also the problem that the law is now internally contradictory on whether write-in space should be printed on November ballots, or on run-off ballots in special elections. The code continues to say that such write-in spaces should be printed. The sample ballots for the special election run-off in the First State Senate District do contain write-in space, although that election (set for January 4) is the last being conducted under the rules in effect before Prop. 14 passed. The law also continues to provide procedures for declared write-in candidates to file a declaration of write-in candidacy in all elections. On the other hand, the implementing language for Prop. 14 says write-in votes in November, or in special run-offs, can’t be counted.
Anyone, in any state, is free to check state legislative pages, looking for election law bills of interest. If you find interesting election law bills, please notify us all, either with a comment to this post, or with an e-mail to richardwinger@yahoo.com. Thank you. Of course in some states, no bills have been introduced yet.
Do the gerrymander party hacks and their staffers pay ANY attention to MORON laws, zillions of court cases, etc. mentioned in BAN — this blog ???
Where is that Model Election Law — with even EQUAL ballot access ???
Repeal prop 14 and stop the gerrymandering Republocrats.
SB 6 says that candidates who receive write-in votes in general elections for a voter-nominated office can’t be counted. I don’t know what that means. It should be ignored.
The stated purpose of Proposition 14 is that the top two candidates advance to the general election. That implies that those candidates who don’t finish in the top two should not advance to the general election. California should implement a sore loser law, similar to that in Washington where an eliminated candidate in the primary, whether on-ballot or write-in may not file as a write-in candidate for the general election.
+++
California’s procedure for filling nomination vacancies for voter-nominated offices is going to bite them sooner or later, especially given the long time gap between the primary and general election. Since the procedure was borrowed from that for nonpartisan elections, it should be changed for nonpartisan elections as well.
California does not permit candidates to withdraw. However, if they die after the primary, current law would advance the 3rd placed candidate to the general election ballot, which is really not the intent of Proposition 14.
If there is a candidate death prior to the primary, the primary should be cancelled, and the election should be run as a special election, with a new filing period. If a nominated candidate dies before the general election, an entirely new special election should be called.
+++
California’s requirements for in lieu signatures do not make sense. While salaries for offices have increased, along with filing fees that are tied to salaries, the value of in lieu signatures has not. The value of in lieu signatures should have a fixed value that is adjusted for inflation. The in lieu of filing deadline should be made the same as the regular filing deadline.
+++
California should provide a tiered system of party qualification. While California may require a voter to express a preference for an actual political party (or express no preference at all), there is no reason to require that preference to be a popular party. California does not currently require preference for a popular party, but is lax in its regulation of whether the preference is for an actual party.
California should recognize political parties that have a minimum registration (100? 500?), an organizational structure, including officers responsible for representing the party with the State, bylaws, finance reporting, and control of the party vested in voters registered with the party.
California could regulate party names as to length, confusion, etc.
Since it is a relatively small number, parties could be recognized by petition only. The party could organize and get would-be members to sign the petition. Once election officials had verified that the petition signers wanted to join the new party, and there were sufficient number, voter registrations would be changed.
As long as registration was maintained above the threshold level the party would be recognized. There could be an inactive status for parties with enough members but that don’t have a functioning organization.
Voters would no longer be permitted to register with an unrecognized party. There could be a transition where election officials count miscellaneous registrations and permit registered “members” an opportunity to organize and reach qualifying numbers.
Candidates for voter-nominated would have their party preference appear on the ballot.
California should rip out all the party-specific election code.
+++
Larger parties (based on registration) would be recognized as presidential parties, and would be entitled to have a presidential primary, which would be a direct nominating primary. If a party did not want to hold a presidential primary, it could use the petition method (see next paragraph).
The petition standard for presidential candidates should be reduced, and any recognized party should be able to have its name appear on the ballot in conjunction with a petition-nominated candidate.
+++
The primary should be restored back to (late) August, and the party officer elections should be in conjunction with presidential primary. If a party doesn’t conduct a presidential primary, and for non-presidential years, the party officer elections should be done by mail. Having an early election for party officers will help facilitate any endorsements for the ensuing primary and general election.
State-administered party officer elections would be limited to presidential parties. Smaller parties could elect officers at conventions organized in a manner that they found suitable, so long as they were open to participation by all registered members of the party (the State might send notice of conventions to members of these smaller parties).
+++
There might be a different qualification standard for being able to have party endorsements appear on the sample ballot, and have contribution letters sent to party members with the voter’s pamphlet. Since this is administered at the county level, perhaps the qualification standard could be county-based.
+++
California should codify a filing deadline for party endorsements for the sample ballot.
+++
Special elections for the legislature and congress should be made by mail-only, by IRV, and on a much quicker basis than now occurs. The ballots should be as used in the rest of the world where a voter simply places a numeral next to each candidate’s name. Since in a mail election all ballots are returned to the county election officials, and there is only one race on the ballot, administration of a hand count is straightforward. Citizen-counters chosen in a manner similar to jurors should be used to count the ballots.
How many States have nomination stuff directly in the State’s Constitution ??? — to be removed ASAP.
P.R. and App.V. — NO primaries, caucuses and conventions are needed.
Jim Riley,
The American Independent Party this year replaced a congressional candidate who died in Contra Costa County.
Then we had troubles with the Registrar of Votes and our replacement candidate kept off the ballot.
Your stated proceedure is not how it is done in California.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent
#5 Why wasn’t Vincent May placed on the ballot?
The procedure for replacing a partisan nominee is different than for replacing a general election candidate for a nonpartisan or voter-nominated office. See Section 8807 of the Elections Code.
Will the super-experts on the CA Elections Code send an email to the 2011 party hacks in the CA legislature with the full text of a bill to end the ballot access mess ???
— OR — will it take another Prop 14 type petition to end the mess ???