California is holding two special State Senate elections on February 15. They are the first two elections in which Prop. 14 and its implementing language is in effect. SB 6, the implementing language, says that the Secretary of State’s web page must post “in a conspicuous place, the party preference history of each candidate for voter-nominated office for the preceding 10 years.” See section 8121 of the election code. Under Prop. 14 and its implementing language, a “party preference” must be whatever is indicated on that candidate’s affidavit of registration.
Here is the Secretary of State’s web page for the candidates for State Senate, 28th district. The Secretary of State does not seem to have followed the law, on two points. First, the web page does not give a 10-year history for four of the candidates. Kevin Thomas McGurk’s entry is just, “Democrat” and “2000”, which leaves one wondering what about 2001 to 2011? Martha Flores Gibson’s entry is just, “Republican” and “2010-2011”, which again leaves one wondering about the years 2001-2009. Michael Chamness entries are “No party preference” and “2010”, again leaving the reader wondering about prior years. And Mark Lipman entries are “No party preference” and “2008-present”, again leaving a time gap.
Also, the law says that a candidate’s “party preference” is as disclosed on the candidate’s most recent statement of registration (see sections 7000 and 8002.5 of the election code). Michael Chamness’ affidavit of voter registration says he is a member of the Coffee Party. Although no one had expected the February 15 ballot to say, under Chamness’ name, “My party preference is the Coffee Party”, most people probably thought that the Secretary of State’s web page would include the information that he is registered in the Coffee Party. It is not a true statement that Chamness’ voter registration form says he has ‘no party preference.” The Secretary of State does not seem to be following the law.
The other special election, for the 17th State Senate district, only has two candidates, a Republican and a Democrat, and the web page for that race has no time gaps.
According to the footnotes at the bottom of the “registration history” pages on the Secretary of State’s website, “Candidates provided the above information on their Declaration of Candidacy forms”. That is, the Secretary of State just published whatever it is that was on the candidates’ declarations of candidacy without verifying it. From what was published, it appears that the form only asked for candidates’ current party registrations, which is why there is no information, verified or not, about any candidates’ past party affiliations. (My guess is that the “Democrat, 2000” entry is an inconsistently presented version of “Democrat, 2000-present”.)
Note also that the list of candidates’ registration “histories” omits two candidates who the LA County Registrar-Recorder shows as having filed nomination papers, Libertarian Pedro De Baets and Democrat Mervin Evans. Any information about why they aren’t listed? Did they fail to qualify (and, if so, for what reason)? Is there some other reason they could have been left off of the list?
The provision of state election law modified by SB 6 to require the posting of the candidates’ party registration history, Elections Code 8121(b), also requires that the same webpage conspicuously also include “the notice specified by of subdivision (b) of Section 9083.5”. That notice is the two paragraph long description of the top-two system, that includes the information that the designation listed “does not constitute or imply an endorsement of the candidate by the party designated” but that “parties may have a list of candidates for voter-nominated offices, who have received the official endorsement of the party, printed in the sample ballot”.
I wonder why the Secretary of State’s office failed to include that information. Perhaps because it would either make it look as if Ted Lieu wasn’t endorsed by the Democratic Party in SD 28, or make it evident that the Secretary of State wasn’t actually allowing parties to have their endorsements printed in the sample ballot?
Good points, especially about the missing text for the web page.
California elections officials already have the capacity to know how someone was registered for the last 10 years, if they were registered during that whole time in California. The county election officials specifically asserted that they could provide that information. But, it appears the Secretary of State isn’t using that capacity.
do you think the info should be “posted”/printed in the official election pamphlet mailed to voters?
is that requirement part of Prop. 14 or part of SB 6?
Sorry – i reread. it’s statutory (SB 6), not in the constitution (prop. 14)
Just to clarify my voting registration status and in the interest of full disclosure. Before 2008 I was registered in Massachusetts. After moving to Los Angeles in 2007, I registered to vote in California. I have never registered with a political party.
If an error occurred in disclosure on the filing, I am willing to correct that and will check with the Secretary of State on the matter.
Please take a look at my website:
marklipman.blogspot.com
to see where I stand on the issues and I hope you all decide to vote for me on February 15.
All the very best,
Mark Lipman
The Los Angeles County website shows the filings organized by party, as if it were still a blanket primary (see filings sorted by office name). The SOS’s notice to candidates of the other candidates is also organized the same way. I would alphabetize them.
I don’t see how Elections Code 2151(d) can be interpreted in any other way than to classify existing registrations as either (1) Affiliating with a party, qualified or not; or (2) Decline To State. Decline To State has a very specific meaning in California, so everyone who is not DTS, must be affiliated with a party, and recast to have a preference for that political party.
They surely haven’t messed up the party affiliation of 127,000 voters (more than are affiliated with any of the Green, Libertarian, or Peace&Freedom Party).
The redistricting commission had a requirement for a 5-year consistent party registration, and the application form had a place for indicating previous registration addresses during the 5-year period (there was also a requirement to have voted in at least 2 of the 3 last general elections). That information was definitely verified by the State Auditor’s office.
In the legislative hearing on implementing Propostion 14 (Spring 2010?), the SOS’s office indicated that the State didn’t have its statewide registration file set up yet, but that they thought the 10-year requirement could be handled, and suggested that there would be many “fact checkers”. There was a Michael Chamness who ran for a Senate District 28 seat on the Los Angeles County Green Party Central Committee in 2008, and I think affiliation is a requirement of that office.
I wonder if the counties will be implementing Elections Code 13302(b)?
BTW, if I have counted correctly, there are as many candidates not affiliated with a qualified party in the Senate 28 race, as in the 23 previous special senate races combined.
see also:
long awaiting decision on motion for special 3 judge distict court panel — over ripe magistrate referral to district judge is smelling up the federal court.
Barnett v Dunn USDC-CAED 10-cv-2216 removed by USDOJ under HAVA issue regarding voter registration
registration records kept by Soros backed SOS Bowen
(Orly Taitz campaign chairperson versus Brown/Bowen as well as Dunn.
See also judicial notice of HAVA related appeal Forjone v California based in USCA2C 10-822
So where are the standard lawsuits against the CA SOS by the usual suspects ???
Standing problems ??? Electors ??? Other Candidates ???
Public attorneys ??? CA Atty. Gen. ???
STOP the elections ???
Quo warranto for any alleged election winners ???
One more mess — due to armies of election law MORONS and bureaucrats.
I really enjoyed the points shared here. Thank you.
My name is Kevin McGurk and I’m running for the opportunity to represent the 28th District in the State Senate. The reason I’m posting is my name was mentioned in terms of my registration status. I went to law school out of state and returned in 2004. I’ve been in California ever since.