Gautam Dutta has this article about flaws in California’s “top-two” election system, in the Huffington Post of January 17. Dutta is the attorney representing candidates and voters in a pending lawsuit in the California State Court of Appeals. The lawsuit challenges the new California law that bars anyone from being listed on any ballot, in an election for state office and for Congress, as an independent candidate. The same law says candidates may list their party on the ballot, but only if they are registered in a qualified party. Also, he is challenging the law that says write-in votes cannot be counted in November in elections for state and congressional office.
As of now I have mixed feelings on this lawsuit. I am
now looking to see if AIP should enter this case, because I believe the American Independent Party State
Central Committee needs to look after it 413,032 (by last count of SOS) California electors. I believe that
all of the six political parties in California
are necessary parties and must be included. Any thing
other than that would not be legal. That case needs to
be amended to included the five state central committees
of the parties that have central committees and the group that takes care of the Green Party electors.
It was very clear in KING v. BOWEN (2008) that the six state political parties most be included in the outcome
of this lawsuit.
Richard Winger, do you know why the plaintiff parties to this lawsuit did not included the six state parties? I think this suit is not going anywhere without the six political parties being a legal parties to the suit. If the six parties to the suit are added by an amendment to the complaint, then it would move to Sacramento County. I think I just answered my question, the plaintiffs in this case did forum shopping.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
Any attempted rehashing of the stuff in the WA State top 2 primary cases and appeals ???
Each State is a SOVEREIGN nation-state — with PUBLIC electors doing PUBLIC nominations of PUBLIC candidates for PUBLIC offices — TOTALLY subject to PUBLIC L-A-W-S.
Sorry – NO subfaction of all Electors has ANY constitutional *right* or power to dictate how such subfaction can get candidates on general election ballots — with or without any party hack labels.
This stuff AIN’T atomic physics.
P.R. and App.V. — before it is too late.
The Devil City show starts tomorrow after MLK is instantly forgotten for another year.
Waiting for SCOTUS to put ALL of the anti-top 2 folks out of their suffering and misery.
The lawsuit does not involve political parties at all. It concerns the right of candidates to be treated equally, and it concerns the right of voters to be treated equally.
The proponents of top-two say that party labels on the ballot are only a way for candidates to express themselves about their politial beliefs, and that the party label does not mean the party necessarily endorses them or approves of them. Well, if the label is just there to help the candidate express his or her political views, what justification is there that some candidates may do that, but other candidates may not?
DEMO REP
Who do you think controls the uses of the names of the six political parties in the state of California. In
the American Independent Party its the members of the
National Committee.
Who controls the use of the names of the other five parties in California?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
# 4 I rashly assume that the PUBLIC laws control the use of party hack names in each State of the Union.
Again – regarding write-ins — 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 is still in the nearly dead U.S.A. Const.
How about spending some MAJOR time and effort in attacking the gerrymanders and the resulting gerrymander MONSTERS who create and maintain all of the ANTI-Democracy stuff in the U.S.A. —
via unequal ballot access laws AND ANTI-Democracy gerrymanders — and perhaps stop attacking the messenger.
See a certain publication in Jan. 1776 on the internet regarding the then Brit regime — causing things to happen in Jan-July 1776.
Think George Mason in VA — writing certain documents — to terrorize various EVIL monarchs / oligarchs in the entire world.
The U.S.A. has its own set of gerrymander MONSTERS in high places — more and more crazy after each gerrymander election.
Richard Winger,
Let’s look at the name American Independent Party and the word “Independent”. Is not the word INDEPENDENT
part of the name American Independent Party. When people write “Independent” under party HAVA prepared
form in Imperial County, that Registrar takes it to mean
American Independent Party after a staff member contact that elector and asked them are they registering in the American Independent Party.
To allow a candidate to be listed as INDEPENDENT on the
ballot would confuss the California Elector, because they would think he is in the American Independent Party.
Let’s look at California Election Code 20201. It is unlawful for any person that includes in any part of its
name the name of any political party that was quilified.
In California we have only six quilified parties. “Independent” is part of a name party, just
as “Freedom” is part of the name of the Peace and Freedom Party.
The last thing I want to see is electors that do not understand who they are voting for.
Therefore the six political parties should have their name included, and no others, because that would be
misrepesenting to voters that there “political body”
is at the same level as a quilified “political party”.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
Richard Winger,
More on your post # 3. I know the lawsuit does not name
the six political parties of California, but it should
because these six political parties are neccessary parties along with the California State Printer. The
lawsuit should be in Sacramento and not San Francisco.
It just is in the wrong forum.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
Mark, the Calif. Supreme Court ruled in 1896 in Craig v Brown, 114 Cal. 480, that the Dem Party could not complain that the Sec. of State let the National Democratic Party (which was a new, minor party) appear on the ballot. Parties do not have exclusive rights to words that appear in their name.
The other way to handle this is two designations. A box to show your party registration or no party. A second box to show your endorsements. This will give the voter a broader indication at the time of the vote who you are and your support.
Richard Winger
I have not read the Craig Case, but from the time period
it look like Brown was the then California Secrtary of
State. If that is true what you say, then why would the
California State Legislature have made a violation of
California Election Code section 20201 a crime.
My view the case in San Francisco should have all six political parties name as parties. The answer you gave
at #3 is what a lawyer would say to keep necessary parties out of the lawsuit. It should bring in political parties. This is the same tired claim that
Jim King made in KING v. BOWEN, to keep Alan Keyes out
of his lawsuit.
Suggest to the lawyer that the six political parties need to be included in that suit and then move the case
to Sacramento County where it belongs. That is the proper thing to do.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Any American Democratic Republican Freedom Independent Party (ADRFIP) yet in CA ???
Peace and Freedom Party is looking for an attorney to challenge parts of SB 6 and Proposition 14. They have a candidate who filed more signatures in lieu of filing fees than were required under the previous law but it is not nearly enough under the new law. Plus the amount of time to collect the signatures is 1/7 of the time in a regular election but there was no reduction in the number of signatures. Any election law attorneys out there.
#12 The amount of time to collect in lieu of signatures was the same for the SD 28 election as has been true for most special elections in California. The exceptions are when special elections have been delayed to coincide with statewide elections. There were no statewide elections available. And it really doesn’t seem to be good policy to deny representation to 900,000 Californians, so some would-be candidates have more time to gather signatures. California should be looking at ways to reduce the length of vacancies, as opposed to increasing the length of campaigns.
SB 6 did not change the number of in lieu signatures that were required to run for any office. And the number has been the same for both special and general elections. If 3000 signatures were too many signature to gather in a short period of time, then that has been true since 1974.
In Section 2(a) of Proposition 14, the People of California declared that SB 6 is intended to implement the Top 2 Open Primary amendment to the California Constitution.
Therefore, whenever there is any question or ambiguity in the interpretation of SB 6, it should be interpreted in a manner that implements and complements Proposition 14 rather than frustrates it.
Section 2(c) of Proposition 14 declares that existing registrations be converted to party preferences.
SB 6 added Elections Code 2151(d) to provide for the conversion of existing registrations. 2151(d) divides registrations into two classes: Those that were Declined To State; and those that declared a political affiliation. There is no distinction between those whose party affiliation was with a “qualified” party and those who had affiliated with another party.
Before Proposition 14/SB 6, California never denied a voter the right to affiliate with a non-qualified party. It did prevent parties that had not demonstrated a modicum of support from holding a primary or nominating candidates. It also prevented voters affiliated with unqualified parties from running for office as the candidate of their party. Instead, they were forced to gather 1000s of signatures and run independently of any party, including their own.
After implementation of SB 6, and in particular 2151(d), voters continue to be divided into two classes, those who have not disclosed a preference for a political party, and those who have disclosed a preference for a political party. With respect to voter registration, there is no distinction between qualified parties and non-qualified parties.
After Proposition 14/SB 6, California continues to maintain the party qualification standard for certain express purposes: (1) holding presidential primaries; (2) making presidential nominations; (3) electing party committees at the primary; (4) having their name on voter registration forms; and (5) having endorsements printed on the sample ballot.
Since there are no longer party nominations for partisan offices other than President, no party, qualified or not, makes nominations in an official state-recognized sense, and no parties hold primaries. In a sense, all candidates run independently of any party, after gathering 40 or 65 signatures. With respect to elections for voter-nominated offices, formal participation of qualified parties is limited to having endorsements printed on the sample ballot.
Once it is understood that California is simply continuing its existing voter registration scheme, all the changes in the Elections Code with regard to registration and party qualification can be understood as not making a substantive change, but simply recasting a “declaration of intent to affiliate with the party at an ensuing primary” to “disclosing a party preference”.
SB 6 added Elections Code 300.5 that defines a candidate’s party preference as that which he disclosed on his affidavit of voter registration. As a more specific definition, it overrides the definition in “party” found in Elections Code 338. That is, in the context of the definition of a candidate’s party preference, the definition of party found in Section 338 is not operative.
A candidate who has disclosed a political party preference on his voter registration may have that party preference appear on the ballot. Indeed, he may not have another party preference appear on the ballot, nor have a statement that he does not have a party preference appear on the ballot. His only other option is to have nothing appear on the ballot.
How many armies of lawyers are needed to change mere MORON State laws after a constitutional amendment is enacted and takes effect ???
Are ZILLION word constitutional amendments needed regarding BASIC stuff ??? — i.e. have ENTIRE election codes as constitutional amendments ???
Jim Riley
The San Diego County Law Library is currently being repaired. Therefore I could not look up Craig v. Brown
114 Cal 480. I then called up the Orange County Law Library and asked a reference librarian to look up the
case. She told me that none of the Parties was the California Democratic Party. The lawsuit was about the
status of the National Democratic Party and the party sued was Lewis H. Brown, California Secrtary of State.
I remember that the National Democratic Party in California got a total of 1,000 votes for their ticket
of two old “Gold Democrats”, viz, 79 and 73 years of age. Therefore, Ronald Reagan was not the oldest person
running for President. The age issue of Reagan in 1980
and 1984, was used in the press when answers came back about that race in 1896.
You stated that “no parties hold primaries”. I was informed that in 2012 the electors of the American Independent Party will hold the “direct primary” to elect members of its different county central committees. We have 58 county central committees in
California. It is my current understanding the AB 80
is going no where, because the Los Angeles Registrar of
Voters can not handle three elections on the same date
in June, 2012, Top Two Election, Presidential Preference
Election and the Direct Primary to elect the members of the County Central Committee of the American Independent
Party.
The librarian informed me that in 2010 there was a reprint of Bancroft-Whitney Company’s THE POLITICAL CODE
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS ENACTED IN 1872 & AMENDED
UPTO AND INCLUDING 1903, as published in 1905. I then looked on Amazon and noted the re-prints are going for
only $11 plus shipping. I thought you and Richard Winger would find this of interest.
My question is about the 1000 signature for persons not
electors in a qualified political party now under CA Election Code 2151(d). Signatures for what purpose,
viz., Dr. Don Grundmann and his mom reorganized the
Constitution Party of California from former electors
in the American Independent Party last year. 15 days
prior to the November, 2010 election the “political body” known as the Constitution Party of California
had a total 163 registered electors. What do they
need 1,000 signatures for? If I understand you correctly, non of that 1,000 signatures can come from
the 163 registered electors in the Constitution Party of California. How will SB 28 be effected by the changes in SB 6?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
C. D. Weber
What parts of SB 6 and Prop. 14 is the P&F Party problem
and why?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
There are as many candidates who are not affiliated with a qualified party contesting the vacancy in Senate District 28, as there have been in the previous 23 special senate elections in California.
This may be due to the reduction in signature requirements from 500 to 40. Far from banning such candidates from having their viewpoints shared with the voters, Proposition 14 and SB 6 have enhanced their opportunities.
Prior to Proposition 14/SB 6, candidates for partisan office could either be the nominee of a qualified party, or the nominee of a LARGE body of electors independent of any party. That is, it was not the candidate who was independent, but rather it was the voters who made the nomination independent of the auspices of a political party. Some or all of the nominating petitioners could be affiliated with a qualified party.
Note: depending on when Michael Chamness changed his voter registration from the Green Party, under the pre-proposition 14/SB 6 regime, he might not have been eligible to have his name appear on the special election ballot PERIOD.
Elections Code 325 (added by SB 6) does NOT define “independent status” as applying to minor-party preferring voters. It defines “independent status” to voters who have not disclosed a party preference (i.e. those who were formerly Decline To State). See Elections Code 2151(d) which provides for the conversion of voter registrations that occurred on January 1, 2001.
If Michael Chamness was registered as declaring an intent to affiliate with the Coffee Party at the ensuing primary (ie the February 2012 presidential primary), then under 2151(d) that should have been converted to a party preference for the Coffee Party. Failure of Debra Bowen or Dean Logan to follow the law does not invalidate the law.
It is an absurd construction by Gautam Dutta that if two persons had old registration forms and both filled in the blank with “Coffee Party”, but one was executed on December 31, 2010; and another on January 1, 2011 that one would be registered as having the intent to affiliate with the Coffee Party, which would have been converted to a preference for the Coffee Party; while the other would have his registration filed under No Party Preference.
Gautam Dutta misconstrues the purpose of Election Code 5002. The purpose of 5002 is not to characterize voter affiliations, but simply to specify how voter registrations are tabulated in the statement of voters. A voter’s party preference is what the voter says it is on his voter registration form. An application form must be signed, which indicates that the information, including party preference is truthful and correct. A voter could be subject to perjury charges if it is not. A voter’s party registration may be changed by one person, the voter themselves. Section 325 does not refer to Section 5002, but rather Section 2151.
Prior to SB 6, Section 2151 provided that a registrant could “declare the name of the political party with which that he or she intends to affiliate at the ensuing primary election.” Michael Chamness claims that he declared in 2010 that he intended to to affiliate with the Coffee Party at the ensuing primary election (February 2012). Section 2151 further provides that the name of that party (eg Coffee Party) shall be recorded on the affidavit of registration and the voter index.
SB 6 did not change Section 5002. So Dutta in effect argues that the Los Angeles County registrar had Chamness as being affiliated with a miscellaneous group, and not with the Coffee Party at all.
It is incredible that Dutta apparently believes that the State of California would set up a procedure by which a voter could declare a party affiliation, sign it, and be subject to perjury prosecution if that information was not truthful and correct, and then change that party affiliation to a something other than a party affiliation. And this was before SB 6.
Section 5002 sets up 4 classifications of voter registrations:
(1) Declined To State a Party Affiliation (Did not disclose a party preference);
(2) Affiliation with a (specific) party qualified pursuant to Section 5100;
(3) Affiliation with a (specific) political body formally declaring an intent to qualify as a political party pursuant to Section 5001;
(4) Affiliation with a political party other than those in classes (2) and (3). These registrations are mixed together in a single aggregation. But simply because they are counted in one total does not mean that are for the same party or not for a party.
If Section 338 was so significant, 5002 would not have to repeat that class (2) referred to qualified parties vs. simply “parties”. And Declined To State refers specifically to Decline To State a Party Affiliation. The three other classes refer to instances where a voter has stated his party preference or affiliation.
#17 California law provides that a candidate may pay a filing fee; or collect signatures in lieu of paying the filing fee. A candidate may also use a combination of signature and payments.
The filing for Senate is $952.91. The number of in lieu signatures is 3000. So a candidate could pay $952.91, collect 3000 signatures, or collect a combination of the two. $952.91/3000 is $0.3176 (roughly 32 cents), so if a candidate collected 100 signatures, they could pay $31.76 less of the filing fee.
SB 6 did not change this. The same procedure was used in the SD 1 special election last November.
There was another provision with respect to candidates who were seeking the nomination of their party. Instead of collecting 3000 in lieu signatures from all voters; a candidate could collect in lieu signatures from 10% of registered voters with a cap of 150 signatures. A candidate seeking the nomination of the American Independent party would have needed 150 signatures from 9,778 AI voters in SD 28. A candidate seeking the nomination of the Peace&Freedom party would have needed 150 in lieu signatures from party members. Since these signatures can also offset the filing fee on a pro rata basis, they are worth considerably more $6.36.
Under Proposition 14, there are no party nominations for senate, so this special deal for the 4 small parties no longer exists.
It should be noted that there was never a special deal for nonpartisan offices, such as county supervisor or superintendent of public instruction.
In 2010, if you had run for superintendent of public instruction, you could have paid the filing fee or $3,022 collected 10,000 in lieu of signatures.
If you had run for the American Independent nomination for insurance commissioner, you could have paid a filing fee of $2,783, collected 10,000 signatures from any voter, or collected 150 signatures from American Independent voters.
That leads to the number one question regarding signatures in lieu of filing fees. this question would require research to answer. How many Democratic and Republican candidates have qualified for any partisan office since 1974? One, two, three? If someone was able to qualify, did that candidate spend more money building their contact list by gathering signatures in lieu of filing fees than the filing fee itself costed? The point being, if the signatures in lieu of filing fees statutes were so difficult that that they were never or rarely used, those laws are unreasonable and probably unconstitutional. See Lubin v Panish 1974.
I suggest that the following changes be made to AB 80
340. “Presidential primary” is the primary election that is held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March in any year which is evenly divisible by the number four, and at which delegations to national party conventions are to be chosen.
1001. Elections held in August and November of each even-numbered year and held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of each
year evenly divisible by the number four are statewide elections and these dates are statewide election dates.
1201. The statewide direct primary shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Sunday in August of each even-numbered year.
Note, the use of Sunday ensures that the general election is exactly 13 weeks after the primary.
1202. The party central committee election shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in each even-numbered year.
1203. The presidential primary shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March in any year that is evenly divisible by the number four, and shall be consolidated with the party central committee election held in that year.
1000. The established election dates in each year are as follows:
(a) The second Tuesday of April in each even-numbered year.
(b) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of each odd-numbered year.
(c) The first Tuesday after the first Sunday in August of each year.
(d) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each year.
(e) The first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of each year evenly divisible by the number four.
In Division 7 (beginning with Sections 7000) change all references to “direct primary” with “party central committee” election, and make any other associated changes.
So the effect will be to move the open and nonpartisan primaries to August, 13 weeks before the general election.
The presidential primary will be moved to March, and be consolidated with the central committee elections. The central committee election in mid-term years will not be a statewide election, so that propositions and the like would not be voted on at that time.
#20 Carl Iannalfo, a Republican, apparently took out signature in lieu of petitions for special election in SD 17, but did not file. See Los Angeles county election web site which includes an address in Littlerock (near Palmdale).
#21 Any of the party hack gerrymander robots in the CA legislature have snail mail offices and/or email addresses ???
SEND them copies of your stuff — to END the moron court cases.
Jim Riley,
In your post # 21 you suggested an amendment to AB 80,
that would place the direct primary on the first Tuesday
after the first Sunday.
Please note California Election Code 7570. It states
that: “The State Convention shall meet biennially, at
a location designated by the State Central Committee,
at 10 a.m. on a Saturday following the direct primary
election, but in no event later than August 15.”
This would give a range of Sundays of August 1 through
August 9 to hold a State Convention no later than August
15.
The California Election Code already requires the AIP
to hold its convention and SCC organizational meeting
in one of the 25 communities in Sacramento County.
Getting a hall that is available is always a problem
in Sacramento County. Look what happened in 2006, The AIP State Convention did not happen until September 2, 2006, because of late certification of the Secratary of State. Then almost two years later Jim King sues
CA Secretary of State Bowen, because the organizational
meeting of the AIP State Central Committee held in the
Sacramento County Community of Rancho Cordova, was on
September 3, 2006. It should be noted here that Jim King claimed he was the Credentials Committee Chairman
for that organizational meeting. He tried to get the
the Sacramento Superior Court in 2008 to rule that organziational meeting void, because of the date and that Rancho Cordova was not in the city limits of the
City of Sacramento. However, the statute does not require the meeting within the city limits of Sacramento.
It only requires meeting in one of the 25 communities
of Sacramento County. Note the City of Sacramento is
not divided by communities only the County of Sacramento
is divided by communities.
William Shearer wanted the Delegates and State Central
Committee members to use the prior Friday and following
Monday of the convention to get out and lobby the state
legislature. That is why the events would take place in
Sacramento.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Jim Riley,
You need to go back to the calendar and come up with dates that would work. The AIP needs certain certifications from the registrar of voters of the 58
California Counties. How do you expect that certification to happen and then have the 58 different
County Board of Supervisors to vote within 3 days after
the election?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Richard Winger,
Jim Riley suggests that the election for County Central
Committees be held some time in August between August 3rd and August 11th. Can you explain how he can get around the problem that is caused because of California Election Code section 7680, viz., the county election official call for a meeting of the AIP County Central Committee on the “2nd Tuesday in July following the direct primary election?”
That would cause a gap of almost 11 month after the
election for members of the county central committee
to take office. What is your view on Jim Riley suggested date change for AB 80?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
P.S. I have seen major legal flaws with Prop. 14 and SB 6, but attorney Dutta is way off the mark in finding the
flaws of Prop. 14. If you can pass this on to Mr. Dutta
add the six quilified political parties to that lawsuit
as defendents and move the case to the correct venue of
Sacramento County.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
How about having the party hacks in each State dream up their own Bylaws about having party hack officers for internal clubby hack party stuff ???
P.R. and App.V. = NO party hack stuff is needed or wanted.
Michael Chamness apparently changed his party registration some time in 2010. In June 2010, Chamness was elected to the Los Angeles County Central Committee of the Green Party from Senate District 28. The election did not appear on the ballot since the number of candidates was less than or equal to the number of available seats. Since registration with the party is a requisite for running for the party committee, Chamness must have been registered with the Green Party in June 2010.
Nonetheless, for the illustrative purpose of this discussion, I’ll assume that Chamness changed his registration on January 26, 2010, so that Chamness would have been among the founders of the Coffee Party.
This was before Proposition 14 had been approved by the voters. While SB 6 had been approved by the legislature and signed by the governor in 2009, it was not operative unless Proposition 14 was approved by the voters.
Under the pre-SB 6 Section 2151(a) of the Elections Code, Chamness would have declared that he intended to affiliate with the Coffee Party at the ensuing primary election. The name of “Coffee Party” would have been stated in the affidavit of registration and the index.
Under terms of Section 2150(a)(10), Chamness would have stated that he had previously been affiliated with the Green Party. Under terms of Section 2150(b), he would have certified the content of the affidavit as to its truth and correctness, under penalty of perjury, by signing his name.
Based on Section 338, Gautam Dutta claims that Chamness was not registered with a political party. But 338 does not define “political party”. It defines a subset of political parties or organizations, namely those political parties that are qualified to participate in a primary.
In the April 9, 2010 report of registration (60 days before close of registration), Senate District 28 had 221,114 Democratic, 114,951 Republican, 9,238 American Independent, 2,833 Green, 2,516 Libertarian, 1,777 Peace&Freedom, 4,708 Other, and 99,821 Declined To State (a party) voters. Chamness would have been among the 4,708 Other voters, which also included three political parties that were attempting to qualify, (Federalist, Reform, and We Like Women parties). Voters registered with these latter three parties constituted only 13.6% of the Other voters in Los Angeles County. He would not have been classified among the 99,821 Declined To State voters.
As it turned out, the Coffee Party did not qualify to have a primary on June 8, 2010. While Chamness would have declared his intent to affiliate with the Coffee Party at the ensuing primary, his inability to affiliate at the primary was not caused by his actions. There is no reason to question the truth or correctness of his voter registration. Those who would claim that Chamness had declined to state his intent to affiliate, are in effect insinuating that Chamness would have committed perjury.
At the June primary, Chamness would have been eligible to vote in nonpartisan races: statewide ballot measures, including Proposition 14; the nonpartisan California superintendent of public instruction; nonpartisan county offices, include the Los Angeles sheriff, assessor, and county supervisor (District 3); 5 superior court judgeships; and a Los Angeles USD ballot measure.
Since he would not have been registered with one of the 6 parties participating in the primary, under the
terms of 13102(b), he could have requested a Republican or Democratic ballot.
13102(b) provided that “each voter not registered
as intending to affiliate with any one of the political parties participating in the election” may request a partisan ballot of a party that by rule authorizes 13102(b) voters to vote in their primary. In June 2008, two of the 6 qualified parties, the Democratic and Republican party had established such a rule.
Voters who had declined to state their intent, as well as those who had stated their intent to affiliate, but with a non-qualified party, would have been eligible to request a Republican or Democratic ballot.
Had Michael Chamness decided to seek election as state senator in November 2010, he would not have been eligible to be on the ballot.
He could not run in the June primary of any of the 6 qualified parties. He would not have been eligible to run in the primary of any of the 5 non-Green parties because he had been registered with the Green Party within the 12 months prior to when his declaration of candidacy would have been filed (by March 12, 2010).
He would not be eligible to seek the Green Party nomination because he would not have been registered continuously with the party for 3 months prior to filing his declaration of candidacy. Even if he had immediately changed his registration back to the Green Party on January 27, he would have broken his 3-month continuous registration with that party.
Chamness would not have been eligible to appear on the general election ballot on the basis of an independent nomination, since he had been registered with a qualified party within the 13 months prior to the November election.
Even if he had been eligible to appear on any ballot in 2010, Chamness would have needed 13,544 voters signing his nominating petition to qualify for the ballot.
It should be noted that SB 6 eliminated the durational restrictions on party affiliation. Under the old system, the parties in effect owned the candidates. Under SB 6, candidates own themselves, and their party preference is simply an expression of their own political beliefs. SB 6 also greatly reduces the number of signatures required for some candidates, in this case from 13,544 to 40 (a 99.7% reduction).
The senator from SD 28, Jenny Oropeza, died on October 20, 2010. California does not fill legislative vacancies that occur at the end of the term. However, Oropeza was posthumously elected to a new term on November 2, which resulted in a vacancy that began at the start of the new term on December 6, 2010. It is that vacancy, for the remainder of the term (until December 2014), that is being filled.
Since the special election is April 19, 2011, it is being contested under the provisions of SB 6. In California, the date of a special election is determined based on the date on which the governor issues his proclamation, the date for the special primary (Feb 15), and all the other filing deadlines are worked out going backwards. If any candidate receives a majority in the special primary, the special election is cancelled. But the calendar is still based on the putative date of the special election. In this case, since the election calendar transitions the operative date of Proposition 14 of January 1, 2011, the statutes are apparently being interpreted as if all aspects of the law were in effect as of December 16, 2011 when the governor issued his proclamation.
The first event to occur under SB 6, is the transition of voter registrations made prior to January 1, 2011 (or in this case December 16, 2010).
This is provided for by Elections Code Section 2151(d). Registrations where a voter Declined To State a party affiliation, were recast as No Party Preference. All other registrations (ie where the voter did state a party affiliation) were recast as disclosing a preference for that party.
There is no evidence that the registration of Michael Chamness was not recast from Declaring an intent to affiliate with the Coffee Party, to a preference for the Coffee Party. Santa Cruz County posts a weekly
update of registration statistics. Since January 1st, there is no drop off in miscellaneous registrations that would indicate any conversion of registrations to No Party Preference.
Since Chamness would now have disclosed a preference for the Coffee Party, under Elections Code 300.5 his party affiliation is the Coffee Party, and when he became a candidate his party affiliation as a candidate would also be Coffee Party.
Chamness has a choice of having “My Party Preference is the Coffee Party” or ” “.
If Dean Logan and Debra Bowen are messing up here, Chamness should file in court in Los Angeles demanding that they comply with the California constitution and statutes.
#24 I suggested moving the election of party committee members to March, to be coincident with Presidential primary in divisible-by-4 years. In the other even years it would a standalone. So there would be 3 primaries: (1) Direct primary for voter-nominated and nonpartisan offices; (2) Party central committee election; (3) Presidential primary. The schedule would be:
Mar 2012: Presidential primary and party central committee election.
Aug 2012: Direct primary
Mar 2014: Party Central Committee Election (by mail?)
Aug 2014: Direct primary.
Currently, the date for election of party officers is specified in each party-specific section of Division 7. Basically it says that they should be elected at the “direct primary”. This would be edited to say Party Central Committee Election.
There are other sections related to that, which are based on an assumption of an election in June. Those would be changed. Since the direct primary would in August, I would want the convention to occur then, so I would change it something like this:
“The State Convention shall meet biennially, at
a location designated by the State Central Committee,
at 10 a.m. on a Saturday following the Party Central Committee Election, but in no event later than July 15″.
This gets it done before the direct primary, but after new central committees are elected.
#27 The California Constitution requires election of party officers. Personally, I would remove that from the constitution, and rip out the clubby hack rules from the California statutes.
But it is easier to change the date of the elections, and does not preclude a more radical change to the constitution and statutes as a separate effort.
I suggested making the presidential primary and party elections in March. In both elections, party voters must be segregated. The direct primary for nonpartisan and voter-nominated offices would be moved to August, where all voters may vote on an equal basis.
# 30 Where is that Model State Constitution with ALL of the party hack clubby stuff blasted out of it ???
Hmmm. How many of the U.S.A. Const. Amdts starting with the 12th Amdt have to do with elections ??? — in some very slow effort to get REAL Democracy into the U.S.A. and State regimes.
P.R. and App.V. — before time runs OUT – and the gerrymander MONSTERS go on the march.
Jim Riley,
How do you think March, 2012 for the County Central
Committee election would work, with the lead time required to set the election up. First, there will
not be the track information in by March, 2011. One
need a year to set the program up for election. The
Los Angeles County Registrar of voters does not have
the staff to handle two election at the same date.
I am having a meeting with Dean Logan an others on his
staff on January 26, 2011. over the problems within AB 80.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
P.S., Back to my prior question, is it your view that the members elect to the Party County Central Committee
in August, 2012, will have to wait to July, 2013 to take
office?
#32 If the presidential primary and the party elections were merged, the party-specific ballots would be short, since there would be only two races on the ballot: President and Central Committee. In many cases, the central committee races are left off the ballot since there are fewer candidates than there are seats.
It is stupid to have the party elections at the time of the direct primary.
# 33 How about sending some mail or email to the top party -party hacks in the CA regime — esp. the top Donkeys and Elephants ???
P.R. and App.V. = NO primaries.
Jim Riley
Please explain why you believe it is stupid to have County CEntral Committee Elections at the time of the
direct primary?
TO Jim Riley and Richard Winger
Winger raised the issue of Secratary of State Lewis H.
Brown circa 1896 placing the ticket of two “Gold Democrats” on the ballot under the label of NATIONAL
DEMOCRATIC PARTY. In the end they only got 1,000 votes.
The California Political Code of 1872 as amended, my of allowed the SOS to place this second Democratic Party
on the ballot in 1896, but it would not be allowed now, because of California Election Code section 5001(a), viz., “The designation name shall no be so similar
to the name of an existing party. So as to mislead the
voters, and shall not conflict with that of any existing
party or political body that has previosly filed notice pursuant to subdivision (b).”
Just as there should no second party with the name
“Democratic”, there should not be a politcal party
with either the names “American” or “Independent”
either, since the AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY has been
a California political party since 1967.
This idea of placing the word “INDEPENDENT” after the
name of a candidate that was registered decline to state
a political affilation in the space for a quilified
political party is misleading to the voters.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Richard Winger,
I was informed that Carol Winkler is trying to intervene in your case on fighting Prop. 14/SB 6. Prop. 14 is very bad for the California electors and I want to do what to help it go away.
I am very concerned about this Carol Winkler, I see
her intervention try as a direct attack on the voters
of California, because she wants to force Dean Logan and
others to place the name of “Independent” after her name
when she is not registered in the American Independent
Party. I have no interest if it states “No Party Preference”, or just left blank.
The spot on the ballot for quilified Political Party is
just that. I believe the CA Election Code is clear, Section 5001(a) should control this issue, viz.,
placing the word “INDEPENDENT” is to similar to “AMERICAN INDEPENDENT” and would “mislead the voters”.
Therefore, I have set up a meeting in Dean Logan’s
office on January 26, 2011. After that meeting I
will try to get the Executive Committee of the American
Independent Party to deal with the issue of the
intervention of Carol Winkler. If she is able to intervene then EC will direct an attorney to file
the proper papers with the court this case is before.
Therefore, what is the current status of her try to get intervention in your lawsuit?
Remember, the Registrar of Voters in Imperial County takes the view that “American Independent” and “Independent” are “similar names” under California
Election Code section 5001(a). This view I am told is
taken by several county registrars of votes when ruling
on party status up the HAVA forms. That is one reason
the AIP party registration stands at 413,032 electors
in California 15 days before last November’s election.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman
American Independent Party
Mark Seidenberg, you pay a lot of attention to details. You must have noticed that there were three U.S. House candidates on the ballot in California in November 2010 whose ballot label was “independent”. Also there were independent candidates on the ballot for statewide office in California in 1976, 1978, 1980, 1988, 1992, and 2003. Also there were independent candidates for the legislature on the ballot in 2000 and 2006. So it is obvious that “independent” has always been a legitimate label in California even in years when the American Independent Party has been on the ballot.
Richard Winger
Please read California Election Code sections 8002.5 and
13105(a). It is not clear what Carol Winkler wants. Does she what the ballot by her name to state either
“My Party Preference is the Independent Party.” or does
she what printed in the blank space “INDEPENDENT”?
My main concern is calling her party preference “Independent Party”, when that would violate section 5001(a) of the California Election Code, because
it is similar to the “American Independent Party”, based
on rulings of the Imperial County Registrar of Voters.
It would mislead the electorate in the district she is
running in.
Next thing she would want to be seated on the central committee if she was elected under the “Independent Party” label when she filed out no statement of penalty
of perjury. On this point I believe Mr Jim Riley is correct.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party.
Richard Winger
This Carol Winkler is a non=issue, she did not make the
cut, so she could not try to claim a seat on the AIP
central committees (either county or state).
I expect Dr. Don Grundmann will coming on this post claim that I was out to keep Carol Winkler off the fake ballot and the fake Independent Party.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
#37 Those candidates were all nominated by independent bodies of electors, that is to say outside the auspices of the parties that were qualified to participate in primaries and make nominations.
The rationale for California’s election laws before 2011 was that it was the political parties that controlled the candidates, and to some extent even the voters (for example restrictions on political participation based on past political affiliation).
Political parties had to demonstrate a modicum of support before they had the opportunity to nominate or run a candidate in the general election. The partisan primaries were intended to insure that it was the voters making the nomination for the party.
The meaning of “Republican” next to a candidate’s name was not that he was a Republican, but rather that he was the nominee of the Republican Party.
If Abel Maldonado had won the Democratic senate primary for SD 15 in 2008, he would not have become a Democrat but rather would have been the nominee of the Democratic Party, in addition to being the nominee of the Republican Party.
California also had a system where large bodies of electors could make nominations, independent of the auspices of political parties. Individual voters would sign nominating petitions, and were forbidden from nominating any other candidate for the same office.
The meaning of “Independent” next to a candidate’s name was not that he was independent, but rather that he was the nominee of an independent body of electors.
Contrast this to the system used for nonpartisan offices. No candidates have a party affiliation on the ballot, no candidates have “Independent” next to their name because there are no nominations. Candidates qualify for the primary ballot with a quite modest number of signatures.
The Top 2 Open Primary eliminates the party nomination system, where certain parties are qualified to participate on the basis of having demonstrated a modicum of support (the qualified participation system is still used for presidential elections). Candidates qualify for the ballot with a modest number of signatures, and these might be voters who have a different party preference from the candidate. The political party as an object of a candidate’s preference is not an active participant in the primary, any more than doctors are participants in an election in which a candidate has designated his profession as “Doctor”.
A party that is the object of a candidate preference, is at best a passive participant. If a child pointed out the window of a car and exclaimed, “I like cows!”, the cow is not a meaningful participant in that process, even if a cow bothered to turn her head. It does tell you something about the child.
Clearly the political parties are not choosing nominees, and the candidates who advance to the general election are not nominated by parties.
The voters affiliated with a political party are not acting as members of the party electorate choosing who the party nominates in the general election. They are free to participate in the election by voting for the candidate of their choice regardless of political affiliation.
Does Michael Chamness have standing to intervene?
Michael Chamness was re-elected to the Los Angeles County Central Committee of the Green Party in June 2010. He would have necessarily been registered with the Green Party at that time.
He does not state when he changed his party registration, and the Secretary of State’s web site does not provide that information, despite the requirement that information be provided for the previous 10 years. But Chamness said that he decided to run in early November. It is quite possible that he changed his registration at that time.
If so, then under the pre-SB 6 regime, he would have been banned from appearing on the February 15th primary ballot, because he had been registered with a qualified party within the three months prior to his declaration of candidacy, and had not been continuously registered with that qualified party before his declaration.
If he could not have even qualified to appear on the ballot under the pre-SB 6 regime, and even if he could have legally qualified to appear on the ballot, been required to collect 1150% more signatures so as to secure the nomination of an independent body of electors, can he really say to be injured by SB 6?
Elections Code 325 does not define “independent voters” as having “No Party Preference”, rather it defines voters who had disclosed “No Party Preference” on their registration form, or who had previously Declined To State an intent to affiliate with a party, as having “independent status”.
All cats are animals, does not imply that all animals are cats.
Moreover, there is absolutely no basis for linking independent voters to “minor parties”. Even if Dutta’s reversal of 325 were valid, 96.5% of voters not registered with qualified parties were Declined To State, rather than affiliated with miscellaneous non-qualified parties (October 18, 2010 SOS report).
All mammals are animals, does not imply that all animals are cats.
An independent nomination refers to the manner in which the nomination is made, that is, it is not made by a qualified party in its primary. Any voter may participate in making an independent nomination, including voters affiliated with qualified parties. So clearly a voter who participates in making an independent nomination is not, by virtue of signing the nominating petition, a minor party voter.
Some cats and dogs performed at a particular pet show, does not imply that some dogs are cats.
And even if Section 325 had said “Voters who did not express a preference for a qualified party, have independent status”, it is not clear what effect that has. There are no references to “independent status” in the Elections Code, nor any uses of “independent” that refer to voters. Perhaps it is intended to guide federal regulators in their interpretation of California election law.
Jim Riley,
I have not checked the effect of Prop. 14/SB 6 on the
word “Independent” on the HAVA generated form for PARTY.
Therefore after the effective date of Prop. 14/SB 6
word “Independent” for party have any new meanings?
In your reading of California Election Code sections 5001(a), 8002.5, & 13105(a),with the interpretation
that “Independent Party” listing on the HAVA voter application form mean the subscriber was intending
the party registration as “American Independent Party”
(ala view of the Registrar of Imperial County), and
that elector become a candidate for public office,
under the “top two system” as now in place in California, and was one of the 413,032 electors of
the American Independent Party (15 day before the
2010 general election), would the law require the
party name on the ballot American Independent Party
or just Independent Party?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
# 42 ALL Elector-Voter HUMANS are doing the top 2 nominations.
The party hack gangs of extremist dogs, cats, etc. are OUT of business — like the divine right of kings and slavery gangs in earlier centuries.
P.R. and App. V. = NO primaries are needed.
The current HAVA form (as of January 12, 2011) say that a voter who does not want to have a party affiliation should fill in (Item 7) with “Decline To State”. It provides the further instructions:
“California law allows voters who “decline to state” an affiliation with a qualified political party or who affiliate with a nonqualified political party to vote in the primary election of any qualified political party that files a notice with the Secretary of State allowing them to do so.”
That is, California clearly makes a distinction between “decline to state”/”no party preference” voters and voters who affiliate with a nonqualified party.
The HAVA instructions do not list the qualified parties. The phone number in the HAVA instructions does not provide information about the qualified parties, nor which parties are permitting voters to vote in the February 2012 presidential primary – though that may be premature.
The instructions for California were last updated March 1, 2006.
A voter may affiliate with a non-qualified party. While California could regulate non-qualified parties, it has not chosen to do so. The UK at one time did not regulate political parties, and some candidates ran as “Literal Democrats” as a parody of “Liberal Democrats”. The UK now regulates political parties, in part to protect against possible voter confusion.
In the UK, use of words such as “Royal”, “King” which suggest endorsement by the Crown are not allowed. So if California were to have similar regulation, it might forbid names that indicate they are government entities might be forbidden (eg California Treasury party).
Names of the parts of the country that are unqualified are not allowed, “British Party”, “Britain Party”, but can be used unless they modify the name of another party. So if there were a Democratic party, a British Democratic party would not be allowed.
California might forbid use of California, as well as county and city names that were not qualified. So California Party, Los Angeles, and Chino parties might not be allowed, while a Big Sur party would.
In the UK, use of “Independent”, “Official” or “Unofficial” as a stand-alone name is not allowed. It may be used to modify a name, as long as that is not the name of another party. So if California were to adopt a similar law, “Independent” party could not be used nor “Independent Republican”, “Official American Independent”, “Unofficial Green Party”. “California Independent” could be legal.
California could also restrict names to a certain length, and might prohibit confusing names, such as “America Independence” or “Independent American”.
California currently does not regulate the names of parties which a voter may affiliate with, and thus does not regulate the names of parties that a candidate for a voter-nominated office might use. This is certainly a regulatory void that you might want to have the Legislature address.
5001(a) only applies to parties that seek to qualify to hold presidential primaries and make presidential nominations, election party officers, make endorsements on the sample ballot, and similar functions. It does not apply to voter-nominated offices. So a candidate who disclosed a preference for the Independent Party could have “My Party Preference is the Independent Party” on the ballot.
Libertarian Party v Eu is not applicable to the Top 2 Open Primary.
The California Supreme Court did not define an independent candidate as one who is independent of the qualified political parties. It said it is not inaccurate to describe candidates who qualify by the independent nomination process as being independent of the qualified political parties, because they had been nominated by a process that was independent of the nomination process used by qualified parties.
They further noted that while David Bergland and Jim Gallagher may have been affiliated with the Libertarian Party, those voters who had nominated them may not have been. In fact, in some(most?all?) cases it would be impossible for a candidate affiliated with a non-qualified party to secure an independent nomination without the support of voters not affiliated with that party. For example, in November 2010, 13,544 signatures were needed for an independent nomination for the senate from SD 28. Even if all 4,864 Other voters were Coffee Party voters, that would be almost 9,000 signatures short. Even if all Green, Libertarian, and Peace&Freedom voters were to sign the petition of the Coffee Party candidate, the nomination petition would still be 1,294 signatures short.
If there were enough Coffee Party voters in SD 28 to make an independent nomination, then it is quite likely that there would be enough Coffee Party voters statewide to qualify the party.
Libertartian Party v Eu was based on the California Supreme Court’s interpretation of the California Constitution, Article 2, Section 5 and Elections Code Section 10210 as it existed in 1980. Proposition 14 amended Article 2, Section 5 to make a distinction between partisan offices and voter-nominated offices. For voter-nominated offices there are no partisan nominations and no independent nominations (except in those rare instances when a primary fails to nominate any candidates). So not only may the qualified parties not make nominations, bodies of electors acting independently of the qualified parties may not make nominations.
The only remaining partisan office in California is President and Vice President. If a Coffee Party candidate wished to be on the ballot in California, either the Coffee Party would have to secure enough registrants to become a qualified party, or the candidate would have to secure enough signatures on nominating petitions to be nominated by a body of electors acting independently of the qualified parties. For those candidates “Independent” would appear next to the name of the candidates, even had they been nominated by the national convention of the Coffee Party.
For voter-nominated offices a different process is used to qualify for the ballot. For a legislative office, a candidate gathers 40 signatures of voters in his district, and pays a filing fee. Unlike for partisan offices, those 40 signatures do not have to be from members of the same party. All candidates qualify for the primary, regardless whether or not their party has qualified to participate in partisan elections.
Jim Riley
Thank you for the above reply. Do you know which of the
four California counties Carol Winkler was registered to
vote in, viz., Kern, Ventura, San Bernadino, or Los Angeles for her try run in the 17th Senate District?
I am talking about the old HAVA form.
If CW stated “Independent” for party on the old HAVA form, and there is no such thing as a “nonqualified
party”, by the name of “Independent Party”, her county
registrar of voters may do the same thing that the
“Imperial County Registrar of Voters did and rule that
CW intended to become an elector of the “American Independent Party”.
I have seen HAVA forms filled out as “P&F” for party,
and “GOP” for party. The registrars have placed “P&F”
as an naming the “Peace and Freedom Party” and “GOP”
as the “Republican Party”, just as “Independent” is
classed as “American Independent”. It goes to what the
registrars of voters for the counties view the electors
intention was.
The concern I have is if CW wanted to be listed on the
ballot as Independent it would be misleading to the
SD 17 electors, if she had made the cut.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Richard Winger,
I do not know which county of the four above named counties CW was registered in, or if she wrote the
word “Independent” on a HAVA form for “party”?
On the normal form “American Independent” is printed
for “The American Independent Party” the parties real
name. Most people have the IQ to fill-in the box
for the party they want. However, a good number can
not fill out any form correctly.
The GOP pick in the 2010 run for California Secretary
of State could not correctly fill out his voter registration form. He wrote his date of birth for his
registration date among other errors. The Orange County
Registrar of Voters Clerk during the primary period,
informed me that when I called to her attention that
the document was not properly done, agreed with me, but
stated it was to late and suggested I take the matter up with the District Attorney.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,Vice Chairman
American Independent Party
Richard Winger,
It is my view that Prop. 14 is very bad for the electorate of California.
I do not understand why you would let your attorney,
Gautum Dutta, file a Motion to Intervene for MS Carol
Winkler.
I have talked with Mr. Dutta and he is a fine man.
The American Independent Party Central Committee backed
the no vote on Prop. 14. I worked with Miss Tobin on that effort.
Ms. Carol Winkler wanted to have the Supreme Court of California to order the Registrars of the Counties
of Los Angeles, Kern, Ventura, and San Bernadino, to
place after her name or below her name in eight-point
type (CA Election Code section 13105(a)) “My party
preference is the Independent Party”.
“Independent Party” is unknown in California. Again,
15 days prior to the 2010 election, Secrtary of State
Debra Bowen, stated that 413,032 persons were registered in the “American Independent Party”. Part of that number stated on their STATEMENT OF REGISTRATION HAVA form as an INDEPENDENT PARTY electors.
It is unclear, if MS. Winkler was trying to get a seat on the County Central Committee of the American Independent Party if she would have won the election
for 17th State Senate District.
Therefore, I need to know what is going on. Is Miss Winkler one of these 413,032 registered electors that
Secrtary of State Bowen stated was in the AIP 15 days
before the November, 2010 General Election.
Therefore, the AIP needs to pull the unredacted Statement of Registration of Carol Winkler. I as of now do not want to visit three additional cities other than Norwalk, viz., Ventura, San Bernadino, and Bakersfield. I will be visiting with Mr. Dean Logan and
Mr. Efriam Escobedo on January 26, 2010 at Norwalk, CA.
Therefore, when Mr. Dutta asked you if he could get your
permission so he could be Ms. Winkler’s attorney for the
motion to intervene, did he tell you which of the 4 counties she was registered in using the party label of
“independent”? If so, would you post it here or in the
alternative send me an e-mail with just the county name.
Thank you.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
to located her Statement of Registration