On March 24, the California Secretary of State determined that Americans Elect may qualify as a political body in California. A “political body” in California is a group that has identified its officers, and which says that it is trying to qualify as a political party.
By contrast, in 1995, a former California Secretary of State had ruled that the Independence Party could not qualify as a political body in California. The law says that a new party’s name “shall not 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 previously filed notice.” The American Independent Party has been qualified in California since 1968.
The Secretary of State had also, earlier this year, approved political body status for American Third Position. Back in 1896, the California Supreme Court had ruled that the National Democratic Party was permitted to use that name, despite the fact that the Democratic Party was on the ballot.
Americans Elect is now trying to qualify as a political party in California with the petition procedure, which is so difficult that it has not been used since 1947-1948. It requires a number of signers equal to 10% of the last gubernatorial vote.
What ideology or philosophy or other motivation is the Americans Elect party based on?
It seems to me that its politics are centrist. It says it only wants to run a presidential candidate, and not candidates for other office. I am guessing that the backers of Americans Elect fear that the 2012 Republican nominee will be someone who is conservative on social issues, such as abortion and the role of religion in the public sphere.
Richard Winger,
This is news to me. When did Secretary of State Bowen
approve the name of either Americas Elect or American Third Possission. I have not yet concluded that Bowen notice to the County Election Official is an approval
of the name.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
#3, I talked to someone in the Secretary of State’s office this morning. She explicitly told me that the Secretary of State had approved the party names. Presumably she did so on March 24, the date the Secretary of State sent the notice to the counties, telling the counties to keep track of how many voters register into Americans Elect.
That seems like a common sense decision to me. The name, “Americans Elect” is not that close to the name of the American Independent Party. Allowing that name to be utilized should not cause confusion to any reasonable person.
How many parties had *socialist* in them once upon a time ???
Which MORON State has the most classifications of parties ??? new, old, big, small, wannabee, etc. — i.e. ALL Separate is NOT equal stuff.
CA ???
Phil Sawyer
You are not looking at it correctly. It is to confusing to the voters. American and American Independent Party was confusing to the most voters
in the 1976 election. That why the American Party was not allowed on the ballot in California. The American
Centrist Party was so confusing to American Independent Party voters they changed its name to the Whig Party to
end the confusion. It is now unclear why Debra Bowen wants to confuse the voters, by clearing the American
Third Position Party. Has she violated her oath of office, by overlook the clear meaning of California Election Code section 5001(a)?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
To Mark Seidenberg (#7):
Actually, the American Party could not have been on the ballot in California, in 1976, because it did not have enough party registrants. The American Party (and Constitution Party) candidate for president that year, Tom Anderson, received 4,499 votes in the Golden State as a write-in candidate.
Furthermore, the name “Americans” (in Americans Elect) is not the same as the name “American” (in American Independent Party). As a matter of fact, the name “Independence Party” (as mentioned above in Richard’s main post) is not all that close to the name “American Inpedendent Party”. It seems to me that it was a real stretch by the California Secretary of State to disallow its utilization. All ended well, though, because the name finally chosen, “Reform Party,” was a better anyway.
It is true that people can easily look at this situation in different ways. I will grant you that it is probably something that reasonable people can differ over. I do not think, however, that any reasonable person who seriously studies his or her ballot information can be confused about these names just because they are a little bit alike.
What I meant to write in paragraph two above, of course, was “a better name anyway” – not “a better anway.”
Some terrific guidance you afforded here, some I agree with a few not really with others.