On May 6, Michael Chamness filed his motion for summary judgment in Chamness v Bowen, the federal case against two particular details of the California top-two system. The case attacks California’s discriminatory policy on ballot labels. It also attacks the new California law that says even though write-in space is to be printed on the ballot in Congressional and state office November elections, and even though the ballot doesn’t warn voters that any write-ins won’t be counted, in fact write-ins cannot be counted.
No declaratory judgment on either of these complaints has yet been issued by any California court, state or federal. The only action so far has been a denial of injunctive relief in various California special elections that have been held this year. Proponents of the top-two system, including almost all of California’s large daily newspapers, have generally not reported on these particular details about the top-two law, and have given little publicity to this lawsuit.
Again — write-ins — See 14th Amdt, Sec. 2.
How many write-ins in 1866-1868 ???
“Proponents of the top-two system, including almost all of California’s large daily newspapers, have generally not reported on these particular details about the top-two law, and have given little publicity to this lawsuit.”
At CAIVN, which does support top two, I have covered this lawsuit in some depth in recent months!
Can a *party* of ONE person get the person’s name on the ballots ???
If the courts say yes, then expect an instant const amdt in the gerrymander CA legislature to de facto wipe out third parties and independents.
#3, the Coffee Party is not a “party of one”. It has national officers and thousands of members.
#2, you’re right, and I was being careful when I said “newspapers” but didn’t include blogs!
# 4 Can a *party* of ONE person get the person’s name on the ballots in CA with the party label of such *party* ???
The courts in CA (Fed and State) need to know — YES or NO ???
IF YES, then how many zillion candidates wanting a *party* label will there be ???
IF NO, then what is the magic arbitrary number for the number of persons in such *party* to get *party* candidates on the CA ballots with such *party* labels ???
How many genius judges are there in CA ???
Prior to January 1, 2011 Michael Chamness could not have run as a minor party candidate. California does not recognize major and minor parties. The term “major” and “minor” party as applied to California elections is a fevered concoction of Chamness’ lawyer Gautam Dutta.
He could have secured an independent nomination by filing a petition with many more signatures than required by party candidates (there have only been 12 independent congressional candidates at general elections in California since Richard Winger has been eligible to vote in around 1000 elections, because of this ballot access barrier).
Further, but for SB 6, Michael Chamness would have been barred from having his name appear on the ballot for the special election for SD 28, because he had been recently registered with a Dutta-described “major party”, and had even been a member of its county central committee.
It is an abject lie that SB 6 did not confer new rights to vote on politically independent voters. In fact as recently as June 2010, the Dutta-described “major party” that Chamness was then affiliated banned participation by independent voters, and even those affiliated with the Coffee Party.
Prior to Proposition 14/SB 6, California did not permit candidates of unqualified parties appear on the ballot. It permitted candidates who secured nomination by accumulating massive number of signatures independent of any party to appear on the ballot. “Independent” was not a description of the candidate, but rather who nominated the candidate. See Libertarian Party v Eu Even though Michael Chamness was affiliated with the Green Party in 2010, he could have secured the nomination of any (or all) of the 6 qualified parties. Richard Nixon was the nominee of both Republican and Democratic parties when he was elected to Congress in 1948. Michael Chamness could not have run as an “Independent” in 2010.
Lucy Killea had to get the statute changed to permit her to run for re-election as an independent candidate. Further it was her dissatisfaction with the partisanship of the California legislature that led her to run as an independent. Contemporary news reports indicate that she had great interest in the Top 2 Open Primary used for determining the general election candidates for the Nebraska legislature.
It is hypocritical of Gautam Dutta to cite her election as a virtue of the corrupt partisan primary system.
Thanks Richard 😉
Pre 2011 stuff is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant — might as well be from the time of Adam and Eve or Noah’s Ark (for Bible fans).
Like worrying now about the pre-13th Amdt EVIL slave codes in the EVIL slave States.
Elections Code Section 325 doesn’t mean anything. If the legislature changed “Independent Status” to “Baloney Sandwich”, there would be ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGES NECESSARY to conform the statutes to the new definition.
Further under the terms of Elections Code 2151, Michael Chamness does not have “No Party Preference”.
Chamness has claimed that he is affiliated with the Coffee Party.
This presumably means that sometime in November 2010, he filed a new registration affidavit specifying his intent to affiliate with the Coffee Party at the next (the 2012 presidential) primary. It is not known at this time whether or not the Coffee Party will qualify to hold a primary or not, but Chamness was still legitimately expressing his intent. Chamness would have signed his affidavit to cerify that it was truthful and correct, subject to prosecution for perjury.
When Dean Logan received that registration affidavit, he would have struck Chamness from the count of Green Party registrants, and included him among the other party affiliations (ie NOT as Declined To State voter). If (when) the Coffee Party files its notice of intent to qualify, Logan will tabulate the registration as an affiliation with the Coffee Party.
On January 1, 2011, Dean Logan under terms of 2151(d) would have changed Chamness’ registration from “intent
to affiliate with the Coffee Party at the next primary” with “Prefers Coffee Party”.
So Michael Chamness does not have “Independent Status” under terms of Section 325, even if “Independent Status” had any meaning.
If something else happened, it is only due to the vagueness of Michael Chamness’s claim that he is “affiliated” with the Coffee Party. It is little wonder that Gautam Dutta is resisting having Michael Chamness deposed before any hearing.
comments #6,7 and 8 each have misleading statements. The old California law would not have barred Michael Chamness from running for Congress in the 36th district congressional election. The old law required Chamness not to have been a member of a qualified party 3 months bfore the election, and Chamness meets that requirement.
Under the old law, Chamness would have needed 500 signatures, which is not so terrible.
California substantially eased independent candidate ballot access in 1976, so comments about what the law was before 1976 are not relevant.
It is not a “abject lie” that Prop. 14 and SB 6 confered no new rights on independent voters. Prop. 14 and SB 6 eliminate partisan primaries by which parties nominate candidates. Under the old law, independent voters in California could participate in major party primaries for Congress and state office. Now they can’t, because no voter can any longer help a party choose a nominee. The only right that independent voters have in California now is to help decide which two candidates get to run in November, for congress and state office.
I am reminded of the scene from Walt Disney’s “Cinderella”, in which the ugly stepsisters rip up Cinderalla’s gown, because the pearls, ribbons and sashes had been fished out of the wastebasket by Cinderella’s helpers, the birds and mice. The ugly stepsisters didn’t want those pearls, ribbons and sashes anymore, but they couldn’t stand to have Cinderella using them. Groups that supposedly represent the interests of independent voters, like Independent Voting and Independent Voice, were so outraged that some voters were enjoying themselves helping choose partisan nominees, that Independent Voting and Independent Voice destroyed the whole mechanism by which parties choose nominees via the ballot box. So now we have the major parties doing their best to choose their nominees with “party bosses” in “smoke-filled rooms.”
Footnote 52 is totally erroneous. Libertarian Party of California v Eu did not define an independent candidate as a minor party or non-qualified party candidate. That case simply recognized that a nomination by a body of electors without regard to their party affiliation, independent of the qualified party primaries, was an “independent nomination” and that “Independent” on the ballot was not inaccurate.
Elsewhere in his brief Gautam Dutta has noted the election of Quentin Kopp and Lucy Killea as Independent candidates. So Dutta is claiming that they were actually the candidate of a minor party or non-qualified party. So which minor party or non-qualified party were Kopp and Killea the candidate of? Both are still living, so it should be easy enough for Dutta to determine.
Elections Code Section 325 does not mandate that voters who have “independent status” (whatever that means) must register as “No Party Preference”. It says that voters who register as “No Party Preference” are said to have “independent status”, though the remainder of the elections code is absolutely silent on the effect of a voter having “independent status”.
Moreover, Libertarian Party of California v Eu noted that the signers of the qualifying petition could be be registered with qualified parties. A registered Republicans or Democrats who signed the petition of the Libertarian candidate were acting independently of their party affiliation. It did not mean that they had no party affiliation.
It is true that if a candidate states on their voter registration card that they have “No Party Preference” they must use “No Party Preference” on the ballot (or have nothing). But Chamness claims to be affiliated with the Coffee Party. What actions did he take to affiliate with the Coffee Party? Maybe this is why Dutta doesn’t want Chamness to be deposed?
Tom Ammiano finished 2nd as a write-in candidate in the general election for mayor of San Francisco in 1999. His name appeared on the runoff ballot. There was a case decided by the California Supreme Court that Richard Winger did not have a right to vote for a write-in candidate in the runoff in that same 1999 mayoral election. That election has the closest resemblance to the current SD 4 special election as to format.
SB 6 relaxes the rules for a write-in candidate in the primary qualifying for the general election for a voter-nominated office.
Daniel Frederick could have run as write-in candidate in the SD 4 special primary, and if he had finished in the Top 2 (and the winner did not receive a majority) would have appeared on the special general election ballot. Rich Wilson could have voted for him in the primary, and the special general (runoff) if he had qualified.
Long Beach requires term-limited incumbents to run as write-in candidates. There have been candidates re-elected as write-in candidates. I don’t know why Gautam Dutta cites the case of a failed candidate. California has a similar provision for congressional candidates on its statutes, though it is of course unconstitutional.
Elections Code Section 8606 does not ban write-in votes being counted in all state and federal elections.
The Elections Code has a procedure for write-in candidates may declare their intent to run, and have their votes counted. SB 6 did not change that procedure. Daniel Frederick should not have relied on the advise of the Secretary or State, but rather should have (attempted to) file and then sued the election officials in whatever county he resides.
The term “person whose name has been written in upon a ballot” is used in Elections Code Section 8605. It does not say that the votes should not be counted, but rather instructs how the number of write-in votes should be interpreted after they are counted.
If Daniel Frederick had filed as a write-in candidate, votes for him would have been counted. Daniel Frederick would not have been “counted”. I have no idea what that means. Perhaps it means he could not be elected. I think he would have had a good case. At minimum he would have been able to contest the election.
Because Daniel Frederick did not take actual steps to become a write-in candidate, I think that part of the case should be severed, especially since Gautam Dutta never raised the issue in federal court.
Michael Chamness was the state party boss of the Colorado Green Party, and was a member of the Los Angeles County Green Party central committee. Daniel Frederick was (is?) the vice chairman of the Sacramento County Peace & Freedom Party.
According to the Dutta-definitions both the Green and Peace&Freedom parties are “major parties” in California. Isn’t it dishonest for Dutta, Chamness, and Frederick to claim that they are looking out for the interests of “minor” parties, when they benefit from the discriminatory barriers against non-qualified parties.
For non-CA folks —
What, if anything, allegedly happened on 1 Jan 2011 regarding any change in the status of Electors-Voters and parties in CA ???
Any FRAUD going on in the courts regarding any such Electors-Voters and parties ???
— i.e. any LIES in court papers ??? — generally grounds for discipline and/or disbarment for lawyers.
How many folks trying to game the election law system ???
What genius will clean up the CA Elections Code — to remove or amend any dubious language ???
Michael Chamness registered as a member of the Coffee Party last year. He is still registered that way.
The sovereign Electors in CA in 2010 enacted the below —
[Bracket numbers added for each sentence]
Where is any definition of a *political party* or a *party central committee* in the CA CONSTITUTION ???
IF such definitions are NOT in the CA Constitution, then can there be a mere LAW having such definitions ???
See question 5 above.
How soon before the courts clean up the mess ???
On to P.R. and App.V — NO MORON primaries are needed or wanted for ANY office.
——————-
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 5.
[5.1] (a) A voter-nomination primary election shall be conducted to select the candidates for congressional and state elective offices in California.
[5.2] All voters may vote at a voter-nominated primary election for any candidate for congressional and state elective office without regard to the political party preference disclosed by the candidate or the voter, provided that the voter is otherwise qualified to vote for candidates for the office in question.
[5.3] The candidates who are the top two vote-getters at a voter-nominated primary election for a congressional or state elective office shall, regardless of party preference, compete in the ensuing general election.
[5.4] (b) Except as otherwise provided by Section 6, a candidate for a congressional or state elective office may have his or her political party preference, or lack of political party preference, indicated upon the ballot for the office in the manner provided by statute.
[5.5] A political party or party central committee shall not nominate a candidate for any congressional or state elective office at the voter-nominated primary.
[5.6] This subdivision shall not be interpreted to prohibit a political party or party central committee from endorsing, supporting, or opposing any candidate for a congressional or state elective office.
[5.7] A political party or party central committee shall not have the right to have its preferred candidate participate in the general election for a voter-nominated office other than a candidate who is one of the two highest vote-getters at the primary election, as provided in subdivision (a).
[5.8] (c) The Legislature shall provide for partisan elections for presidential candidates, and political party and party central committees, including an open presidential primary whereby the candidates on the ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States, and those whose names are placed on the ballot by petition, but excluding any candidate who has withdrawn by filing an affidavit of noncandidacy.
[5.9] (d) A political party that participated in a primary election for a partisan office pursuant to subdivision (c) has the right to participate in the general election for that office and shall not be denied the ability to place on the general election ballot the candidate who received, at the primary election, the highest vote among that party’s candidates.
SEC. 6.
[6.1] (a) All judicial, school, county, and city offices, including the Superintendent of Public Instruction, shall be nonpartisan.
[6.2] (b) A political party or party central committee shall not nominate a candidate for nonpartisan office, and the candidate’s party preference shall not be included on the ballot for the nonpartisan office.
[5.4] (b) Except as otherwise provided by Section 6, a candidate for a congressional or state elective office may have his or her political party preference, or lack of political party preference, indicated upon the ballot for the office [[[ in the manner provided by statute]]].
Gee a standard GIANT loophole in the [[[brackets]]] ???
Gee – what do the courts do with ANY mention of *statute* in a Constitution ???
#16, Daniel Frederick is a plaintiff with respect to the write-in portion of the suit. He does not have to be a member of a “minor” (Dutta’s definition) party to raise that issue. Also, there is no dishonesty involved in supporting Chamness with respect to the ballot labels issue, even though he is not himself directly harmed by it.
As Richard has already pointed out, Chamness is no longer affiliated with the Green Party, and has not been for many months.
#18 Are you saying that Michael Chamness completed a new voter registration affidavit stating that he intended to affiliate with the Coffee Party at the next primary election (which at that time would have been the February 2012 presidential primary), and that he signed the affidavit to certify that it was truthful and correct, subject to perjury charges?
Did Dean Logan discard this new affidavit? Did he cross out “Coffee Party” and write in “Declined To State”? Apparently not, because you claim that Chamness is still affiliated with the Coffee Party, and that Dean Logan and the State of California recognize that affiliation.
On January 1, 2011, did Dean Logan in executing Elections Code Section 2151(d) change Chamness’s registration to “No Party Preference” or did he convert his “intent to affiliate with the Coffee Party at the next primary” to “prefers Coffee Party”? Apparently, Dean Logan changed it to “prefers Coffee Party” because you claim that Chamness is still affiliated with the Coffee Party.
These are simple fact issues, which can be resolved by deposing Chamness and Logan. I don’t understand why Dutta is opposed to this.
If Chamness is indeed NOT registered as having “No Party Preference” according to Elections Code Sections 2151 and 2154, then he does NOT have “Independent Status” according to Section 325.
Is there any other place in the Elections Code where the term “independent status” is used other than Section 325?
Is there any rational or logical basis for inverting the definition of Section 325 in the bizarre manner that Gautam Dutta is doing? Would any person of sane mind really interpret Section 325 as saying that if a voter affiliated with a non-qualified party had happened to become a candidate for a partisan office, and would have under terms of the law at that time had the “Independent” label foisted upon them, that now when they merely attempted to register with a non-qualified party that it would be changed to “No Party Preference”?
What did Michael Chamness state as his party preference on his declaration(s) of candidacy?
Why do Dean Logan and Debra Bowen continue to group candidates for voter-nominated office by their party preference? Is there anything in Proposition 14 or SB 6 that would lead them to have regard for party affiliation in this manner?
#20 California provides in statute for party registration. Before 2011, a voter in California could register with any party regardless whether it was qualified to hold primaries and have nominees on the ballot. Formally, a voter was declaring their intent to affiliate with a party at the next partisan primary election. Voters could also Decline To State their intent to affiliate.
The preamble to Proposition 14 provided that existing registrations would be converted to party preferences. SB 6 included Elections Code 2151(d) provided that “intents to affiliate with …” would be converted to “party preference”. “Declined To State” to “No Party Preference”.
Other parts of SB 6 provide that a voter’s party preference becomes a candidate’s party preference, and that the candidate’s party preference be indicated on the ballot in the following manner.
“My Party Preference is _____ Party”
or
“No Party Preference” for candidates lacking a party preference.
Candidates may also have ” ” (this option is required because State’s may not compel disclosure of party preference, but only require that it be accurate).
#21 Daniel Frederick should have attempted to file as a declared write-in candidate. It is questionable whether he has standing since Dean Logan certainly did not prevent him from filing as a write-in candidate.
There is no reason to add an additional claim to the Los Angeles lawsuit at this time, when the issue is still being considered in the California courts. Since Chamness is no longer seeking injunctive relief there is really no reason to proceed with the federal case at this time.
Daniel Frederick is not seeking to be permitted to run as a write-in candidate. He is seeking to have SB 6 and Propostion 14 from being used. As a party boss of a “major” party this would reintroduce the barriers to independent candidates. His participation in the law suit is dishonest and disingenuous.
Since when can ANY mere State law cause ANY part of ANY State Constitution to be UN-constitutional ???
i.e. SB 6 versus Prop 14 — #19 above.
How much dope, sun, earthquakes, floods and fires in CA — regarding plaintiffs and their lawyers ???
#25 When a court finally figures out what Gautam Dutta is seeking, it may put the kibosh on the whole business.
Dutta doesn’t really care about write-in votes, and he doesn’t care whether Chamness can have Coffee Party appear on the ballot. Candidates like Chamness would be positively harmed if Dutta were successful, and the ballot access signature requirements increased by 25-thousand percent. Remember that Daniel Frederick is a party official of what Dutta has characterized as a “major party”, and Chamness was similarly positioned until recently (he at one time was chairman of the Green Party in Colorado as well). The lead plaintiff in the original case was a high official in a government workers union. Unions such as that are opposed to the Open Primary because they can’t control the process as easily as the Democratic Party primary.
The lawyer for Michael Chamness, Gautam Dutta makes the following bizarre claim:
SB 6-amended Elections Code §325 mandates that all voters “of independent status” be listed as having “No Party Preference”. Further, if a candidate’s voter registration card states that he or she has “No Party Preference”, his or her declaration of candidacy must also state that he or she has “No Party Preference.” SB 6-amended Elections Code §8002.5(a). Finally, if a candidate’s declaration of candidacy states that he or she has “No Party Preference”, then “No Party Preference” must be printed beside his or her name on the ballot. SB 6-amended Elections Code §13105(a).
Here is what Elections Code 325 actually says:
325. “Independent status” means a voter’s indication of “No Party Preference” as provided in Section 2151 and Section 2154.
Dutta’s tortured interpretation of this section is that it is not defining the term “independent status” as used in the elections code, but rather that if someone has “independent status” then he must indicate “No Party Preference” when he fills out his voter registration card (Sections 2151 and 2154 specify the form and interpretation of the voter registration affidavit that voter’s complete when they register, or update their registration status – name, address, party affiliation, etc.).
Since Dutta appears incapable of interpreting Section 325 (found in Division 0.5, Chapter 4, Definitions) as a definition, he looks to Libertarian Party of California v Eu for a definition. But he misinterpreted that decision. In that case, two candidates were seeking to be listed as “Libertarian” on the ballot, but were forced to be listed as “Independent”. The court found that was not a inaccurate description, since the nomination was not made by a party, but by voters acting independently of any party. As the California Supreme Court noted, signatures made on petitions of independent nomination may be made by voters registered with major parties (such as the Green and Peace&Freedom parties) as well as unaffiliated voters. Signing the petition does not make the voter an independent, it simply meant that he and other signers were acting independently of their party affiliation.
Partisan nominations are made by parties. They do not necessarily indicate the party affiliation of the candidate. In 1948, Richard Nixon was the nominee of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Dutta might claim that this gave Nixon “Democratic Status”.
It is unclear when Dutta believes that a voter’s registration is changed to “No Party Preference”. Is it when he decides to run for office? Or is when he registers because any voter is potentially a candidate? And precisely where is the voter “listed” (Dutta claims Elections Code mandates voters with “independent status” be “listed”). If Michael Chamness is affiliated with the Coffee Party, where is he listed as No Party Preference, and where is he listed as Coffee Party?
Maybe Dutta is using a colloquial usage of “means” as when a cartoon character holds up a fist and says, “this means trouble”.
But instead of the stand-on-one’s-head, cross-eyed, viewed-in-dim-lighting interpretation of Elections Code Section 325, let’s try something simple.
Section 325 is in the Chapter devoted to definitions. Therefore when it says, “‘Independent Status’ means …”, it is equivalent to “The definition of the term ‘independent status’ is …”
If a voter indicates “No Party Preference” on their voter registration affidavit, it means they have “independent status”
That is simple, and makes sense. Someone who does not have a party affiliation can be said to be independent.
Since Michael Chamness did not indicate on his voter registration affidavit that he had “No Party Preference” (nor that he “Declined To State” his intent to affiliate at the next primary), but rather that he was affiliated with the Coffee Party, he does not have Independent Status.