The Constitution Party no longer enjoys qualified status in California, so the party is taking steps to make it possible for its 2012 presidential nominee to be on the California general election ballot. Earlier this month, the party sought a ruling from the California Secretary of State on whether out-of-state circulators are permitted, at least for an independent presidential candidate petition.
Although California law bars out-of-state circulators, and even out-of-district circulators, the California Secretary of State already ruled that she would not enforce the laws that restrict circulators for district office from working outside their home district. Also, the 9th circuit ruled in 2008 in an Arizona case that states cannot bar out-of-state circulators, and California is in the 9th circuit.
Also, Gary Odom, national Field Director for the Constitution Party, and a former Californian himself, has called on all Constitution Party activists and members in California to change their voter registration from “American Independent” to “Constitution.” If the Constitution Party could persuade 103,004 Californians to list themselves as Constitution Party members on voter registration forms, it would become ballot-qualified.
The lawsuit in which the faction of the American Independent Party that is loyal to the Constitution Party argues that the Secretary of State has recognized the wrong state party officers is still alive, however.
Pingback: Constitution Party Makes Preparations to Get 2012 Presidential Nominee on California Ballot | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
Since most readers of BAN do not care to go back to previous posts, I’ll cut and paste my post of several days ago and reask my good friends in the CP the question of “if Congress approves (as they have the power to do under Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 3), may states enter into an Agreement to set up a Social Security System, Medicare System, and even a Health Care System? If not, why not?”
I think the reason I’m getting no answers is that many – if not most – of the CPers are really “Conservatives” and are not true “Constitutionalists.” They hide behind the Constitution to practice their true cold-hearted doctines of not allowing the government – even at the state and local level – to “provide for the…general welfare…”
Am I right CPers? If I’m wrong explain why?
But on a more kinder note from my previous post, I cannot understand why the CP does not enter it’s own candidate in the AIP Pesidential Primary in 2012? Despite the new “Top Two” law, it is my understanding a Presidential Preference Primary will still be held in California in 2012 for all ballot-positioned parties. It is also hard to believe the current AIP leadership can find a candidate who could beat a strong “CP-endorsed” candidate. Didn’t the CP-endorsed candidate for Governor – Chelene Nightingale – beat the so-called AIP-endorsed candidate in the AIP Primary last year and was the CP-AIP nominee for Governor in California in 2010?
It took George Wallace thousands of dollars and numerous petition volunteers in 1967 to first establish ballot position for the AIP. Do the CPers have access to that kind of money – and a candidate who has the popular appeal that George Wallace did? I doubt it.
#3, the presidential primary of the AIP (and, actually, all presidential primaries for minor parties) is not legally binding. Furthermore, the California Secretary of State will ask the state chair of the AIP which presidential candidates to list on the AIP presidential primary ballot, and it is very unlikely the chair recognized by the Secretary of State would ever list anyone backed by the Constitution Party.
Alabama Independent… I suspect you are correct about most CPers really being conservatives rather than constitutionalists. It is too bad they have control over the name since it is a good one that most Americans can relate to.
If the AIP has all these members, why did their 2008 presidentail candidate in California get such a low voter total out of ther membership. Those voter registrations are probably just independants and would not make the switch to join another party.
Richard; I realize what you are saying about the current AIP leadership not cooperating with the CPers in California. However, I still think it is foolish for them to attempt to re-register over 100,000 new members into the CP. Unless someone can donate a million dollars to them, they will never do it. George Wallace had a hard time of it, even with his popularity at the time and with the thousands he had to spend and the volunteers to sign-up new members or to convince members of other party members to become AIPers.
What the CPers should do is “dig in” and work until they eventually control the state central committee of the AIP. It may take them 5 or 10 years, but eventually they could do it.
But, it’s their money and their disappointment if that is their decision.
To RJsays: You are right, most AIPers are acutally “independent” but this is good – not bad. This is an asset that most 3rd parties would love to have. Those “independents” registered in the AIP will help the AIP stay around and keep its ballot access a long time – despite their showing in election results.
The same can be said of Republicans and Democrats. Most people who are registered as Republican or Democrat or not “doctrinaire” Republicans or “doctrinaire” Democrats – but have through family voting histories, or convience, or living in a one party state (as the South used to be) they are Democrats or Republicans by circumstances.
What is a shame about the current AIP in California is its leadership which appears to be “clueless” on how to build a party. Too bad Bill Shearer is no longer around.
To Casual Bystander: You see the CPers just as I do. They still live back in a 1776 mindset, and our nation would suffer immensely – militarily, politically, and economically – if they ever won power. We’d be a “3rd world country” within a generation because they refuse to understand that Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 1 DOES give the government – federal, state and local – the right and authority to do WHATEVER is necessary to provide for and promote the general welfare – a general welfare that is essential to guarantee not only a strong Defence, but an industrially strong, a physically healthy, and a well-educated nation of citizens so we would be able to remain as an independent and sovereign nation.
They just “don’t get it.”
As yet, none of them has answered my question of, “if Congress approves (as they have the power to do under Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 3), may states enter into an Agreement to set up a Social Security System, Medicare System, and even a Health Care System?”
I really don’t expect an answer and will not hold my breath waiting on one.
I wonder if Gary Odom and the CP will be successful in California; getting 103,004 Californians to list themselves as Constitutionalists is going to be a very tall order
Cody, you are right – especially when you are asking people to join a party that holds archaic economic views regarding present day reality.
Aren’t there something like 300,000 voters registered AIP? How much do voter registration lists cost in California? If it’s something typical like a penny a name, they’re looking at a few grand just to buy them.
Then start going through phone books looking up numbers and calling voters. Gonna need lots of people with unlimited calling plans. Organize this by county.
One person making 20-30 calls an evening works out to a couple hundred calls per week, perhaps a thousand a month.
The CP has over 100 people registered there already, so if everybody got diligently involved, a complete telephone canvass could be made in a few months. For people with unlisted numbers, send out postcards.
Chelene Nightingale got over 150,000 votes, so the like-minded voters ARE there.
I’d like to hear from Gary on this
#4 Elections Code 6523
I’m still waiting on an answer to my question to any CPer posed in the #9 post.
To illustrate how meaningless the AIP presidential primary has been in California, in 2008 Don Grundmann won the AIP presidential primary. Grundmann is with the faction in the AIP who supports the national Constitution Party. But when it came time for the Secretary of State to decide whom to list on the November 2008 ballot, she picked the other faction and listed Alan Keyes. I doubt she paid the slightest bit of attention to the results of the AIP presidential primary.
AI, that part of the Constitution does give Congress that authority, yet the way they have used that authority it doesn’t necessarily make it viable and conformist with other parts of the Constitution.
That said, you need to stop stereotyping CP’ers; we don’t all think alike and not all of us like how the national platform is worded the way it is now.
And second off, many of us are working hard to build the party and spread our message while you’re here bitching about how the CP could do this and that when you don’t do jack shit to save this country; you’re almost as bad as Mark Seidenberg.
Do me a favor- before you point out the mote in your brother’s eye, first pull out the one in your own eye.
Do us all a favor and take a course on logic ………
# 13 Cody Quirk: May 22nd, 2011:
“I’d like to hear from Gary on this ……”
———- Oh course you want to talk to Gar. He’s a lawyer! Oh, a disbarred attorney!
My trans lation read, ‘pull out the BEAM from your own eye’
…….. and in cursive on the inside flap ‘Space Cadet Captain Coty Banks is a doo doo head!’
# Jeff Becker Says: May 21st, 2011:
“Chelene Nightingale got over 150,000 votes, so the like-minded voters ARE there.”
[Lake: All to gether class, ‘knee jerk protest vote’!
Do us all a favor and take a course on logic ………
= Do us all a favor and stop wrapping toilet paper around your head, as well as take a few high school classes on English
———- Oh course you want to talk to Gar. He’s a lawyer! Oh, a disbarred attorney!
= Saith the incompetent veteran constantly kicked out of nursing homes for his insanity and antics. At least Gary can take care of himself, unlike you.
Cody Quirk. You have no idea of what I am doing to help save this republic.
Which is what?
Cody Quirk: Stay tuned. You will soon learn of my activities.
Ah so – Alabama Independent is really one of the Koch brothers. Spend that $22 billion!
The CP’s main problem is the CP. It was in 1994. It is in 2011.
Donald R. Lake. The CP’s main problem also is that they think we are still living in an agrarian society in 1776. If they’d stop reading so much “capitalist” propaganda, and study some in depth history of this nation, they would see that “unbridled capitalism” has caused the problems the common people have had to endure ever since 1776.
“unbridled capitalism” has caused the problems…
Nope, he’s not a Koch. He’s got George Soros commie pinko blood.
I’m pretty sure that qualified parties in California get given a copy of the voter registration list.
However, calling up people who are registered under the American Independent Party banner and asking them to switch their registration to the Constitution Party is not likely to get much in the realm of results. Most people who are registered under the American Independent Party banner in California don’t have a clue what the party is and they think that they are registered as indepedents. Also, when you call people, the biggest anwser you are going to get is that nobody will anwser the phone. Most people now have voice mail, so you can leave messages for them, but many of these messages will get deleted without people even listening to the entire message, much less actually following what the message says or calling back.
If the Constitution Party wants to get ballot status in California, they are going to have to do two things.
1) Raise money and hire people to go out to public places and ask people to register to vote under the Constitution Party’s banner (although the Democrats who dominate the California legislature are trying to make this illegal right now).
2) Get their volunteers to go out in public places and ask people to register to vote under the Constitution Party’s banner. The 103,000 plus registrations needed is too high to realistically accomplish with just volunteers, but if volunteers could get a few thousand registrations it would be a few thousand less registrations that they’d have to pay for.
The best thing for the Constitution Party in California would be if they could re-take the American Independent Party through the courts. It really does sound to me like you guys got ripped off by those Alan Keyes hijackers. This was grand theft.
I cannot agree that “unbridled capitalism” is the cause of our problems. I am afraid Alabama Independent will find little comfort with either the CP or the LP if he (or she) favors some kind of central planning.
You’re right Andy; Even I admit this is a tall order.
I hope the national Party is prepared to do this, even though it indeed would be better and easier to simply try to regain control of the AIP and its leadership.
Cody Quirk. Now you are talking some common sense. The CP should attempt to regain control of the California AIP and its leadership. I understand there is a process which allows such. The problem is many of the CP folks in California act like children, and when they lost “control” of the AIP leadership – probably from not being on the ball and guarding that leadership – they go off and “pout” and have some wild dreams of getting over 100,000 voters to re-register as CP members – when common sense says they are not going to accomplish such. I hope the more reasonable and level-headed CPers in California will do whatever is necessary to get the party back under their control. Isn’t the state central committee still elected in the AIP Primary? If so, the CP faction should run candidates for the committee spots who stand with the CP and keep supporting such candidates in election after election until they control the state central committee again.
But as I have said so many times, “3rd partisans are their own worst enemies.”
The CP should be it’s own party and not some hijacked organization, like the AIP. If the CP has support, they can become their own party in California and not simply a line on a ballot.
I haven’t the slightest of what David Says is saying. Does anyone else?
Duh, ah, may be that the AIP crowd and the CP types are poles apart on personality and details. A blend of such may be like water and oil and (obviously) unsustainable.
The fact that Alabama admits to ignorance on AIP and CP tells more about him than realities on the west coast.
The old AIP was a one family deal and a top down semi fascist oligarchy. Except on abortion, you never knew what the real deal was with them, until after the event! [Day be players!]
# 9: I do not see anything in Art. 1, Section 10, Paragraph 3 that would prohibit the states from establishing a social security system or other similar social systems. The 10th Amendment grants the States and the people the right to create and establish such social systems. This drives more power down to the local level as opposed to being centrally-located (at the Federal level).
“This drives more power down to the local level as opposed to being centrally-located (at the Federal level).”
Don’t you mean the NATIONAL level? There is no federal level. Federal is a system of government which includes national, state and local. The complete misuse of the term really makes for confusion.
Craig M. Says makes some sense. I agree with this assessment and have for decades. States have these rights anyway, but to make a Social Security, Medicare, or Health Care System workable and seemless, there would need to be some cooperation between the states. Thus the provision of Art. 1, Sec. 10 Paragraph 3 would allow just for that without the federal government getting involved.
But of course the CPers and the LPers are against it regardless. Because, I believe, deep down in their hearts, they are “anti-people” especially people who are down on their luck or who have slipped through the economic crack. They are actually “conservatives” and many of us know the real definition of a Conservative. A real Conservative, in my opinion, is one who is “self-centered,” “somewhat greedy,” and sort of lives by the “law of the jungle,” i.e., “let the fittest among us survive.” Sounds like a little “economic Darwinism” too.
Wow! I completely misjudged you, Alabama Independent.
Casual Bystander. Am I to take your comments as a compliment?
Actually, neither compliment nor criticism. I had simply misunderstood you political persuasion from reading past posts. I try not to judge others’ political beliefs if they are arrived at honestly and through self study. We can all derive different conclusions from the same data.
Casual: Sorry, I should have said Federal Gov’t. I will be more careful in the future since I often say “at the local, state, or federal level” when I should say “local, state, or national level”. The basic point I wanted to make is that the 10th Amendment gives the States numerous powers that are not enumerated to congress. I have read Alabama Independent’s comments for years and a lot of common sense is in his/her comments and has been for a while. I thought for a while that AI was in the Constitution Party, but now I am not sure. I left the GOP in the summer of 2005 and officially joined the Constitution Party in Dec of 2006. I think AI makes a good point regarding “conservatives” and “constitutionalists”. There are somethings I may not like in the US Constitution but I cannot partake in “buffet-style” Constitutionalism. I would like to get rid of the income tax but understand that a wave of the magic wand will not work. It will have to be removed Constitutionally or Congress can render if fairly meaningless by passing a law making the tax rate 0%.
Casual Bystander. Yes, my political beliefs are arrived at honestly and through self study. For you to acknowlege this is a compliment. I respect the same of others – if they too have arrived at their views with proof – not theories. Years ago I realized that most people just believed what was told them by their parents, neighbors, co-workers, and friends. They didn’t bother to investigate themselves – they just gobbled it up as gospel truth. Most people like this couldn’t really defend their views if their life depended on it.
And to Craig M, let me further enlighten him that I am not a member of the Constitution Party – but would consider joining it if they would read and accept all of the Constitution – not just the 2nd and 10th amendments as most of them only do. I know they hate to hear anyone say or write this, but the Constitution of the United States DOES allow for a social system of government if properly organized as the Constitution outlines and gives the people the right to do.
I wonder if the CP would accept me as a delegate for it’s next Convention? I’m not holding my breath.
Constitution Party – but would consider joining it if they would read and accept all of the Constitution ……….
not just the 2nd and 10th amendments as most of them only do
Lake: aint dat da truth, aint dat da truth ……..
Yes, they could. Provided that such powers exercised are reserved to that particular state under said state’s constitution.