On May 23, briefs were filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles in Chamness v Bowen, the case that challenges two particular aspects of California’s top-two election system (the ban on counting write-ins, and the discriminatory policy that lets some candidates show a party label, but not others). Here is the state’s brief. Here is the brief of former Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado, who has intervened in the case.
The state’s brief is interesting because it includes a copy of the sample ballot from the May 17 special U.S. House election in the 36th district. The intervenor’s brief is interesting because of its scornful, hostile tone. It says the rights at stake are “trivial” and “minor”. It opens by misquoting Albert Einstein, implying that the plaintiffs are “insane” for trying to win this case on summary judgment even though they did not succeed in getting injunctive relief earlier. They suggest that the attorney for the plaintiffs should be sanctioned because he didn’t discuss Burdick v Takushi in his brief. The intervenors also cite a case from Iowa in which the 8th circuit upheld Iowa’s failure to let people register as members of unqualified parties on voter registration cards, but they do not mention five other cases in which courts held that states must let voters register into unqualified parties.
Separate is NOT equal.
Each election is NEW and has ZERO to do with prior elections- except perhaps the number of voters in the election area involved in the prior election.
— regardless of ALL of the INSANE stuff in the courts since 4 July 1776 — esp. by SCOTUS since 1968.
i.e. what if a group of folks went on a boat to a new area and then had a FIRST election ??? — think the VA folks in 1607 or the MA folks in 1620.
Way too many MORONS in the courts on all sides.
P.R. and App.V. === NO primaries are needed or wanted.
Also —
ALL voters doing nominations or SUBGROUPS of voters doing nominations.
Since when can an arbitrary sized X percent SUBGROUP claim a *right* to do nominations by such SUBGROUP ???
The ENTIRE election process is NOT atomic physics.
Electors-Registration
Candidates/Issues on ballots
Get ballots to Electors
Vote ballots
Voted ballots to counters
Count ballots – declare results
Armies of New Age super-MORONS have been mystifying the process for about 150 plus years – in laws, executive actions and esp. in the courts — i.e. a growing political INSANITY in Western Civilization.
The Secretary of State makes an erroneous interpretation of Elections Code 338, and interpreting it as conveying “participation rights” onto (qualified) parties in all primaries, and that somehow there was a created “right to be preferred” for qualified parties.
Section 338 simply defines the use of the term “party” when used in the Elections Code. This definition is to be used, according to Section 4, unless the provision or context requires another otherwise. With regard to voter registration of a party preference, the context requires otherwise.
Under California statutes prior to SB 6, party affiliation of a registered voter was not limited to affiliation with a (qualified) party. The whole scheme of qualification of parties (barring the petition method) is based on voters registering their affiliation (or intent to affiliate) with a party at the next primary. We do not know which parties will be qualified at the next primary. The Democratic party might be deemed abandoned under the terms of Section 5101. New parties such as the Coffee Party may become qualified. There is no basis to distinguish between a voter who intends to affiliate with the Democratic Party and one who intends to affiliate with the Coffee Party. Both voters completed a voter registration affidavit, making a declaration of their intent to affiliate with a party, and signing it, subject to perjury charges, that the information contained is truthful and correct.
Both voters, are in turn distinguishable from those (prior to SB 6) who had Declined To State their intent to affiliate. This distinction is made crystal clear by SOS CC/ROV Memorandum #10032 issued 9 March 2010, where county election officials were told that voters affiliated with unqualified parties could request a Republican or Democratic ballot for the 2010 primary. Because DTS voters do make up the overwhelming share of voters not affiliated with a qualified party, the entire class of voters is sometimes referred to as DTS voters.
It is the legislative intent of Proposition 14, that existing voter registrations declaring an intent to affiliate with party be recast as party preferences. SB 6 implements this conversion in Section when 2151(d) where it only Declined To State registrations that are converted to “No Party Preference”. All other party affiliations are to be converted to party preferences for the same party.
SB 6 made numerous amendments to the voter registration sections of the Elections Code, but none of these make a structural change to the qualification scheme. Declined To State is recast as No Party Preference. Declaration of Intent to Affiliate With a Party Preference at The Next Primary is recast as a Party Preference.
Simply stated, a “Party Preference” is NOT restricted to only a Preference for Qualified Party.
As far as I can tell (and it can be determined as a matter of fact):
Michael Chamness around the first of November 2010 declared an intent to affiliate with the Coffee Party at the next primary. He signed the voter registration affidavit, to certify that it was truthful and correct.
Dean Logan would have filed the affidavit, and tabulated it with other registrations. If the Coffee Party attempts to qualify, Logan would also tabulate the affiliation as a Coffee Party affiliation. If the Coffee Party qualifies, Logan would tabulate it as a Coffee Party affiliation. But regardless how it was tabulated, Chamness’s intent would not have changed.
On January 1, 2011 Chamness’s declaration of intent to affiliate, under terms of Section 2151(d), would have been deemed to have disclosed a preference for the Coffee Party. Logan would continue to tabulate that preference in the same manner as before.
When Michael Chamness ran for Congress he had the option to “indicate his or her party preference, or lack of party preference, as disclosed upon the candidate’s most recent [affidavit] of registration, upon his or her declaration of candidacy.”
The legislature deliberately defined “party preference” to be that disclosed by the candidate on their voter registration. Michael Chamness had a choice either to have “My Party Preference is the Coffee Party” or ” ” appear on the ballot.
For some unknown reason, Dean Logan and Debra Bowen denied him that choice (the use of ” ” is the same as the Elections Code provides for the occupation/profession/office designation. A candidate does not have to specify a designation. If he does not, it does not mean that he is unemployed or has no profession.
The intervenors did not quote Albert Einstein. It noted that the aphorism had been attributed to Einstein, which it has. One certainly wonders why the plaintiffs continue to file the same motions over and over in different courts, failing even to correct their pleadings with regard to the term, “major” and “minor” party, even though Chamness was until recently not only affiliated with a “major” party he was an elected member of is Los Angeles Central Committee. Frederick is a vice chairman of another “major” party in Sacramento County.
Is Gautam Dutta stupid? That is, he doesn’t recognize that “major party” has no meaning in California, even though his error has repeatedly been pointed out to him.
Is Gautam Dutta dishonest? Is he trying to deceive the courts, through use of misleading terminology?
Or is he insane, incapable of recognizing that he is engaging in deception.
What other possible explanation is there?
Footnote 2 in the intervenors’ brief is incorrect. As noted in CC/ROV #10032, voters affiliated with non-qualified parties were permitted to vote in the primary of a qualified party if that party deigned to permit them.
Very efficiently written post. It will be helpful to anybody who utilizes it, as well as yours truly :). Keep up the good work – can’r wait to read more posts.
Again – for NON-CA Einstein election law folks —
Perhaps a list in under a million words of —
Candidate / party Classifications
1. before Prop 14
and
2. AFTER Prop 14.
When, where, and why did election law become a branch of atomic physics — even too difficult for Einstein to understand ???