On September 2, Assemblyman Paul Fong, chair of the California Assembly Elections Committee, amended one of his own bills to provide that write-in space should no longer be printed on general election ballots for Congress and partisan state office. The bill, AB 1413, originally made small changes to the campaign finance laws, but all the original parts of the bill have been deleted.
Because the original bill has already passed the Assembly, and the Senate Elections Committee, no committee hearing will ever be held on the newly amended bill. California election law, ever since 1891, when the first government-printed ballots were created, has always provided for write-in space for partisan office. Assemblyman Fong’s attempt to delete write-in space is a sharp break with tradition. Anyone who supports the freedom for voters to cast a write-in vote should telephone Assemblyman Fong’s office at 916-319-2022 and ask him not to eliminate write-in space on November ballots for Congress and partisan state office. Or e-mail him at Assemblymember.Fong@assembly.ca.gov. If Fong wants to eliminate write-in space, he should have the courage to introduce a new bill on the subject, so that public hearings on the idea would be held.
Another new, unrelated part of AB 1413 give special favorable treatment to incumbent members of Congress and the California legislature. It says that a Member of Congress and a state legislator’s domicile is deemed to be whatever residence address that member of Congress or state legislator lists on his or her voter registration form. However, people running for Congress and the state legislature would get no such treatment, and would continue to be forced to tell the truth about where they live when they fill out a voter registration card. Thanks to Dave Kadlecek for the news about AB 1413.
Sad. Business and politics as usual in the Golden State. The power-hungry politicans always seem to have a trick up their sleeves or whip out yet another shenanigan to stay in power.
I think there is a reasonably straightforward alternative to eliminating spaces for write-ins. It is essentially a sore loser provision: you can’t be a qualified write-in candidate in the second round if you ran in the first round and lost. That solves the problem that banning write-ins purports to solve in the Top Two framework. But it makes it possible for voters to have someone to vote for when one or both Top Two finalists are proven to be crooks during the summer.
Which robot party hack gerrymander MONSTER is NOT an ENEMY of the People — i.e. an ENEMY of Democracy ???
Perhaps such ENEMIES noticed the write in victory of Ms. Murkowski in Alaska in 2010 ??? Duh.
See 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 in the nearly dead U.S.A. Const.
P.R. and App.V. — before such ENEMIES really go EVIL nuts.
You want it to be “possible for voters to have someone [else] to vote for when one or both Top Two finalists are proven to be crooks during the summer”? Have the primary in September.
#2 – I didn’t think this through very carefully, and am grateful to Richard Winger for showing me (in another forum) why I was wrong. My proposal does not prevent a party that has no candidate in the second round from putting up a write-in candidate who did not run in the first round. Such candidates would sometimes be viable because of vote-splitting.
In reality, accepting the “logic” of Top Two creates a seemingly persuasive argument against counting write-ins. It’s really a fundamental problem with Top Two itself.
#4, September primaries are things of the past, due to congress requiring states to mail overseas absentee ballots at least 45 days before the November election. With a September primary, the votes wouldn’t even all be counted before the November ballots would need to be printed and mailed.
Typical, sell the voters on the top 2, but then add the restrictions.
#2 That is what Washington does.
Fong should amend his bill to delete Elections Code 8606 and add a new section following 8600.
“No person who was a candidate for an office contested at a primary election shall be a write-in candidate at the general election.”
California should move its primary to September.
I’m don’t think that you are correct regarding the change to Elections Code 2026. There must have been some court case or situation that they are attempting to address.
The existing section 2026 says that a Representative in Congress or member of legislature shall be conclusively presumed to be domiciled at the residence on their voter registration. This is likely intended to head off a claim that they really live in Virginia or Maryland or Sacramento.
Fong should be put in prison for proposing the change in Section 7100. Instead there should be a section that says that a political party that can’t figure out how to choose its presidential electors without the State of California telling it, should no longer be a qualified party.
The changes to Section 2151 appear to be intended to discourage registration with currently not qualified parties. There should be a requirement that voter registration forms have a line Other: followed by a blank line instructing the voter to fill in the name of the party.
There is no reason to move the No Party option from the front of the list of parties to the end of the list.
[ ] No Party
[ ] American Independent Party
[ ] Democratic Party
[ ] Green Party
[ ] Libertarian Party
[ ] Peace and Freedom Party
[ ] Republican Party
[ ] Other: ___________________
#7 They are probably trying to sabotage it. Remember that Dean Logan was the original named defendant back in aught 5 when the Washington litigation began. He caused the case to be lost in federal district court, and it is only through the valiant efforts of the illustrious Sam Reed and Rod McKenna that it was saved. He moved on to LA and ends up as the named defendant who prevented Michael Chamness from stating his party preference.
The proposed change to Section 8040 should be considered an admission that my interpretation of party affiliation is correct. Any correspondence between the Secretary of State and Fong should be subpoenaed.
There is absolutely nothing in Elections Code 8002.5 that would support the instructions placed on the form.
Did someone who stated an affiliation with the Reform Party in 2000 “decline to state an affiliation with a qualified party”? What about those whose affiliation with the Peace & Freedom Party during the period it was not qualified.
Does Fong really think that someone who says that they are affiliated with the Reform or Coffee Party is “declining to state they are affiliated with the American Independent Party or any of the other currently or prospectively qualified parties?” while those who “Decline To State” are declining to state that they are affiliated with the Peace & Freedom Party or any other party qualified or not?”
And besides the form violates the California Constitution by having regarding for the party affiliation of the candidate, because it makes a distinction on the basis of party affiliation.
Fong is proposing the wrong solution to a death after the primary. He leaves the provisions for non-partisan offices.
If there is a death of candidate before the primary or general election, the general election for that office should be cancelled, and a special election held for that office. It should be in November if there is time, and as soon as possible otherwise.
This bill is the logical extension of top-two. Jim Riley’s consternation is myopic, coming after so much boosterism…what did he expect?
Richard, have you ever considered moving out of Cali.?
It has gotten so anti-third party and ridiculous in that state that you should do what I did and move the f**k out of that craphole.
We have known for months that Fong or one of the other members of the Elections and Redistricting Committee was going to gut a bill and add new language that would remove the write-in lines from the general election ballot. They reason that if a write-in candidate qualifies as a write-in candidate it would no longer be top two and a write-in candidate may receive enough votes that a majority vote is not received by anyone.
#15 Anyone with a wisp of a clue would recognize that this bill is not a logical extension of Top 2. Washington does not restrict write-in candidacies in a general election, other than to prevent failed candidates in the primary from being candidates in the general election.
#17 The changes being proposed are indicative of an effort by the Secretary of State to “clean up” the language to conform to her misinterpretation of the law.
Jim Riley,
It is not clear to me in your posting about EC 7100 changes?
At your post # 13 it states a reference to the Coffee Party or the Reform Party in some contects with the AIP.
I am lost by the connect in your posting. Please explain.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party
How many gerrymander robot party hacks has it taken to write the zillion words in the CA Election Code ???
P.R. and App.V. — NO primaries.
#18 Top-two is about restricting choice. Otherwise you’d be pushing for IRV or STV.
#22 IRV has nothing to do with STV.
Many voters are incapable of handling choice on a instant runoff ballot. They can’t comprehend the ballots or they make stupid choices. They make their 3rd choice the same as their 1st choice. Or they waste their extra preferences.
If the main choices for what to have at the company picnic are hamburgers, chicken, or hot dogs; and they are asked what if their favored choice of chickens is eliminated, they will vote for chocolate covered squid. If they return to a second election, they will be capable of making a considered choice between hamburgers and hot dogs.
#20 Did you read AB 1813? The current version says that the Democratic nominee for Congress chooses the presidential elector from his district. Since there is no longer a Democratic nominee under the Open Primary, the proposed change says that the top Democratic vote getter in open primary gets to choose the presidential elector. Why can’t John Burton simply pick 55 persons to be the presidential electors? What business is it of yours as a California citizen to be telling the Democrats how they should choose their presidential electors?
AB 1813 includes a new form for candidates filing for offices. It says that if a voter who runs for office declined to state a preference for a qualified party on their voter registration, that their ballot will say, “Preference: None Selected”
But someone who affiliates with a party, qualified or not on their voter registration is not actively declining other parties. If you say that your name is Mark, you aren’t declining to say that your name is Jim. You are saying that your name is Mark.
If someone says that they are affiliated with the Coffee Party, it means that they are affiliated with the Coffee Party, not that they are declining to affiliate with some other party.
Peace & Freedom and American Independent are just examples of currently qualified parties in California. I could have used Green and Libertarian, or Democratic and Republican.
The Reform Party was qualified about a decade a go. Someone who affiliated with the Reform Party at that time will still be affiliated with the Reform Party. When they registered to vote, they did not decline to affiliate with a qualified party, since they affiliated with a qualified party. So if they run for office, can they say they are affiliated with the Reform Party?
And if someone registered with the P&F party, during the period they were not qualified, did they decline to affiliate with a qualified party, and thus can not run as a P&F candidate?
The SOS misinterpreted EC 8002.5. The federal court made its decision in the Chamness case based on accepting that misinterpretation. Rather than directly changing 8002.5, AB 1413 changes the candidate declaration and claims that it based on 8002.5.
The top 2 primary does about ZERO about ANTI-Democracy gerrymander math —
1/2 votes x 1/2 gerrymander districts (intentional or un-intentional) = 1/4 CONTROL.
P.R. now before it is too late — i.e. the gerrymander monarchs start Civil WAR II.
#23 IRV or STV may be considered within the set of ranked choice voting. Claiming that the two systems are unrelated is fatuous.
Your opinion that people are too stupid to rank choices in an election is revealing. It suggests that your desire to limit choices runs deeper than top-two. I wonder if you’d care to elaborate about all the trouble certain people cause by voting in silly ways.
I am slightly surprised that you value the write-in vote. But perhaps the stupid people are unlikely to organize a successful write-in campaign.
What percentage of the votes have been ILLEGAL in recent ranked choice elections — i.e. esp. hand written number votes ???
ANY 100 percent *secure* number voting systems with YES/NO votes — for use in general public elections ???
#26 IRV is much closer to a Top 2 election than it is to STV.
Voters in San Francisco and Oakland demonstrated that many did not understand how to cast an effective vote. In District 10, around 20% of those who appeared to be trying to rank 3 candidates failed to do so. This does not count those who only ranked one candidate, or who ranked a plausible contender as their first choice, and then added in a couple of no hopers, which gave absolutely no information about their preference among the top contenders.
In a conventional runoff voters will be forced to vote for one of the contenders in the runoff. There will likely be a debate between those candidates, which provides an opportunity for voters to reconsider candidates that they had not considered originally.
#27 Hand written numerals are likely to have less errors. Voters probably won’t put a 1 and a 3 next to the same candidate. Voters probably won’t put a 1 next to 4 candidate’s names, and a 2 next to some of the same candidates, and 3 next to their true favorite.
But I suspect that some would put a 1 next to a plausible contender, and then use a 2 and 3 against candidates with no chance to win, and who were eliminated in the first round.
In Oakland, there were 10 mayoral candidates. The 6 trailing candidates collectively received 8% of 1st preferences, and were eliminated on the first count (or would have been if a conventional counting algorithm was used). Those 6 candidates received 25% of the 3rd preferences. None of the animations ever show the ballots flying off into the trashcan.