According to this story, former Florida State Senator Nancy Argenziano will run for Congress in 2012 as the nominee of the Independent Party. Earlier, Argenziano had expressed a desire to be a Democratic Party nominee in 2012, but the new election law passed this year forbids anyone from running in a party primary if that person had been a member of another qualified party during the preceding year. Argenziano left the Republican Party some time ago and registered as a member of the Independent Party, which is ballot-qualified. It appears her intent was to become an independent candidate. But, she is making the best of the situation, and will stick with the Independent Party.
Another part of the article refers to new requirements on small qualified parties, that they organize themselves with a structure similar to the Democratic and Republican Parties. That is also part of the election law passed in 2011. However, the new law does not unambiguously say what the article says it does. And even if the new law is interpreted strictly, it would then be unconstitutional under a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court opinion that says states cannot tell parties how to be organized. That decision, released in 1989, is called San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee v Eu, 489 U.S. 214. Also, in Jenness v Fortson, the U.S. Supreme Court said that it would be unconstitutional for states to treat small parties as though they were the same as the two major parties.
Pingback: Former Florida Republican State Legislator Will be Independent Party Candidate for Congress Next Year | Independent Political Report
Can’t wait to see the butterfly ballot.
Richard, this could turn into one nasty race in north Florida. It is obvious the Democrat leadership will silently support her, hopefully discouraging any serious Democrat from running.
Since she cannot file and run under the Democratic label, because of the clause the GOP installed to restrict competition, what chance might she have – if the Democratic leadership could discourage ANY Democrat from filing, and they ask the Court, utilizing and arguing previous court decisions based on “the right of association,” that the party be allowed to co-nominate her on a fusion ticket with the Independent Party.
Yes, I know Florida does not have any “fusion” provisions in their election code, but assuming (since we’re playing a “what if” game) the court buys the “right of association” argument, the lack of such fusion provisions would be moot. She’d be placed on the ballot “New York” style. Argenziano would then be listed on the ballot TWICE, once as the nominee of the Independent Party, and once the nominee of the Democratic Party.
Knowing the Democratic roots and somewhat “redneck,” and and “independent” nature of many north Florida voters – not really taking to the “silk stocking Republicans” (as they are seen by many of that region), and being in a congressional district where Democrats outnumber Republicans in party registration, and who still contol most of the county and local offices, this could turn out to be a interesting race.
At least it would put the Independent Party on the map and we just might see that up-until-now “moribund” party come alive.
Again, it will be interesting.
The party is formally the “Independent Party of Florida”
The new law (Florida Statutes 103.095) requires that a minor party file a list of its officers with the SOS, and include proof that they are registered members of the party. It requires that a party have a chair, vice chair, secretary, and treasurer. The secretary and treasurer may be the same person.
The new law requires that the party have a constitution and bylaws, and that they provide that members of the party (ie those registered with party) have an opportunity to participate in the governance of the party without payment of any fees (I suspect that charging a fee would be considered a poll tax).
Rather than speculating about what it might say, you would be better off campaigning to have the Florida law replace Division 7 of the California Elections Code. Is there any other State that attempts to micromanage the internal affairs of individual parties as does California?
Jim Riley, I don’t know if your post 4 above was directed at my comments, but explain how “…you would be better off campaigning to have the Florida law replace Division 7 of the California Elections Code.”?
How can “Florida law replace Division 7 of the California Elections Code?” I thought there was such a thing as “states’ rights.”
There are so many previous court decisions which appear to contradict the other regarding a party’s internal affairs, as well as the rights of its members. I realize a state has a compelling reason to require some rules to be adhered to. Any party – that wants to get its candidates on the ballot, should demonstrate it is serious (organization-wise) and not just a bunch of “yahoos” with their “knee-jerk” and “conniption fit” mentalities toward issues of the day. And I feel filing fees should be an option to the collecting of signatures to get those candidates’ names on the ballot.
I also feel that members of one party who want to co-nominate the candidate who happens to be the nominee of another party, should have that right provided the candidate is in agreement and accepts the co-nomination.
And if all serious 3rd parties would wake up to the realities of electoral politics, and work for the right of co-nomination” or “fusion” or whatever you want to call it, 3rd parties, over time, would then have a stronger hand in steering the direction of all politics in this country. For a period of time, this happened in New York State. Still don’t quite understand what has virtually caused the Liberal Party – the more contemporary user of that strategy – to demise. I am not a “liberal” in that party’s definition of “liberalism” but I always admired their political astuteness. Too bad we don’t have much of it today coming from most 3rd party leaders. Most have this illusion they can win outright.
But as I’ve written many times, “3rd partisans are their own worst enemies.”
#5 “You” was referring to Richard Winger. He lives in California. I was not suggesting Florida law be imposed on California, but rather that the the text of the Florida law (Section 103.095) be used in place of the “equivalent” California law (Elections Code Division Seven beginning at Section 7000).
After you (An AL Ind) have had a chance to read what the Florida statute says, and the California statute says, we can discuss the issue further.
Jim Riley: I stand corrected as to “who” you were referring to and the context of your message.
However, I still stand my previous posting of “And if all serious 3rd parties would wake up to the realities of electoral politics, and work for the right of co-nomination” or “fusion” or whatever you want to call it, 3rd parties, over time, would then have a stronger hand in steering the direction of all politics in this country. For a period of time, this happened in New York State. Still don’t quite understand what has virtually caused the Liberal Party – the more contemporary user of that strategy – to demise. I am not a “liberal” in that party’s definition of “liberalism” but I always admired their political astuteness. Too bad we don’t have much of it today coming from most 3rd party leaders. Most have this illusion they can win outright.
But as I’ve written many times, “3rd partisans are their own worst enemies.””
#7 Why would a serious pragmatic politician who wants to be elected affiliate with a 3rd party?
Jim Riley: Is Michael Bloomberg not a “serious pragmatic politican?” Did Mayor Bloomberg not win his last mayoral run for New York City with support and votes received on the Independence Party ticket? Do you honestly believed had he only been listed on the GOP line, he would have been re-elected? There are many other instances where a “serious pragmatic politican” was elected with help of a 3rd party. Why do you even ask such a question?