On January 23, the California Secretary of State ruled that if Americans Elect doesn’t want a presidential primary ballot prepared for it in California, the Secretary will accept that decision. Americans Elect had already told California that it prefers not to have a government presidential primary prepared for itself. This decision will save taxpayer dollars, because printing up primary ballots for Americans Elect would probably have cost $2,000,000. Here is the ruling.
Americans Elect also decided not to have county central committee elections. The California election law already made it clear that parties are free to decline county central committee elections for themselves if they wish. The Libertarian Party also doesn’t elect county central committee members.
All qualified parties in California are expected to choose one of four types of party organization plan that are in the election code. Americans Elect chose the Peace & Freedom Party code section. This is the same code section that all California qualified minor parties have chosen during the last 35 years. The other code sections in the election law are titled, “Republican”, “Democratic”, and “American Independent.”
Didn’t their petition say “Petition to participate in the primary election.”
Also under the California Constitution, isn’t participation in the general election contingent on participation in the primary.
I don’t know of any provision in the California Constitution that contradicts what the Secretary of State has just said. I just now amended the post so that anyone can read the ruling.
Yes, the petition did say that, but that is language mandated by the election law. Given that parties don’t have their own primaries any longer (except for president), it is obsolete language, especially in a midterm year.
If the only offices they intend to contest is the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, wouldn’t the petition to participate in the Primary Election necessarily mean for the Presidency?
#3, I think the Secretary of State probably feels the mandatory petition language is obsolete, given that parties don’t have their own primaries in California any longer (except for President). The whole party qualification law in California is horribly out-of-date. The extremely early deadline is almost certainly unconstitutional. And the vote test in the California definition of party talks about “nominees” for statewide office in midterm years, but there are no such nominees in midterm years.
Also the American Independent Party code section says all the party’s nominees for public office can appoint 3 members to the party’s state central committee, but there are no more party nominees, so that is obsolete also. The California legislature has done a very bad job on this part of the election law.
Isn’t it crazy that law is tailored to parties (by name, even!) rather than the other way around?
It’s practically a bill of attainder situation, except that instead of trying to “get” (penalize) the named party, the law is giving to the named parties.
It should be prima facie unconstitutional to name a political party in a statute.
#5, those code sections were passed in 1975. The author of the bills let each of the 4 qualified parties (at that time) write their own code sections. So it isn’t as though the government was telling the parties how to be organized.
What gerrymander State has ANY *clear* laws about ANY thing regarding elections ???
5 and 6 — Nothing in the CA const. about NOT having special laws for special interest gangs ???
#2 2012 is not a midterm year. Given the language of the California Constitution that specifically ties the primary and general election together, I would think that the presidential primary would be mandatory.
Why doesn’t Elections Code 6720 apply to Buddy Roemer?
IF the SOS were reading 8002.5 correctly, which she isn’t, but if she were, it would be unconstitutional. California may not restrict personal expression to only popular viewpoints.
The modicum of support rule applies to nominations, to ensure that the party gangs and ad hoc independent gangs were of sufficient size to warrant inclusion on the ballot. But California has chosen a different course where only a very small level of support is needed to qualify for the ballot.
What sort of person would believe that it is OK that you can tell someone that they can run for office, but they can’t express their opinion about a fundamentally personal political belief? And why would that sort of person seek to be the chief elections officer of a State?
Pingback: “California Secretary of State Says Qualified Parties Are Free to Avoid a Presidential Primary if they Wish” | Election Law Blog
How about a nonstop election law SUPREME Court in CA to take on ALL of the election law cases 24/7 ???
— due to the MORON election code in CA — NOT updated by the party hacks regarding the amended CA Const and Fed election law cases.
#5 RW – hope u don’t think it’s OK for parties to write their own laws!
Gov’t should have uniform rules to tell parties that want gov’t-conducted primary service.
Pingback: California Secretary of State Says Qualified Parties Are Free to Avoid a Presidential Primary if they Wish | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
Special stuff for certain party hack gangs = a form of having a Title of Nobility — PROHIBITED by the U.S.A. Const – Art. I, Secs. 9 and 10 ??? Duh.
1787 so-called nobility classes in Europe = Special rights, privileges and immunities as compared with the mere commoners, peons, serfs, etc.
ALL of this EVIL special class stuff is headed towards guess what — Civil WAR II.
Take a look at CCROV 10086 from March 9, 2010, and in particular the part of Elections Code 13102(b) that is emphasized.
Then look at CCROV 12035 from January 22, 2012, and note “Americans Elect will not be participating in the June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election”
Now combine the two. Since the AEP is not participating in the presidential primary, may voters who are affiliated with the AEP request a ballot for the Democratic or American Independent presidential primaries (these are the two parties that have opened their primaries). That is, does California consider that true No Party Preference (previously DTS) voters, voters who prefer a non-qualified party (eg Coffee, Constitution, etc.), and AEP-preferring voters, all have no party preference with respect to the presidential primary?
Does this violate the Democrats and AIPers 1st Amendment right to control the limits of their political association?
If an AEP-preferring voter files for a voter-nominated office, may he have his preference appear on the ballot, because the party is qualified to participate in the voter-nominated primary (assume here that the SOS interpretation of 8002.5 is correct).
So could the AEP-preferring candidate for, let’s say Senator, request the Democratic presidential ballot, because he is said not to have a party preference, and then vote for himself appearing with the designation of I Prefer the Americans Elect Party?
The Americans Elects Party’s senior consul has told the Secretary of State that it will follow the Peace and Freedom Party sections of the California Election Code. However, The Presidential candidate of Peace and Freedom Party is selected at its August (month in Election Code)convention meeting of the SCC. Delegates to the convention are elected in the direct primary election for central committees members. So, my question is, if AEP will not have an election for delegates to their convention which will be held in June(not August?)how will they decide who the delegates to their convention will be. Do they have a democratic procedure? It sounds top down to me.
#15, good questions. No one knows the answer, as far as I know.
#16, Americans Elect is in the process of choosing state chairs, and some county chairs, in many states, including California. I don’t know the details of how these organizing meetings will work. Possibly Americans Elect will obtain a list of its registered voters and notify them of the meetings.
Ballot qualified third parties in California ought to fight to maintain the right of their registrants to elect not only their presidential candidates and county central committees by primary vote but all other partisan offices. Americans Elects obviously seems to be designed as a 2012 only candidate based organization, not as an ongoing political party.
There needs to be a concerted effort to overturn Proposition 14 in the courts. Prop 14 clearly violates the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Lubin v. Panish by making it virtually impossible for third parties to contest and advance from priary election to the general. (The current lawsuits against 14 are poorly prepared and have only dismal argumentation.)
Small third parties have lost the ability requalify for ballot status in the gubinatorial elections where before Proposition 14 the parties had the opportunity to get 2% of the vote for a statewide office, an option that will likely not be able to be exercised under 14’s Top Two advancement. Top Two was a scheme designed by the disgraced former Governor Arnold and his defeated enabler, Abel Maldonado, to insure that only the two wealthist candidates in a primary race will advance on to future general elections.
#18 Lubin v Panish concerned a non-partisan election, which in California is contested among all candidates in the primary. If one candidate receives a majority of the vote, he is elected. Otherwise, the top 2 candidates are placed on the general election ballot.
The consequence of Lubin v Panish, was that California established the system of in lieu of signatures in place of filing fees. This system is still in place.
Under Proposition 14 it is now as easy or as hard for a candidate to qualify for the primary or general election for Insurance Commissioner as it is Superintendent of Public Instruction.
If one wishes to run for county supervisor in Los Angeles County, as Mr. Panish did, the filing requirements have not been changed as a result of Proposition 14.
The Secretary of State is misinterpreting the clear language of SB 6.
A voter has the right to affiliate with a non-qualified party on their affidavit of voter registration. This was not changed by SB 6 recasting “Decline To State” (party affiliation) voters as “No Party Preference” voters. SB 6 defines a candidate’s party preference as being identical to their party preference which they previously had indicated on their voter registration.
For some reason, the SOS does not comprehend the simple language, “upon their affidavit of voter registration”, as having the simple meaning of what the voter wrote on the form, and signed to certify that it was truthful and correct.
Michael Chamness’s lawyer should have introduced his affidavit of voter registration, and had him attest that it was his handwriting, that his preference for the “Coffee Party” is his party preference, that the information was truthful and correct, and that he had signed the form to certify that is was truthful and correct.
Dean Logan should have been required to testify as to how he processed and recorded the information (eg threw the Coffee Party registrations in the harbor; erased “Coffee Party” and wrote-in Declined To State; or followed the law, and filed the original affidavit and counted it among Miscellaneous Other Parties in his reports to the Secretary of State.
Her interpretation of SB 6 violates the California Constitution by having regard for the party preference of voters who prefer certain political parties, restricts the 1st Amendment rights on the basis that a certain personal political viewpoint is not sufficiently popular, and requires a candidate to enter false information on a sworn declaration of candidacy.
There is little reason for party qualification under Proposition 14. If the state wishes to ensure that a political party is really a “political party” there are less onerous regulations, such as those in Florida.
While Don Lubin was running for a non-partisan office, the implementation of the in-lieu of filing fee laws by the California legislature pertained to all offices which are salaried whether partisan or non-partisan,
Third parties were given smaller numbers of in-lieu signatures (a maximum of 150 from the candidate’s party) as opposed to the major party requirement of over 1000). The implementation of Proposition 14 now requires all candidates in a partisan race to attain the previous minimum for a major party candidate, made only slightly easier by validity from the entire electorate for the office rather than from a party’s registration.