On January 23, Fox & Hounds, a prominent California political blog, ran this commentary, criticizing the California legislature for moving to eliminate write-in space on general election ballots. The commentary is by Michael Feinstein. The bill to abolish write-in space on November ballots for Congress and partisan state office, AB 1413, has already passed the State Senate and will probably have a hearing in the Assembly Elections Committee on Thursday, January 26.
The California Constitution says “a voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance with the laws of this State shall have that vote counted.” If there are no write-in space, there is no way cast a write-in vote that is in accordance with the laws of the State.
You should really be more concerned about the SOS’s effort to codify her misinterpretation of Elections Code 8002.5.
#1, you live in Texas, which has write-in space on general election ballots. In November 2006, a write-in candidate for US House, 22nd district, Shelley Sekula Gibbs, got 61,938 write-in votes, not too far back from the winner, who got 76,775. So while you, a Texas voter, enjoy having write-in space on your ballots, you preach to Californians that they should be happy not to have write-in space.
#2 Write-in candidates in Texas are like regular independent candidates. They must gather as many signatures, but don’t have their name on the ballot. Their name is displayed in each voting booth. Since they have to file the same time as presidential candidates (early September), and the ballots only contain a write-in space if there is a write-in candidate, there really is no reason not to print their name on the ballot. That really would be a better solution. Write-ins are like duct tape.
BTW, you are probably aware that special elections in Texas are conducted the same way as in California under the Top 2 reform. Candidates in Texas are not required to run as the candidate of a “qualified” party. The same would be true in California if your SOS was not misinterpreting Elections Code 8002.5.
And now you are complaining about write-ins and ignoring the effort to codify her misinterpretation.
@3 You are being disingenuous. What you term misinterpretation is in fact the unanimous intent of the lawmakers. The outcome of top-two is to limit choice in the general election to two candidates. Doing away with write-ins is a logical extension of that.
#4, the legislators had no intent. The bill to put Prop. 14 on the ballot, and the bill to implement it, were written at 3 a.m. and the bill had passed both houses by 6 a.m. Almost certainly, no legislator read either bill, not even Senator Abel Maldonado, the sponsor.
#4 You are confusing two issues.
In California, voters may affiliate with any political party, regardless whether it is “ballot-qualified” or not. How a new party becomes qualified is by having sufficient persons affiliate with a previously non-qualified parties. There is no registration or regulation of non-qualified parties, other than voters must certify that the content of their registration form is truthful and correct, subject to perjury charges. If the SOS or county registrar believed that someone who claimed to prefer the Donald Duck Party was not truthful, they could refer the matter to the Attorney General or a District Attorney.
Elections Code 8002.5 says that if a voter runs for a voter-nominated office, their party preference as a candidate is what they expressed on their affidavit of voter registration.
But the Secretary of State misinterprets the clear language of 8002.5 that a party preference is simply what the voter wrote on their registration form, and interposes her interpretation of what the simple language “disclosed upon the candidate’s most recent [affidavit] of [voter] registration” means.
Changing 8002.5 to read in the way she wants it to is the part of the AB 1413 to be concerned about. Not the clarifying of the write-in language – which was simply sloppily drafted.
#3, Texas does not require write-in candidates to file any signatures.
Have folks forgotten already about the Senator M elected by write-in votes in frozen Alaska ???
The EVIL Donkeys/Elephants are doing WHAT EVER they can to STOP Democracy in the U.S.A. — gerrymanders, ballot access restrictions, etc. etc.
Intent involves mind reading.
See civil injury cases — was an illegal act intentional or UN-intentional ???
Was John Doe run over intentionally or by accident ???
Only the 1930s radio show Shadow knows for sure — along with juries trying to decipher the lies in trials on 1 or more sides and using judge instructions about the law.
Pingback: Fox and Hounds Carries Commentary, Criticizing California Legislature for Abolishing Write-in Space on November Ballots | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
#7 You are technically correct. But I was correct in explaining the nature of write-in candidates in Texas, which is somewhat different than that in other States.
Elections Code Section 146.023 was amended in 1991 (HB 509) to require a write-in candidate to meet the same requirements as primary candidates; that is they must either pay a filing fee OR submit an in lieu of petition. (the change in 1993 was to 146.023(c) related to filing multiple write-in candidacies).
Texas requires write-in candidates to file by early September. The Secretary of State distributes the names of statewide and multicounty write-in candidates at the same time as the names of presidential candidates are distributed to county election officials. That is, there is time to print their name on the ballot.
Texas does not include a write-in space for an office, unless there is a declared write-in candidate. Texas, in certain cases, permits local elections to be cancelled if there is no more than one candidate for each office, regardless of whether the candidates are write-in or on-ballot.
Texas requires that the names of write-in candidates be posted in each polling booth (not just at the polling place). Texas also requires that as near as practical, the voting experience for by-mail voters, be the same as for in-person votes. So instead of posting a list of write-in candidates on the side of the voting booth, a list of write-in candidates is included in the packet of material sent along the ballot.
When you read the legislative analysis for HB 509 you will see that it was in particular a consequence of how write-in candidates are handled for by-mail voters that led to the change. County clerks were having to mail a sheet of paper with names of write-in candidates in the same envelope with a sheet of paper (a ballot) with the names of on-ballot candidates.
While you noted that Shelley Sekula Gibbs received 61,938 write-in votes on November 7, 2006; you did not mention that she received 76,924 on-ballot votes on the very same day, for the same office, for the final two months of the term. The filing deadline for the special election and the write-in filing deadline for the general election were about the same time. The filing requirements were the same (compare 146.023 with 203.005). Yet in one case, her name appeared on the ballot and she was elected; and in the other she lost as a write-in candidate.
So I am correct that write-ins are like duct tape, they are patching up problems that there are better changes for.