On February 23, California election officials explained for the first time why Peta Lindsay can’t be on the Peace & Freedom Party presidential primary ballot. The Secretary of State instructed county elections officials to tell the Lindsay campaign that she may not appear on the presidential primary ballot because she is under age 35. Lindsay campaign officials tried to pick up petition blanks to add her to the ballot by petition, but county elections officials refused to release the forms.
The Secretary of State still has not explained why she won’t print Stephen Durham on the PFP presidential primary ballot. There is no allegation that he doesn’t meet the constitutional qualifications, yet the Secretary of State won’t print his name on the PFP ballot either. However, no election official seems to be blocking Stephen Durham’s ability to collect the signatures of 1% of PFP registrants, and to get on the ballot that way.
Peta Lindsay is the presidential nominee of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Stephen Durham is the presidential nominee of the Freedom Socialist Party. Because neither of those two parties is ballot-qualified in California, they are both seeking the presidential nomination of the Peace & Freedom Party, which is ballot-qualified.
Does the result of Keyes v. Bowen have a bearing on this situation, or not?
#1, never mind. I think I figured this out, thanks to previous material in the Ballot Access News archives.
I think Keyes v Bowen does have a bearing on this situation.
How many cases about WHO enforces officer qualifications — other than for the gerrymander Congress or State legislatures ???
Pre-election ???
Post-election ???
suggest you see Soros SOS (secretary of state) Project regarding Bowen’s ballot access actions
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/04/soros-eyes-secretaries
see: Natural Born Citizen Party Ballot Access Scoreboard
Pingback: California Secretary of State Explains Why She is Keeping Peta Lindsay Off Peace & Freedom Party Presidential Primary Ballot | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
Am I noticing a trend where these socialistic parties don’t have any respect for the constitution? Kent Mesplay, 2012 Green Party presidential candidate, also doesn’t meet constitutional requirements to run for President since he was born in Papua New Guinea.
#8, parties that nominate presidential candidates who are under age 35 are not showing disrespect for the U.S. Constitution. The true candidates in November are the candidates for presidential elector. Presidential candidates’ names are on the November ballot, not as actual candidates, but as labels for competing slates of electors. The presidential electors the Peace & Freedom Party is likely to nominate would be qualified to hold the office of presidential elector. These presidential electors would be exercising their free speech rights to tell the world that if elected, they intend to vote for Peta Lindsay. But that is not disrespectful to the U.S. Constitution. If the electors did that, Congress would merely decline to count those electoral votes, just as Congress in 1872 declined to count the electoral votes cast for Horace Greeley. Congress refused to count those 3 electoral votes because Greeley was dead.
How many States now require that a robot Prez Electoral College person automatically vote for the candidate listed on the Nov. ballots — or be replaced instantly and/or be arrested ???
—-
12th Amdt in part —
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; ***
The votes SHALL then BE counted.
One more subversion in 1872.
It seems to me that Ryan Brennan (#8) is asking a reasonable question. While it may not appear disrespectful to some people for parties to ignore the Constitution of the United States in this matter, it could certainly seem that way to other people. If my current political party, the Peace and Freedom Party, had not gone down this path in 1968, the voters of the Golden State (and probably other states) would not have been deprived of the opportunity to vote for a Peace and Freedom Party presidential candidate. As it was, they only could vote for the candidate for vice president (Peggy Terry, in California). Eldridge Cleaver’s name was not printed on the ballot in California.
Phil Sawyer
Philippe L. Sawyer, Member:
Sacramento County Central Committee
Peace and Freedom Party of California
#9 #10
I emphatically disagree that the person a slate is pledged to vote for (legally or morally) need not be Constitutionally qualified to have their slate placed on the ballot.
The SOS has acted entirely appropriately in keeping someone under 35 off any presidential ballot, primary or general. But she has also acted recently contrary to her contention in a lawsuit I brought against her, that she has no duty to enforce Constitutional provisions limiting qualification for the office of President or candidacy for it. This inconsistency will not go unchallenged in court. The question is has the SOS acted beyond her authority in the present instance in 2012 or did she fail in her duty in the prior instance in 2008? The answers are respectively, no and yes.
Richard Winger and the Peace and Freedom Party ARE guilty of disrespecting the Constitution by their cavalier disregard of meaningful enforcement of Constitutional qualifications for office. In the P&F case, having recently studied their section of the Elections Code, I see that of the 4 parities having special sections of the Election Code, the Peace and Freedom Party is distinguished by not placing any requirement on its County Central Committee members to swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. I am convinced in fact, that if P&F members did swear that oath, they would swear it falsely.
#12, the US Constitution, 20th amendment, section 3, includes this language: “If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, OR IF the President elect shall have failed to qualify…” So clearly the writers of this part of the Constitution considered the possibility that the electors might vote for someone who is not qualified, and that Congress would count those votes. And the Constitution deals with the problem. So it is not disrespectful to the U.S. Constitution for a party, especially a minor party that has no chance to win the presidential election, to choose someone for president who doesn’t meet the constitutional qualifications.
The Kentucky legislature chose Henry Clay for the U.S. Senate before he was age 30, and the U.S. Senate decided to seat him anyway. And he went on to perform valuable service for the nation.
To Markham Robinson (#12):
It is not true that elected County/State Central Committee members of the Peace and Freedom Party of California do not “swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution,” as you implied. After being elected, I have always been sworn into office by election officials. In addition, I have always been loyal to the Constitutions of California and the United States of America.
By the way, in 1976, I was one of the California Electors for Senator Eugene J. McCarthy, the major independent candidate for president and the Honorable Chairperson of the Committee for a Constitutional Presidency/McCarthy ’76.