Here is the California Secretary of State’s brief in Lindsay and Peace & Freedom Party v Bowen, 2:12-cv-853. This is the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in which the Peta Lindsay campaign and the Peace & Freedom Party challenge the Secretary of State’s refusal to list Peta Lindsay on the party’s presidential primary ballot.
Nowhere does the brief acknowledge that the PFP presidential primary is a “beauty contest”, not an election for public office. The purpose of the PFP presidential primary is to allow the party’s rank-and-file members to express themselves about whom the party should nominate for President. If the party were to nominate Lindsay, the Secretary of State would be forced to print her name on the November ballot. The State Court of Appeals already ruled in Keyes v Bowen, 189 Cal App 4th 647 (2010), “With respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties’ candidates.” The word “must” is in italics.
If the Peace & Freedom Party has a right to place a presidential candidate on the November ballot who is under the age of 35, it is difficult to understand why the party doesn’t have a right to place that same presidential candidate on its own primary ballot.
The Secretary’s brief says she follows the Constitution, yet in fact, she does not follow the California Constitution, which contains a one-year duration of residency requirement for candidates for the legislature. The Secretary of State ignores this constitutional provision. She has also told other courts, in lawsuits over whether she should investigate the qualifications of President Obama, that she has no duty to conduct such an investigation.
Law = making PROPER classifications of stuff.
Legislative body candidates
Congress — Congress judge of qualifications
House of State legislature — House judge of qualifications — all or mostly ???
Local legislative bodies – judge of qualifications in any/some States ???
Some State governors — judge by legislatures ???
ALL others — old QUO WARRANTO stuff — now one more civil action.
U.S.A. Prez — See 21 Amdt, Sec. 3.
How many SCOTUS or State Supreme court cases regarding preventing folks from being on ballots due to alleged lack of qualifications for the office involved ???
i.e. by a complaint of an election law bureaucrat or another candidate or an Elector-Voter ???
The California government just does not like Peta Lindsay’s political views, so they went and found a ‘justification’ to cause the PFP trouble. A textbook example of this country’s failing “democracy.”
As for the American Independent Party of California. Secretary of State Bowen rejected 11 persons that I
submitted for the June 5, 2012 primary. The SOS will
not give any reason for the rejection of any of the 11.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party.
@3
Probably because you submitted Todd freaking Palin and that Ambassador for Christ guy!
There are specific provisions in the California Constitution dictating that members of the executive and judicial branch are not to interfere in legislative elections.
Just because Heidi Fuller found a goofy superior court judge who said the SOS could interfere, doesn’t mean that the constitution says that.
The position of the SOS was two-fold:
(1) SOS doesn’t have authority to interfere;
(2) Even if she could interfere, the residential duration provision is unconstitutional.
She was wrong about (2), but it doesn’t matter because she was correct about (1). Fuller should have contested Berryhill’s election, and if she had been successful, then Berryhill might challenge the residential duration provision.
You might recall that it was the House of Representatives that decided that Philip Barton Key met the residency provisions of the US Constitution, it wasn’t the Maryland Secretary of State.
#5, does the Secretary of State of California have the authority to keep an underage candidate for the state legislature off the ballot? Does she have the authority to keep a candidate for the state legislature off the ballot on the grounds that the candidate doesn’t currently live in the district?
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. — Mahatma Gandhi
CA Const
Art 4
SEC. 5. (a) Each house shall judge the qualifications and elections of its Members ***
ANY State NOT having similar language in its State Const ???
Pingback: California Secretary of State Brief Defends Her Decision Not to List Peta Lindsay on Peace & Freedom Presidential Primary Ballot | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
#6 There is nothing in the nomination form (Elections Code 8040) that indicates age or length of residency.
Perhaps the candidate could be prosecuted for perjury.
The harm in electing an underage person is no worse than electing a dead person. And your current SOS’s words were used in the campaign to elect a dead person to an office that she had previously held.
Are you seriously advocating for a corrupt system like in Illinois with regard to whose name ends up on the ballot?
Most SANE States have an Affidavit of Candidacy wherein the candidate lists his/her qualifications for the office — sworn to before a Notary Public.
i.e. Perjury for false statements.
#11 California requires a candidate to swear they meet statutory and constitutional qualifications. I think that the age requirement would be covered under perjury – residence perhaps not. It could be difficult to prove that someone didn’t believe they didn’t meet the residency requirement.
If Heidi Fuller had done what she should have done and contested the election before the senate, and they had determined that Berryhill did not meet the residency requirement, it is unlikely that Berryhill could be successfully prosecuted for perjury.
Relying on an opinion of the Secretary of State does not indicate an intent to lie about your qualifications.
What about —
14th Amdt, Sec. 1-
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and [[[of the State wherein they reside]]].
ONE *reside* per State citizen ???
— in other words how many constitutional law MORONS in ALL States ALL the time — legislative, executive and judicial ???
Jim Riley
In California the Candidate does not have to submit papers under a statement of perjury or any kind of statement.
Case in point. I filed a list of 14 persons to run for
POTUS in the American Independent Primary, Two of that
list were Alaska Eskimos, viz., Todd Palin (former First
Dude of Alaska) and Walter Nayakik of Wainwright, AK.
It is my view that both of these gentlemen are natural
born citizen’s under the United States Constitution,
because they were born in Alaska (one when Alaska was
just a Territory and the other after Alaska became a
State).
However, they were Eskimos, so unlike citizens under the 14th amendment there waa no requirement that there
parents be citizens of the United States at the time of
there birth to be natural born. This was a form of collective naturalization, because of a 1/16th blood
line of Alaska Native coming from an Act of Congress
effective January 13, 1941. This status is like the
collective naturalization Act of 1877 in form, known
as the Garfield Act of 1877.
Bottom line does person with 1/16th Eskimo blood that
are born in the United States with a Eskimo parent who
was also born in Alaska meet the requiement of the
Minor Case of 1875, having United States Citizen parents at birth to be a Natural Born Citizen. Remember, that Congress enacted the Garfield Act in 1877, because of the holding in Minor Case of 1875 by the SCOTUS.
I was hoping that SOS Bowen would agree with me that
an Alaska Native with Eskimo Blood (like Todd Palin or
Walter Nayakik) could serve in the office of POTUS.
However, she rejected them running for POTUS in the
AIP California Primary. The question is what does
Debra Bowen have against Eskimos running for POTUS.
Does she believe that because the Act of 1940 (effective January 13, 1941) made no requirement that
the parents of Eskimos born in the United States, be
United States Citizens, that collective naturalization Act was not effective in allowing persons with 1/16th or more Eskimo blood for taking the office of POTUS!?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California