On May 7, the ACLU of Southern California filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the California procedure by which newly-qualifying parties get on the ballot. The plaintiffs include the Constitution Party of California and the California Justice Committee, which is attempting to raise money to qualify the Justice Party (Rocky Anderson’s party). Here is the complaint.
California requires newly-qualifying parties to have at least 103,004 registered members by January 3, 2012, if they are to list their presidential nominees with the party label on the November ballot. Or, alternatively, the state requires 1,030,040 valid signatures to be filed in the fall of the year before the election. These laws have existed virtually unchanged since 1953, and in the almost 60 years since they were created, only seven groups have successfully qualified.
Separate is NOT equal.
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954
ANY lawyers in ANY State with ANY brain cells about EQUAL ???
Each election is N-E-W and has ZERO to do with any prior event since the alleged Big Bang – except the number of actual voters in the prior election in the areas involved.
Way too difficult for the SCOTUS MORONS to detect ???
California qualifies parties to participate in the primary (see Elections Code 5100).
The right to have a presidential nominee on the November ballot is derivative of being qualified to have a presidential preference primary. Presumably, California has an interest in letting Californian voters participate in the nomination made by the party (arguably the California constitution requires the winner of the presidential primary to be placed on the general election ballot).
Since California no longer has direct partisan primaries, other than election of party officials (which can’t really be considered primaries at all), and the California Constitution forbids distinctions among parties in elections for voter-nominated offices, they should clarify what the actual purpose of “qualification” is for.
By preventing some candidates from expressing their political party preferences, they have converted what was formerly a “modicum of support” threshold to a state-imposed restriction on speech simply because a viewpoint is less popular.
May the State of California repress the right of political expression on the ballot, simply because a candidate’s party preference is less popular?
That is what the Constitution and Justice parties should really be challenging.
California should change its presidential preference primary so that anyone may qualify by submitting 60 signatures and pay a filing fee (or submit an in lieu of petition).
Any candidate who receives 1% of the vote qualifies for the general election ballot. A candidate may withdraw in favor of another candidate who receives more votes, and candidates may file supplemental petitions signed by voters who did not vote in the primary.
The November election would require a majority vote.
#2, there have been many parties on the California ballot that did not participate in the presidential primary, and yet which had their presidential nominees on the November ballot. The Reform Party in 1996 didn’t have any candidates on its presidential primary ballot. In 1968 neither the American Independent Party nor the Peace & Freedom Party had any presidential primary. In earlier years, the Socialist Party, Prohibition Party, Communist Party, Progressive Party of the 1930’s, Townsend Party, Commonwealth Party, didn’t participate in presidential primaries. The Libertarian Party didn’t have a presidential primary in certain years.
#3 All of these were before 2010, when California’s Constitution was clarified to say that the State could not deny a place on the general election ballot to the winner of the presidential primary.
In 1912, the Republican presidential electors were chosen in the primary, and voted for a different candidate than was chosen by the national party bosses.
For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that some demonstration of a modicum of support is reasonable, though not at the level required by some States.
Can that “modicum of support” be required when a candidate is expressing a political viewpoint on the ballot, when a candidate has demonstrated the same level of support of any other candidate. If a candidate prefers the Justice Party is denied the opportunity to express his preference for that party on the ballot, while another candidate is allowed to express his preference for the Libertarian Party, is not the State of California having regard (taking into account) the party preference of the two candidates, and therefore in violation of the California Constitution.
Under my proposal, 55 voters who prefer the Justice Party, could, with Rocky Anderson’s permission, qualify for the presidential primary by gathering 60 signatures and paying a fee. If he secured 1% of the votes in the primary, he would qualify for the general election.
The party barriers are a consequence of the partisan nomination regime. Eliminate partisan nominations, and barriers are no longer necessary.
MOS = perhaps 1/4 of ONE percent of the number of actual voters in the prior election in the election area involved.
Sorry – lets have some sort of SERIOUS candidates and not ANY
fringe lunatics.
“Sorry – lets have some sort of SERIOUS candidates and not ANY
fringe lunatics.”
Yes. Let’s keep Barack Obama and Mitt Romney off the ballot. I consider them fringe lunatics.
#4, this year, Americans Elect is a qualified party in California and no primary ballot is being printed up for it.
# 6 BO/MR — 2 control freak lunatics that differ only in their deficits ???
#7 They shouldn’t be permitted to have a candidate on the ballot if California voters affiliated with the party didn’t nominate him.
6 – If you have absolutely no consistency of philosophy, say things that are the polar opposite of your actions, and pathologically lie, you probably can be considered a lunatic. See I don’t hate the two party system, I’d rather see a two party system… of Greens and Libertarians! (or anyone other than the current options)
Canada has about the same population at California.
Yet to get on the federal ballot in Canada requires a party to get about 50 signatures plus 20 signatures per candidate. The provinces are similar.
And yet Canada is happier and better governed!
#11
ALL of the major governments in Canada are ANTI-Democracy gerrymander/plurality regimes — much worse due to having 3 to 5 larger parties in each gerrymander district.
LOTS of gerrymander winners with less than 40 percent of the district votes.
ALL of them have *parliamentary* regimes having TYRANT prime/first ministers.
The Canada Bill of Rights is full of intentional loopholes written by the party hacks.
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Pingback: Constitution Party and Justice Party Sue California Over Ballot Access Procedure for Newly-Qualifying Parties | ThirdPartyPolitics.us