On March 25, the California Secretary of State released new registration data, as of February 10, 2013. See here for the Report.
The last registration tally was as of October 22, 2012. All qualified parties have a higher share of the registration now than they did in October 2012, except that the Republican and Green Parties declined. The percentage of “no party preference” voters (independent voters) also declined, compared to October 2012.
The Secretary of State also keeps track of how many people register into political parties that are now qualified, but which say they are trying to qualify. The only political body that gained since October is the Constitution Party, which had 260 registrants in October 2012 but which now has 304.
Pretty good jump in “Other”.
#1, I’m afraid that is meaningless. The counties have trouble figuring out how to characterize voters who check the “other political party” box and write in the word “Independent”. Sometimes the counties put those people into the “no party preference” category and sometimes into the “other” category. Sometimes counties do one thing in one tally, and then the other thing in the next tally.
Unless the current ballot access laws in California are changed, I highly doubt that the California CP will ever be able to get on the ballot there.
The “other” category is the number of voters registered with nonqualified parties (See Elections Code 2187).
I think you mean:
“The Secretary of State keeps track of the aggregate number of voters affiliated with political parties that are nonqualified, including specific totals for those parties which have given formal notice of their intent to qualify. The only political body that gained since October is the Constitution Party, which had 260 registrants in October 2012 but which now has 304.”
Los Angeles and Alameda continue their practice of counting large numbers of voters as registering with nonqualified (other) parties who would apparently be counted as DTS/NPP in other counties.
6.01% of Alameda voters are recorded as being Other, compared to 0.27%, 0.19%, and 0.26% in neighboring Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and San Francisco.
5.39% of voters in Los Angeles county are classified as Other. Statewide, excluding those two counties 0.45% voters are classified as Other.
84.5% of statewide Other voters are now in those two counties, that have only 25.7% of registered voters.
Outside those two counties the percentage of DTS/NPP voters rose from 21.93% to 22.03%. It was totally due to the classification practices of those two counties that the statewide percentage dropped from 20.77% to 20.75%.
Outside the two counties there was a decline of over five-thousand (-8.4%) Other voters, including 2,000 due to the purge in Orange County.
In the October report, Orange County had the 4th highest share of registered voters, behind only wealthy Marin or low population Sierra and Alpine. Both of these latter two may have voters who are registered in the county but weren’t present in April when the census was taken.
Registration in Orange County dropped from 87.42% to 72.38%, which is 3% below the statewide average. This suggests that Orange County rolls were somewhat worse than other counties, and are now somewhat better.
Maybe Los Angeles doesn’t have low turnout, so much as high numbers of inaccurately registered voters. This would be consistent with the very low share of permanent by-mail voters. If a voter left the county several years ago, they are unlikely to apply for permanent by-mail status.
The number of Reform voters went from 0 to 17 in Del Norte, 0 to 102 in Merced, and 0 to 856 in Santa Clara.
Meanwhile Reform voters dropped from 123 to 0 in San Mateo, 68 to 0 Shasta, 4 to 0 in Sierra, and 250 to 0 in San Joaquin. The drop in San Joaquin was accompanied by an increase to 247 for the No Corporate Money party in that county, which has 98.4% of statewide registration for that new party (incidentally Laura Wells is the chair of the NCM).
Reform also dropped from 2101 to 1279 in Orange, and 1184 to 231 in Fresno. The former is consistent with a purge of outdated registrations.
Maybe it would be simpler to eliminate voter party registration.
Let parties register like in Canada. If a party desires to hold a presidential preference primary or state-administered party committee election have them petition for it.
Other presidential candidates could qualify by petition, perhaps 40 for each presidential elector candidate in a congressional district.
The trend is for more and more states to have registration by party. States that now have it, but which didn’t 25 years ago, are Idaho, Rhode Island, and Utah. Since the end of World War II, no state that ever had registration by party had given it up. There is a fair chance registration by party will eventually come into existence in South Carolina, and perhaps Tennessee and Montana as well.
Why should a citizen be required to have a public record of their political beliefs in order to be able to vote?
a partisan primary isn’t electing a candidate to public office. It is a process by which members of a group come together to decide whom they will put forward. If the party nominated by convention, anyone watching the convention in person (or by some recording, if it is being recorded) would be able to see who was participating. And Justice Scalia doesn’t even think that secret voting is protected in the U.S. Constitution. And a US District Court in Colorado last month said there is no right to a secret ballot.
10. Smith v Allwright and Tashjian both say you are wrong. Once the State gives official recognition and regulation of the nomination process it becomes an election subject to constitutional protections.
Further, why should a private group be able to deny a voter of the right to vote because of the political views the voter expressed on their voter registration?
Richard Winger & Jim Riley.
You are correct on one thing, each county election officer is doing their own thing. Let’s take Imperial
County’s practice with voters writing on the HAVA registration the party name. The practice in that county is they write, e-mail, or phone and ask voters
the following question: “When you wrote INDEPENDENT
in the party space on the HAVA registration form, did
you mean the AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY? I was informed
by the Imperial County Election Office at the end of
2007 that every reply said YES. In February, 2008 I
personally asked Secretary of State Debra Bowen if that
practice by the Imperial County Election Official if that practice was the correct practice to follow. She
informed me that it was.
If that me the case, I am at a loss why other county election officials do not do such contact with persons
filing HAVA generated election forms.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman
American Independent Party of California
& Chairman, Orange County Central Committee,
American Independent Party
Cody Quirk
What do you think the increase in registration in the CP from 260 to 304 comes from!? Could it be the leadership of Dr. Don Grundmann that left the AIP
State Central Committee following September 2, 2008!?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg