On May 8, the California Assembly Appropriations Committee unanimously passed AB 1419. This is the bill that gives newly-qualifying parties until July of an election year to get on the ballot, if they are only interested in the presidential race that year. The current deadline of January was held unconstitutional last year.
What if they are interested in running candidates for offices other than President?
Because of the top-two system, no one can run for congress or partisan state office in California without filing no later than March. So the court ruling that struck down the January deadline limited the relief to just president.
Richard Winger
Are you sure? What is the new party wanted a County Central Committee?
Sincerely, mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party of California
County Central Committee is elected in the June primary in presidential election years. A party qualifying in July would be too late for that. But California law lets parties opt out of electing party officers in a primary in any event, so the party could choose its party officers at meetings instead of through a public election process.
#1 In California, parties do not have nominees for offices other than President.
The Secretary of State’s interpretation of SB 6 was in error and violates the California Constitution and the 1st Amendment.
California law has long recognized the right of a voter to affiliate with a non-qualified party. The whole scheme of party qualification is unworkable without the ability. California statute explicitly requires the Secretary of State to tabulate and report the aggregate the total number of voters affiliated with non-qualified parties, as a category quite distinct from those who have no affiliation (Decline To State/No Party Preference).
The Secretary of State has emphasized this distinction in directives to county election officials and training materials for election judges.
The California Constitution says quite clearly that a voter may vote for any candidate without regard to the party preference of the voter or the candidate.
To have regard for something, means to take into consideration, make distinctions, on the basis of some classification. By failing to print the actual party preference of some candidates, which those candidates certified as being truthful and correct on their affidavit of voter registration, subject to perjury charges, abridges the rights of voters to vote for the candidate of their choice by hiding information about some candidates and displaying it for others. That is, the State of California is taking into account, or having regard for, the party preference of candidates, and imposing that classification scheme upon voters and candidates alike.
A party preference is also a personal expression of political belief, and therefore protected by the 1st Amendment. California may only make reasonable manner regulations such as the the number of characters or words displayed on ballots. They may not restrict political speech to expressions of speech that are more popular.
California should recognize that they will lose on this issue, and make reasonable and rationale regulations now. They should rip out Division 7 of the Elections Code, and replace it with minimal requirements to be recognized as a political party, perhaps 100 or 200 registered voters with an actual party structure.
Presidential nominations could be handled by petition, with voters affiliated with a party presumed to support the nominee of the party. For example, the Justice Party could take their few 100 registrations and augment that with thousands of signatures to place a candidate on the ballot.
” Richard Winger Says:
May 9th, 2013 at 6:29 pm
Because of the top-two system, no one can run for congress or partisan state office in California without filing no later than March. So the court ruling that struck down the January deadline limited the relief to just president.”
Oh, that’s right. Damn that Top Two!
#6 Top 2 had little practical effect on this. Because of the extremely high independent petition requirements (over 10,000 for most senate and congressional districts) few independent candidates appeared on the ballot. Between 1964 and 2010 there were 12 independent congressional candidates (over 1000 races).
The proximate cause for a March filing deadline is the June primary. If California were to return to a September primary the deadline would be in June or July.
And of course, under Top 2, only 40 signatures are needed for district offices, 65 for statewide.
Top 2 Good. Partisan primaries bad.
#7, your comment is illogical. There is no necessary connection between high signatures requirements for an independent candidate for US House, and whether a state has partisan primaries or not.
The old California independent candidate requirements were far too tough, but there is no reason they couldn’t have been eased, without limiting the number of candidates in November to two.
Also, your tally 1964-2010 doesn’t include the independent candidates who qualified in special elections. And it hides the fact that three independent candidates for U.S. House appeared on the November ballot in 2010. Also the California requirements were far worse before 1976, so it is not analytically useful to talk about the entire period 1964-2010.
Guess this is a somewhat good development for minor parties.
Re: Everyone: You probably all know my vitriolic hatred of Top Two already, but in case you don’t…..
F%*& that D@MNED TOP TWO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#7 The direct cause of a March filing deadline is the June primary. In the period from 1964 to 2010 the number of congressional candidates, probably less than 1/2 of 1% of congressional candidates took “advantage” of the later filing deadline for independent (petitioning candidates). That this percentage might have been as high as 2% in 2010 is nothing to be bragging about.
Whether the percentage of candidates who had a later filing deadline was minute 2% or an even tinier 1/2% is irrelevant as to the cause of the March filing deadline.
If the primary were moved to August or September the filing deadline would be later, for not only partisan offices, but nonpartisan offices as well.
Special elections in California didn’t really have true partisan primaries, since it was a blanket primary, where ALL candidates appeared on the primary ballot. Independent candidates did not have an “advantage” of a later filing deadline, and they did not have the high signature barrier. Special arguments are irrelevant to an argument about a March filing deadline.