On May 21, the California Green, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom Parties filed this brief in Rubin v Bowen, the case in state court that challenges the California top-two system. The parties also filed this request for Judicial Notice, pertaining to the procedures by which the top-two bills passed the legislature, as well as June 2012 and November 2012 data showing almost 2.5 times as many voters voted in California in November as in June.
The AIP is not part of this lawsuit?
No. The leaders of the California AIP have taken contradictory positions on whether the party even opposes Prop. 14. The AIP would not have added much to the lawsuit even if it were part of it, because in 2012, there were no AIP candidates for U.S. House or legislature. There was an AIP candidate for U.S. Senate, but he is part of the group that opposes the state party leadership and instead is loyal to the Constitution Party.
Thank you to everyone who participating in this noble effort.
#2 Unlike, the Libertarian Party, the AIP did endorse a candidate in the Senate primary, who received about the same number of votes as the candidate endorsed by the Peace&Freedom Party.
the missing detail in #4 is that the government-recognized leaders of the AIP endorsed a Republican.
The voters were not “told” in the voter’s pamphlet. Self-serving arguments were made by public-sector union bosses, Kevin Nida, Allan Clark, and Kathy Sackman Public-sector unions like partisan primaries because they can differentially suppress turnout in the Democratic primary, encouraging members to vote for their favorites, while discouraging other voters from participating. A political argument put forward by persons attempting to preserve their own political power can not be considered “information” that the voters disregarded, but rather a claim that voters had discounted as lacking merit.
Moreover, the argument that independents would be forced off the general election ballot was false, and the union bosses Nida, Clark, and Sackman knew or should have known that it was false.
A Californian who had first voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964, would have seen 12 independent congressional candidates for any district race in the entire state over the 24 general elections between 1964 and 2010, or about 1% of the time, most years saw zero independent candidates.
Any voter with a modicum of intelligence would have seen through the feeble arguments of these union bosses.
The only totally reliable information on that page of the voter’s pamphlet is this:
“Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.”
The most reasonable inference that can be made is that the voters rejected the political arguments of the opponents.
Gail Lightfoot finished 9th in the senate race. Marsha Feinland finished 14th. The Libertarian Party did not make an endorsement in the US Senate race. Had they done so that endorsement would have appeared in the sample ballot sent to every voter prior to the election.
If Lightfoot received a “modicum” of support, what about the six candidates who received more votes, did not receive the endorsement of their party, and also failed to advance to the general election ballot?
Why do the plaintiffs disregard the candidacies of Boruff, Krampe, Taitz, Jackson, Conlon, and Ramirez, and the over one million voters who voted for them?
And for that matter, why should Robert Lauten have been denied a place on the November ballot? He was endorsed by one of the seven parties qualified to have their endorsements published with the official sample ballot, and received almost as many votes as Feinland, and 75% more than the candidate who though registered with that party, was not endorsed by that party.
Only 13,565 votes were cast in the Libertarian presidential primary, or about 1/4 of 1% of the total vote. Lightfoot received 101.648 votes or over 7.5 times as many votes. Most voters who voted for Lightfoot voted for her – rather than for her to be the party nominee, since the Libertarian Party forbade non-members from voting in their primary. Since Lightfoot was not endorsed by the Libertarian Party, and most voters who voted for her would have been disqualified by the Libertarian Party from “nominating” her, she can not be regarded as the nominee of the Libertarian Party, nor having received a “modicum” of support for that nomination.
Instead she is merely an 8th-place finisher who happens to have a registration with the Libertarian Party.
comment #6 is lengthy but incomplete. #6 doesn’t mention any of the minor party candidates who did poll over 5% of the vote in the June 2012 primary, and instead concentrates entirely on the U.S. Senate race.
The US Supreme Court said in Munro v Socialist Workers Party in 1986 that there is no constitutional distinction between a prior vote test for determining who gets on the ballot in the general election, versus a petition for the same purpose. The U.S. Supreme Court had earlier indicated that petition requirements in excess of 5% are unconstitutional. The brief proves that some minor party candidates polled over 5% in June 2012, so they did have a modicum of voter support and therefore cannot be barred from the election itself.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
—
NO primaries.
Every election is NEW — something the SCOTUS MORONS can not detect.
#9, Gary Johnson got 6,780 votes in the presidential primary in California, and 143,221 votes in November in California.
Gail Lightfoot, Libertarian for U.S. Senate from California, got 101,648 votes in June. If she had been on the November 2012 ballot she easily would have received 500,000 votes, but thanks to Prop. 14, voters were not permitted to vote for her in November.
#10 Orly Taitz received 154,781 votes in June, she easily could have received 770,000 votes if she had been on the November 2012 ballot, but thanks to Proposition 14, voters were not permitted to vote for her in November.
68 congressional candidates received 5% or more of the vote, and yet were denied a place on the November ballot. These were 34 Republican, 24 Democratic, 6 NPP, 2 Green, 1 Peace&Freedom, and 1 Libertarian.
When we look back over the past 11 elections since 1990 (those with results posted on the California Secretary of State’s website), we can see that on average there were over 70 Libertarian candidates for district offices (U.S. Congress, the State Senate and Assembly). In 2012 there were NO Libertarians on California’s General Election ballot (except the presidential ticket). Together Peace and Freedom Party and the Green Party candidates averaged over 30 candidates per election. In 2012, P&F had only 3 candidates for district office, and the Greens lacked any. Other parties used to contribute, on average since 1990, more than two dozen names for district elections. In 2012 there were none. And yes, we previously averaged with only 3 Independents each in 2008 and 2010, but was having 5 Independents in 2012 (some of whose credentials were suspect) so much better that we were willing to forgo well over a hundred third party candidates who would probably have otherwise been on the ballot?
Jim, Richard and Casey can throw numbers back and forth until they all wear out their keyboards. But the numbers are only a proxy for the real issue that underlies this “debate” (if you can really call it a “debate”). That issue is the proper role of political parties in elections. If you believe that political parties should be ordinary pressure groups who endorse candidates — like the NRA or the Sierra Club — and that elections should be non-partisan, then whether or not parties are allow to participate in the decisive round is of no concern. If you believe that strong parties are a necessary part of any democratic system, then the ability to nominate candidates (whether by public primary, private primary or convention) is crucial, and so is the ability to participate in the decisive electoral event. I don’t believe that these number games contribute to anybody’s understanding of that issue.
The real answer, whether partisan or nonpartisan, is to abandon antiquated single-winner districts that ensure large portions of voters will be represented in Congress, the State Legislature, City Council or other boards by somebody against whom they voted.
The only fair approach is Proportional Representation using multi-winner districts.
To see how it works, go to http://www.betterelections123.us
#13 What do you mean by “strong parties”. It could be interpreted as meaning that political parties should be integrated into the state, and that Jerry Brown should report to John Burton.