On April 10, the California Poll released a poll for the Secretary of State’s race. The poll was underway before State Senator Leland Yee, a Democratic candidate for Secretary of State, had been arrested. After the arrest, the poll stopped including Yee in the poll. The results without Yee are: Pete Peterson, Republican, 30%; Alex Padilla, Democrat, 17%; David Curtis, Green, 5%; Dan Schnur, independent, 4%; Derek Cressman, Democrat, 3%; Undecided, 41%.
When Yee is included, the results are: Peterson 27%, Padilla 10%, Yee 8%, Curtis 4%, Schnur 4%, Cressman 2%, other 1%, undecided 44%. Here is a link to the poll. Schnur, the independent candidate, is on the ballot as “no party preference” because California’s Proposition 14 and its implementing legislation eliminated the ability of independent candidates to have “independent” as a ballot label.
Curtis has campaigned as an opponent of the top-two system, whereas Schnur is a big supporter of the top-two system. Cressman is also an opponent of the top-two system, but he doesn’t campaign on that issue. The other candidates have not expressed an opinion about the top-two system.
Yee has withdrawn, but his name remains on the ballot, because California (unlike virtually all other states) does not permit candidates to withdraw from the ballot. Thanks to Michael for the link.
Excellent! CA Greens getting stuff done!
Placing the name “independent” on the ballot would make most
voters that the candidate was part of the American Independent
Party. Debra Bowen told me that in person.
Yee had made the point that he had voted against SB 6 – Padilla voted for it. I don’t see why Yee’s name should be withheld from the poll. There is no objective reason to exclude someone simply because they have been indicted for gun-running.
Allowing candidates to withdraw after filing, invites all kinds of corruption. There may have been other candidates who chose not to file because Yee was in the race. The better solution would be to move the primary to September, which reduces the risk of situations like this.
Before Proposition 14, independent candidates were practically banned from seeking election period. There is nothing intrinsic to Proposition 14 that would not permit a candidate without a party preference to have Independent next to their name.
Debra “Orwell” Bowen also misinterpreted SB 6 – and her malinterpretation violates the 1st Amendment. The State of California does not have the constitutional authority to restrict candidates to expressing only popular points of view.
Mark Seidenberg, you make that point again and again, but you never respond to the point that the law still permits independent presidential candidates to use “independent” on the ballot. You never respond to the point that the American Independent Party has been on the ballot since 1968 and in the years 1968-2010 “independent” was permitted for all partisan office. You never mention the point that Americans Elect is on the ballot and that party also shares a word with the American Independent Party. Ironically, Americans Elect has a member running in 2014 in California, but your party has no one running in 2014 in California.
I don’t understand why you say “independent candidates were practically banned” under the old law. There were 3 independent candidates on the November ballot for Congress in California in 2010. There was one in 2008, Cindy Sheehan, and she came in 2nd, ahead of the Republican nominee. Even the Communist Party, and the Socialist Workers Party, and the Workers League, all used the old California independent candidate procedures, as did the Libertarian Party before it was ballot-qualified.