California State Senator Sharon Runner has introduced SB 49, to give the Governor discretion to cancel special legislative elections if only one person files to be on the ballot. See this story.
Current law already says that a special election should be canceled if only one candidate files to be on the ballot and no one files as a declared write-in candidate. However, it is believed that there has been no instance of only one candidate filing for a legislative special election, and no write-ins filing either, at least back to 1967. Before 1967, California special legislative elections were non-partisan and had no party labels on the ballot. The existing law is in any event not functional, because the deadline for a write-in candidate to file is two weeks before any election, and it is logistically impossible to cancel an election within two weeks of the expected election date. The early voting period is four weeks before election day.
A handful of other states don’t hold legislative elections (regular or special) if only one person files to be on the ballot, but they are all states that either don’t permit write-in votes, or which set a write-in filing deadline months before the election. Those states are Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, and Oklahoma.
New York doesn’t hold primary elections if there’s only one candidate unless someone files an “Opportunity to Ballot” petition. Interestingly, that forces a primary even if there are no candidates on the ballot, which has happened before.
Elections Code 10705(b) was amended by SB 6, the implementing legislation for the Top 2 Open Primary, Prior to that, 10705(b), had the qualification “even if that candidate received less than a majority of the votes cast”
Under the blanket primary scheme then used for special elections, it would be possible for a candidate to win their party’s primary without a majority of the total vote, and there be no other party’s candidates that qualify. Also before SB 6, there was the 2% threshold for a write-in candidate to be nominated.
I suspect there were special legislative primaries where all the candidates were from one party, or candidates from other parties were write-in candidates that didn’t qualify.
You are probably right that 10705(b) is meaningless under the Top 2 Open Primary, since if there is only one candidate receiving votes in the primary, he will also have received a majority of the vote.
Runner’s bill applies to the special primary. It is conceivable that in a situation like hers, that the six write-in candidates filed because they had read in the paper that there was going to be an election with no candidates. Write-in candidates do no need to file a candidate petition, so there is more effort than simply submitting some paperwork.
SB 49 has been amended from Runner’s original version.
It would have originally canceled the special primary if there was only one on-ballot candidate and no write-in candidates.
The amended version would cancel the special primary if there was only a single on-ballot candidate. Cancellation was made discretionary.
It seems to me it is also in conflict with California Election
Code section 8811. Does that seen to you in conflict also?
Election Code 8811 only applies to partisan offices. The only partisan offices are for county central committee and for presidential electors.
When the implementing legislation for the Top 2 Open Primary, SB 6, was passed in 2010, it removed Election Code 8806. Section 8806 specified which party committee would make a replacement nomination. Since there were no longer partisan nominations, 8806 was totally superfluous.
Section 8811 specifies how partisan nominations were certified. Since there are no longer partisan nomination, there is no reason to certify them. Section 8811 should be removed from the code as being obsolete.
Jim Riley
You are incorrect Election Code 8811 is not limited to
“partisan office”. You need to re-read that section over
again.There is no limit of “partisan office” in that section
of the Election Code.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent
Party of California.
Mark,
You need to look at SB 6. On the General Assembly web site’s bill search, select the 2009-2010 session, and search for SB 6. The amended version shows the changes to the code made by SB 6.
8802 was deleted. It provided that a partisan nominee that fills a vacancy for another partisan nomination, can himself be replaced. So for example, if a congressional nominee had died, the party could replace him with a senate nominee, and in turn fill the senate nomination vacancy with an assembly nominee, and then fill the assembly nomination.
Since there are no longer partisan nominations, there is no longer the possibility of cascading nomination vacancies.
8803 was not amended by SB 6. It was amended by AB 1413 (2010-11). Prior to that (AB 1413) change, it said the only valid reason for withdrawal from the ballot was death.
8803 now provides that a nominee for a nonpartisan office who dies may be replaced. It also provides that a candidate for a voter-nominated office may not be replace. 8803 does not say how partisan nominees may be replaced, since the concept of partisan nomination has been extirpated from the Election Code.
8804 applies only to the (nonpartisan) office of superior court judge, and remains unchanged.
Prior to SB 6, 8805 applied only to partisan nominations, and said that a candidate for partisan nominee, who dies prior to the primary, but who receives the most votes may be replaced as if he had died after the primary. 8805 at that time referred to the replacement procedure in 8806.
SB 6 changed Section 8805 to apply to nonpartisan and voter-nominated offices, and not partisan offices. It also pointed the replacement procedure to 8806 rather than 8807.
Subsequently, AB 1413 split 8805 into two paragraphs based on whether the office is nonpartisan or voter-nominated.
SB 6 removed Section 8806, which was the actual procedure for replacement of a partisan nominee.
SB 6 amended Section 8807 to apply to voter-nominated offices as well as nonpartisan offices. It provided that if one of the two nominees in the general election die, that they will be replaced by the third-placed candidate. Via 8805, this also applied in the case where one of the Top 2 candidates died before the primary.
Subsequently, AB 1413, added 8803(b) and 8805(b), such that for a voter-nominated office, deaths are ignored until after the general election, in which case if a dead person is elected, a special election is held. 8807 was also amended to make it apply only to nonpartisan offices.
Section 8808 remains unchanged. It provides that a vacancy in nomination be filled 68 days before the election. It now applies only to nonpartisan nominations. Vacancies in nomination for voter-nominated are not filled, and partisan nominations no longer exist.
Section 8809 provides that candidates who die 68 days before the primary will be removed from the ballot. This applies to both partisan and non-partisan candidates.
Section 8810 and 8803(b) are somewhat contradictory for voter-nominated offices.
Section 8811 is now moot, because the vacancy created by a death of a candidate is never filled by a party committee.
Whenever, upon the death of any candidate, the vacancy
created is filled by a party committee …
Part 5 of Division 8 is pretty chopped up because one type of nomination has been added, and another eliminated, and other changes have been made. A more reasonable approach to candidate deaths is to hold a special election. We willed spared the ghoulish spectacle of a campaign to elect Jane or Joe Cadaver so that a special election can be held.
Moving the primary to September would also help.