In California, a group that wants to qualify as a political body can do that, by persuading approximately 60,000 persons to register into the group. A group using that method must tell the Secretary of State that it intends to qualify. Then, the Secretary of State tells the county election officials to keep track of the number of registrants in that group.
In March 2015, the Independent Party notified the California Secretary of State that it wishes to qualify. The Secretary of State rejected the filing, on the grounds that the name “Independent Party” is too similar to the American Independent Party, which has been on the ballot since 1968. The California law says “The designated name shall not be so similar to the name of an existing party so as to mislead the voters, and shall not conflict with that of any existing party or political body that has previously filed notice.”
However, recently the California Secretary of State accepted a filing from a different group that is the “Independent California Party”, and (as reported earlier) this year the Secretary of State accepted a filing from a group called the American Freedom Party.
The Independent Party has been trying to find an attorney to sue the Secretary of State for some time.
Sorry, Richard, but I can see the SoS’s point. The separation of “independent” and “party” clearly distinguishes the Independent California Party from the AIP. “Independent Party” and “American Independent Party” are easily interchangeable.
On the other hand, voter registrars have apparently been able to distinguish between those who expressed a preference for the Independent Party, and checked the American Independent Party box.
The SOS should have the county voter registrars tabulate the number of voters who prefer the Independent Party before making a determination.
Better yet, would be to reduce the number of members needed to qualify a party to some reasonable number, such as 100 or 200. New parties would qualify by a petition signed by the initial party members, whose registration would be changed upon qualification.
This would eliminate the need to permit write-ins. If a registrant did enter the name of an unrecognized party, the voter registrar could ask for clarification.
In 1896 the California Supreme Court ruled that the National Democratic Party should be allowed on the ballot even though the Democratic Party was already on the ballot.
Other courts have issued similar rulings. The purpose of the law is to keep new parties from using names that are virtually indistinguishable from old parties. For example, in 1970 in New York, the Conservative Party was already on the ballot and a group called the Conservation Party tried to get on. The courts wouldn’t allow that name, and I agree with that decision.
Richard Winger,
You state that the “Independent Party has been trying to find an
attorney to sue the Secretary of State for some time.” This was
a December 14, 2015 post. It is my current understanding that attorneys Robert E. Barnes (SBN 235919) and Keobopha Keopong
(SBN 280737), filed suit circa February 16, 2016 over this issue
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California. I note there are four courts in that district. Does
any one know the case number, judge, and court this case has
been assigned to.
Other than Mr. Charles M. Deemer, who claims he is the State
Chairman of the “Independent Party” (sic.) who else is in the
cabal that claims to be an office of the “Independent Party”.
It is interesting to note that the Constitution Party lists
the same Charles M. Deemer as its California contact. The
Constitution Party of California website lists Don Grundmann
as Chairman of the “Constitution Party of California” with
Charles Deemer as an organizer.
I am interested to learn the names of the people that are the
officer of the entity of unknown form calling itself the
“Independent Party” (sic.)?
The problem is the Constitution Party of California has only
338 electors, up from a year ago with 325 electors.
If any one has information about the formation of the cabal in
early 2015, please post that information here.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California.