On February 16, the Independent Party filed a federal lawsuit against the California Secretary of State, over the state’s refusal to recognize the Independent Party as a political body. In California, a group becomes a qualified party by persuading approximately 60,000 voters to register into it. The exact percentage is .33% of the number of registered voters. The case is Independent Party v Padilla, eastern district, 2:16cv-316.
When a group desires to qualify, it files for “Political Body” status. Then the Secretary of State directs county election officials to tally up the number of people who register into that party. The law permits a new political body to ask that persons who registered into that party in the past, and who are still registered with it, to be counted.
The Independent Party filed for political body status in March 2015, but the Secretary of State refused to list it as a political body, on the grounds that the name is too similar to the name of the already-qualified American Independent Party. However, the previous Secretary of State allowed Americans Elect to become a qualified party in 2011, even though the American Independent Party was already on the ballot. Also the current Secretary of State has allowed the American Freedom Party to file as a political body. In 1896 the California Supreme Court ruled in Craig v Brown that the National Democratic Party had a right to get on the ballot, even though the Democratic Party was already on the ballot. In 1912 California permitted the Socialist Labor Party to be on the ballot in one Assembly district, even though the Socialist Party was already on the ballot. Also the current Secretary of State has allowed two different political bodies to file recently, even though they both share a word in common. They are the California National Party and the Independent California Party.
Parties named “Independent Party” are on the ballot in Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, and Oregon. Independent Parties were also on the ballot in the recent past in Arkansas, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Utah.
In Michigan, there is a petition out to put the “Independent Non Affiliation Party” on the ballot. (Michigan lists independent candidates as NPA = No Party Affiliation.)
When you refer to “Independent Parties on the ballot in the recent past” in NC, are you referring to the American Independent Party?
In California, candidates for partisan office are designated by the party that nominates them. If they are nominated by petition, it is considered to be a nomination that is independent of any political party. See Libertarian Party v Eu’ where it is explained that those who signed the petition were not necessarily registered Libertarians, but rather were making a nomination outside the auspices of any political party.
The lawsuit claims that the Independent Party seeks to make a partisan nomination for President. If they did so, then the ballot might have:
(1) an “Independent” who was nominated by petition; and a
(2) an “Independent” who was the nominee of the Independent Party.
That would be confusing.
The lawsuit accepts the misinterpretation of SB 6 by SOS Bowen and Padilla, that a party needs to be “qualified” in order for a candidate registered with the party be able to express that preference in a voter-nominated (Top 2) election.
The best result would be for SOS Padilla and AG Harris to recognize their error, and that AB 1413 violates both the California and US constitutions, and to concede the Soltysik lawsuit (Mimi Soltysik is claiming that he wants to run for the Assembly as preferring the Socialist Party; and has not asserted that he has a right to appear on the ballot as the nominee for President of the Socialist Party).
The legislature should then pass legislation that recognizes organized political parties, similar to what is done in Florida, but with a minimal registration requirement (say 100).
There is a state interest in ensuring that the entity that a candidate professes a preference for is a political party. Under such a law, recognition of an organized party would only be by petition. The result of a successful petition would be to recognize the preference of the petitioners for the new party.
This would avoid the problem of competing claims as to who the officers of the party were.
If a voter did write-in the name of an entity that was not a recognized party on their registration affidavit, they would be contacted by the voter registrar.
Chris Cole, I am referring to John Anderson’s “Independent Party” which he put on the ballot in 1980.
The American Independent Party was never on the ballot in North Carolina. The American Party was, 1968-1972 and also 1976.
Wow, I was surprised that the complaint stated that the “[V]enue is proper in the district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1391 (b)(2) on the grounds that a substantial part of the events or omissions gives rise to the claim, herein occurred in the Northern District of California.”
Yet, the case is filed in the Eastern District of California. I expect the case will die with the Special Demurrer when there is
no event claimed in the Eastern District of California.
It will also be interesting to see if the Chairman of the Political Body of the Constitution Party, Dr. Don Grundmann
will issue an affidavit for the State Chairman of this bogus
entity called the “Independent Party”, stating he has no objection with the name “Independent Party”, because he was
an actives in the American Independent Party through September 2,
2008 [his last day as a national committeeman of AIP].
Jim Riley,
Now I am trying to determine if I should be an Intervenor-Defendant in case 2:2016cv00316, viz., “Independent Party and William Lussenheide v. Padilla”.
If so, my first act would be to file a Special Demurrer because
the claim of venue in the Eastern District of California for the
United States is not covered in that February 16, 2016 complaint.
Plaintiffs claim that Venue is in with the Northern District, while filing in the Eastern District. I have no idea why Lussenheide and Deemer would approve the location of this lawsuit
in Sacramento, while claiming venue is in Northern California.
It comes down to this the last day that Dr. Don Grundmann was active in the American Independent Party was September 2, 2008,
viz., his last day as a National Committeeman of the American
Independent Party.
Now Don Grundmann is listed as Chairman of the “Constitution
Party of California” which currently a political body in California and has at last count 338 electors in its ranks.
I am now waiting for a document request from the California
Secretary of State, to get a clearer understanding as to what
the claims are.
Don Grundmann’s organizer is Charles M. Deemer who claims to be the elected State Chairman of the “Independent Party”. However,
“Independent” is part of the name “American Independent”.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party
of California
Jim Riley,
Your last comment, viz.,”[I}f a voter did write-in the name of an entity that was not a recognized party on the registration affidavit, they would be contacted by the voter registrar.”
That was the practice of the Imperial County ROV, between 2006 through 2008, viz. when a person used the National form and filed
in box 7 with the word “independent” or the Spanish word for
“independent” the ROV staff of Imperial County, California would
telecom the following question. ‘By writing independent on the
voter affidavit did you mean “American Independent Party”? In the 17 cases I am aware of, all replied in the affirmative, so the were counted as “American Independent Party” electors in the
Report of Registration are were given an AIP ballot.
I questioned Secretary of State Bowen if that was a proper procedure, and she informed me that that procedure in Imperial
County was correct.
Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California
This lawsuit is folly. A waste of time. Unnecessary muddying of the waters. Let’s run a united campaign!
It is unknown who is this lawsuit in addition to Charles M. Deemer and William “Bill” Lussenheide. Lussenheide is registered as NPP in Riverside County currently, while Charles M. Deemer, the purported State Chairman of the “Independent Party” is currently registered as Constitution Party of California in Los Angeles County. William “Bill” Lussenheide registered “American Independent” on October 24, 2008 from being a Republican. However, he was approved as a delegate to the bogus so-called convention of the rump group in June, 2008 for Chuck Baldwin and
made the second of Dr. Don Grundmann’s resolution in the name
of the “American Independent” (sic.) Party.
My guess then National Committeeman “Don Grundmann” of the AIP
did not care that a registered Republican was giving a second
to his resolution in Los Angeles in June, 2008. Note Dr. Don
Grundmann’s last day on the National Committee of the American
Independent Party was September 2, 2008. Don Lake was given the
remainder of the term that Don Grundmann received for winning
the primary election on the State Central Committee.
So on September 3, 2008, Don Grundmann was off the State Central
Committee of the American Independent Party. Early in 2008, Dr.
Don Grundmann was removed from all state and county offices of the AIP by Chairman Edward Noonan and Alameda County Chairman
Patrick Colglazier.
Dr. Don Grundmann and Mr. Gary Odom are the co-chairman of the
Constitution Party of California. Grundmann mother Ida Grundmann
and N, Johnson are the Vice Chairpersons of the “Constitution Party of California”, a political body in California with 338 registered electors. State Chairman of the bogus “Independent Party” is Charles M. Deemer, who is also a National Committeeman on the “Constitution Party of California”.
The lawsuit will fail, one reason is venue, the complaint states
venue is in the Northern District of the United States District
Court of California, but it was filed in the Eastern District of
California. It will fail at any time before trial.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California.
Richard Winger,
The version of the lawsuit on your post to this article is not the same that was filed in the court. The question is which version was served on the Secretary of State of California.
The full case number is 2:16cv316-WBS-CKD.
The filed version states that Venue is in the Eastern District
of Califronia. Your version on linev states Venue is in the
Northern District of California.
In any case Lussenheide wants to use the name “Independent Party”
even though that would confuse the electors in the state of California, because “American Independent” Party as been designated circa July 8, 1867, almost 49 years ago.
It would be so easy for him to pick a different name. The bottom
line is “Independent” will confuse the California Electors as a
political party. Whats next the “No Party Preference” as a “Political Body” under CA Election Code section 5001 et seq.
Maybe, Dr. Don J. Grundmann D. C. will try to form his choice
of a few years ago, viz., “Real American Independent Party” which
he claimed he was the Chairman. Now we have Mr. Charles M. Deemer who serves as a National Committeemsn of the Constitution
Party claiming to be the California State Chairman of the “Independent Party” at the same time he is an officer of the
Constitution Party.
You may recall back in 2008, William “Bill” Lussenheide shows
up at a bogus meeting calling themself the “American Independent
Party” in Los Angeles, and seconds a resolution introduced by
Dr. Don Grundmann, while he was a registered Republican. Then
the following week Dr. Don Grundmann shows up as a delegate to
the American Independent Party Convention in Sacramento, CA
to be seated as a delegate. I still remember Dr. Don Grundmann
claimed he did not know how one opens a door.
As for William “Bill” Lussenheide, he did not join the American
Independent Party until October 24, 2008. I am informed that
Dr. Don Grundmann departed the AIP in April, 2015. Dr. Grundmann
last day holding any office in the AIP was on September 2, 2008
according to AIP records.
No wonder there are only 338 California electors in the Constitution Party on January 5, 2016.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent
Party.
Mark Seidenberg,
The case is being heard in the Eastern District, which includes Sacramento. A scheduling hearing is scheduled for July 6, 2016 in Sacramento.
SOS Alejandro Padilla responded on March 14, 2016. He acknowledges that his office sent letters on March 26, 2015 and July 14, 2015, saying that the name of the party was too similar “American Independent”. You should probably get a copy of those letters.
Personally, I believe that the SOS is wrong. The State of California uses the word “Independent” to characterize a partisan nomination outside any party (see ‘Libertarian Party of California v Eu’). A presidential candidate nominated by petition is designated as an “Independent” on the ballot. This evidently did not cause confusion with “American Independent” in 1968 or ever since (see 1992 when Ross Perot ran as an Independent against, among others, Howard Phillips, the American Independent nominee).
==========
Since the adoption of Top 2, there really is no need for requiring a party to “qualify” by having a large number of registered voters. There could be a procedure where a group of voters could sign a petition stating that they were forming a new party. If there were a sufficient number of signers (say 100), their party preference would be changed to that of the new party, and the party would become a minor party.
If a voter filled out an affidavit of voter registration that stated a name that was not that of a major or minor party, the registrar would notify them, and ask if they wished to express a preference for a party, or to have No Party Preference.
The statute would replace the current scheme of party recognition in EC 5100, etc. It could explicitly forbid use of “Independent” and other names that might be confusing.
Under current law, some clown can request that the registrars go through their files and determine if anyone had already registered with a party. Dean Logan (or his staff) had to go through at least 44,000 registration forms to check for 7 parties, only 2 of which had registrations in Los Angeles County.
If formation and recognition occurred simultaneously, it would reduce questions about which individuals represented the party.