On April 18, U.S. District Court Judge William B. Shubb will hear Independent Party v Padilla, e.d., 2:16cv-316. The party is seeking a preliminary injunction to ask the Secretary of State to determine how many registered voters it has. In California, parties become ballot-qualified if they have approximately 60,000 registered members. Normally when a group wishes to become a party, it asks the Secretary of State to work with the counties and find out how many registrants it has. But the California Secretary of State has refused to ask county election officials to tally the number of members of the Independent Party, on the grounds that the Independent Party is an impermissible party, because its name is too similar to the American Independent Party.
The court hearing will be in Sacramento.
What date will it be?
April 18 (those are the first words in the post!)
Have you seen the letters from the SOS to the self-styled “Independent Party”?
Yes, they are very brief. The March 26, 2015 letter says, “In reviewing your official notice, it does not meet the requirements of Election Code section 5001. Elections Code section 5001(a) provides in pertinent part that ‘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 pursuant to subdivision (b).’ The name of the Independent Party is too similar to the name of the existing party, the American Independent Party.”
In 44 states, at one time or another, two parties that share a common word in their name have been on the ballot simultaneously. Many parties have had the word “Socialist” in their name, and were on ballots simultaneously.
Richard Winger,
When and how did you receive the March 26, 2015 letter. I have made a “Public Records Request for that letter and as of now that
is not arrived from the SOS.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California.
There is a conflict between section 5001 and 5003, since voters can register a preference for a party prior to the party seeking to have preferences tallied. You end up with some voters being affiliated with an illegal party.
If recognition were reduced to a small number of voters (100), then 5001 could be rewritten so that the organizing convention(s) had to be attended by at least 100 persons.
There would be at least some proof that there was an organizational meeting by actual California party members, whether for the Coffee, Independent, Americans Elect, or Socialist Party.
If the new party was recognized, the registration of the organizing members would be changed. If voters then attempted to register with an unrecognized party, they would be informed by the vote registrar and given an opportunity to choose between a recognized party and NPP.
There is great inconsistency among county registrars in California how they administer party registration. By ensuring that all voters were affirmatively registered with a recognized party or as NPP, this would be reduced.
It would also make administration of Top 2 consistent with the California and United States Constitutions.