On April 4, attorneys for the California Secretary of State filed this brief, explaining why the Secretary of State has refused to let the Independent Party attempt to qualify for the California ballot. The brief says that if the Independent Party were to become recognized, voters would confuse the Independent Party with the American Independent Party, which has been on the California ballot since 1968. The brief also says that if the Independent Party were ballot-qualified, voters would be confused between nominees of the Independent Party and independent presidential candidates.
The brief does not mention any of the opinions from around the U.S. that have said that allowing two parties to be on the ballot, even though they both used a particular word in their names, does not cause voter confusion. The only precedent the state uses is Timmons v Twin Cities Area New Party, which upheld a Minnesota law that prevented two different parties from jointly nominating the same candidate and having both party names on the general election ballot next to that candidate’s name. The state’s brief does not mention the U.S. Supreme Court opinion Norman v Reed, which ruled that Illinois improperly barred the Harold Washington Party from using its preferred name when it was attempting to get on the ballot for Cook County partisan county offices in 1990.
Many other states have had ballot-qualified parties named Independent Party, including Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, and Vermont.
The government brief is internally contradictory, when it says that “independent” should be barred from the ballot on the grounds that it is too close to the name of the American Independent Party. Other parts of the brief acknowledge that California already permits the word “independent” as a label for presidential candidates who qualify for the November ballot by petition (although California does not permit the word “independent” as a ballot label for any candidates for Congress or partisan state office).
California has no law saying a party cannot be called “Independent Party.” Tennessee had such a law, but it was declared unconstitutional in 2012 on First Amendment grounds.
That is total BS about party qualification for voter-nominated offices.
For voter-nominated offices, the only meaningful participation as a so-called “qualified” party is to have its endorsements appear on the sample ballot. Elections Code Section 13302 specifies “qualified political party”. There is no legal obligation for a qualified political party to make such endorsements, nor a restriction to endorsing candidates who prefer that qualified party.
The purpose of Proposition 14 was to extirpate all other participation rights for qualified parties such as having an exclusive segregated partisan primary to nominate candidates or to have its nominee appear on the general election ballot.
If a political organization says that Alejandro Padilla is a swell guy and should be elected they are not doing so as part of “participation” in the election. The Banana Slug party could just as easily and as legally spend $millions on his election as the Democratic Party. The only difference between the two parties is that the Democratic Party could have their endorsement of a candidate who prefers the Banana Slug Party appear on a sample ballot, while the Banana Slug Party is not qualified to have their endorsement of a candidate who prefers the Democratic Party appear on a sample ballot.
A political party preference by a voter expressed on their voter registration is totally personal. If a candidate prefers the Democratic Party or the Banana Slug Party it does not mean that those parties like the candidate any more than a candidate who is a “Physician” is endorsed by the AMA or his patients.
When Padilla says he “prefers the Democratic Party” the Democratic Party is no more a participant than when a 6-year old points out the window and exclaims that he “likes cows”, no matter how thoughtful the cow appears as he chews his cud.
Election Code 338 does not confer some undefined “participation” rights upon qualified parties. It simply defines what the term “party” means absent of other context (see Election Code 4). In Election Code 13302 the restriction to qualified parties is explicit. We don’t need Section 338 to understand that.
But a voter’s “party preference” is what he writes on his affidavit of voter registration. A voter is required to sign the affidavit to certify that the information contained, including his party preference, is truthful and correct (subject to prosecution for perjury). In the context of voter registration it makes absolutely no sense to interpret a party preference as being limited to qualified political parties. Qualification is derivative of party preference, and not the other way around. A party becomes qualified when a certain number of voters express their preference for the political party, and may become nonqualified when the number drops below some other number.
When a party becomes qualified it does not change the meaning of the voter’s party preference, nor if a party becomes non-qualified does it change.
A “qualified” party is granted a presidential preference primary, the right to have a presidential nominee, the right to have endorsements for voter-nominated parties on the sample ballot. The state unconstitutionally imposes regulation of internal matters of qualified parties – but this is because Titanic Deck Chair Arrangers are term-limited so that they run for the legislature.
If the “Independent Party” qualified it would be confusing because for the office of President a nomination by the “Independent Party” would be indistinguishable from a nomination by petition that is independent of a party.
California does not permit the use of “Independent” for presidential candidates, it requires its use for candidates nominated by petition (See ‘Libertarian Party v Eu’).
That’s more that a stretch to argue that Norman v Reed has anything to do with the present case. Did the plaintiff’s mention that case?
The name “Independent Party” is part of the name of the “American Independent Party”. The purported state chairman of the “Independent Party” is Charles M. Deemer. Mr. Deemer is also the Treasurer and a national committeeman of the “Constitution Party of California”, a political body as of January 5, 2016 with only 338 electors. The Secretary-Treasurer of this purported “Independent Party” as of February 24, 2015 was Marilyn Stevens of Coarsgold, CA, who lives with Mr. Gary Odom, a purported Chairman of the Political Body “Constitution Party of California”. The other purported Chairman of the “Constitution Party of California” is Dr. Don Grundmann who lives with Ida Grundmann (his mother, who also serves as a Vice Chairperson of the “Constitution Party of California”.
Dr. Don Grundmann is currently run for POTUS and the United States Senate. Dr. Grundmann run for the
U. S. Senate as NPP. Until September 2, 2008, Dr. Grundmann was a member of both the National Committee
and State Central Committee of the American Independent Party. By September 3, 2008, Dr. Grundmann’s
contact with the State Central Committee had ended.
The only person named as a Plaintiff in this lawsuit is William “Bill” Lussenheide of Sun City, CA. I
first recall meeting him in Los Angeles, CA in June, 2008. He seconded a resolution introduced by Dr.
Grundmann at a cabal meeting of a claimed meeting of the “American Independent Party”, but at the time
was registered “Republican”.
At the time Marilyn Stevens was purported chosen as the Secretary-Treasurer of the “Independent Party”
she was registered as “American Independent Party”. Marilyn Stevens in the past has served as a member
of the State Central Committee of the American Independent Party of California. I recall having a meal
with her in circa 2007, at an Indian casino. She is the mother of Gary Odom.
To have ballot qualification in California for a political body you need 56,957 electors. My guess there are well over 100,000 persons in California that listed as their party preference as “independent”. Deemer & Lussenheide wants to take control of these persons, who can not understand how
to figure out the registration forms, because the wrote either “independent”as a other political party on the form.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California
The plaintiffs haven’t submitted a brief yet. But Norman v Reed is relevant because it shows that the First Amendment protects a party’s choice of what to name itself.
There is some point to the argument of “confusing” if parties have similar words in their names. However, Germany presently has a Social Democratic Party and a Christian Democratic Party (and formerly a Democratic Socialist Party) which does not seem to be confusing to voters there. Other European and South American nations have had or have similar situations. Are American voters “dumber”? Perhaps so – as Mark Seidenberg has pointed out many Californian’s enter “independent” indicating that they have no “preferred political party.” It would seem to be unjust to credit an “Independent Party” with those registrations.
At one time or another, 44 states have had parties on the ballot simultaneously that had a common word in their names. Think of the long history of both the Socialist Labor Party, and the Socialist Party, being on the ballot. Then they were joined by the Socialist Workers Party. There has also been American and American Independent. And in 1896 there was the Democratic Party and the National Democratic Party. In Alaska the Republican Moderate Party was a qualified party for a while and even elected a state legislator.
Gene,
It is not all that clear. In 2008, I visited with Secretary of State Debra Bowen over the practice of the
Imperial County ROV use of the Spanish use of entries as the name of other political parties of the
affidavit of registration of intending to register in a party. The City of Calexico is a city with a
Hispanic Population of 96.8% on the 2010 census. I looked at many voting registration documents of some
of the persons on the AIP roles. There were several with entries “independiente americano” or just
“independiente”.
Both groups were determined to be registered in the “American Independent Party” by the Imperial County
ROV. These electors were given AIP ballots in 2010 when the AIP had a closed primary. What Deemer and
Lussenheide want is the SOS to do is ignore the determination of the ROV of Imperial County, and take away voting rights of long established American Independent Party electors.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California.
those persons v
Richard Winger,
I call your attention to the case of PATRIDGE v. DEVOTO, 148 Ca.. 167, 82 P. 775 (1905) in that case the
California Supreme Court in Bank ruled that the “Independent Republican Party” and the “Independent Democratic Party” was not allowed, because there were long time established parties in California named
the Democratic and Republican Party. The court stated “new name will mislead the heedless, indifferent, or uninformed voter”.
The so-called “Independent Party” is using the same address as the political body, “Constitution Party
of California”. This plan of Stevens, Deemer, and Lussenheide should not go forward. The name will
mislead because “Independent Party” is part of the whole name of the “American Independent Party”.
As to my meeting with the mother of Gary Odom, who is purporting to serve as to the Secretary-Treasurer of
the “Independent Party”. I recall meeting Marilyn Stevens for a meal at the Chukchansi Casino on April
23, 2007. It would be so easy to end this issue by picking another name for your current party interest.
The American Independent Party has been around since July 8, 1967. Why do you want to take part of the
party name, that you served on as a member of the State Central Committee in years past?
In any case who are the others in the cabal that want to use the name “Independent Party”, when that will confuse many California electors. Please reconsider and pick a name that does not conflict with
that of the American Independent Party.
Mark Seidenberg never complained when Americans Elect qualified as a party in California in 2011, and that party “took part of the AIP name.” Mark Seidenberg never complained when these other political bodies qualified as political bodies in California: Constitutional American, American National Socialist, American Nationalist, American Christian, Real American, American Eagle, American Centrist, American Resurrection, American Third Position, American Concerned, Independent California.
As to Partridge v DeVoto in 1905, that was a different situation. California permitted fusion back then. The Union Labor Party of San Francisco created the “Independent Democratic Party” and the “Independent Republican Party” and had them also nominate the Union Labor Party nominees. Those two parties had no nominees of their own and no substance. They were no different from the “Stop Common Core” Party created by Republicans in New York in 2014, and the “Women’s Equality Party” created by Democrats in New York in 2014.
Richard Winger,
What is the difference between your entry of “American Third Position” and your second entry of “American Third Position”?
The entry of “Real American”, is that a short version of one of Dr. Don Grundmann claimed entities? I
recall Dr. Don Grundmann has claimed to be the Chairman of the “Real American Independent Party”. Was
there a split in that party so the “Real American” split from the “Independent Party” and has become
two political bodies?
I already deleted my duplicate mention of American Third Position. The “Real American” political body is listed in the Oct. 1995 Report of Registration. Most of its registrants were in Mendocino County. Back then the “Report of Registration” did not mention the names of the state chairs of political bodies, so I don’t know who organized the “Real American” political body.
Richard Winger,
As I recall the name of the Plaintiff was PATRIDGE and not PARTRIDGE in the 1905 lawsuit. Please check your spelling.
In that case the court stated the name will “mislead the heedless, indifferent, or uninformed”, The
SOS should not approve the name “Independent Party”,because that will confuse the electors between them
and the “American Independent Party” that has been around for almost 49 years.
Every election is NEW — for each specific office.
How many *socialist* whatever parties since 1888-1890
— other than the current Donkey progressive / liberal/ socialist / COMMUNIST Party ???
‘Norman v Reed’ is not relevant to this case because the plaintiffs seek to use a name that is identical to the designation that the state of California uses for nominations outside any party process.
Britain does not permit use of “Independent Party”, nor does it permit use of “Independent”, “Official”, or “Unofficial” with the name of an existing registered party.
The SOS’s argument that “Independent” is too similar to “American Independent” is irrelevant.
California is free to change the label for independent presidential candidates to “non-partisan” or “by petition” or “unaffiliated” or “no party preference”. States that use such labels, instead of “independent”, for independent candidates, are California (for office other than president), Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, and Utah.
California is under no compulsion, ethically, politically, or legally, to make such a change.
For nonpartisan offices and voter-nominated offices, California does not have nominations, let alone of the type made for presidential candidates. California does not use labels for nonpartisan elections. Labels for voter-nominated elections use the party preference of the candidate. If the candidate does not have a party preference the ballot states that he does not have a party preference.