On April 26, the Independent Party filed this reply brief in Independent Party v Padilla. The case challenges the Secretary of State’s refusal to ask the counties to tally how many registered members the party has. In California, parties get on the ballot by persuading approximately 60,000 voters to join the party via voter registration forms. The Secretary of State bases on his refusal on two grounds: (1) recognizing a political body named “Independent Party” would cause voter confusion with independent candidates; (2) the law says two parties can’t have names so similar as to cause confusion, and “American Independent Party” is already on the ballot. California has no law saying a party can’t be called the “Independent Party”, and ballot-qualified parties named “Independent Party” exist or have recently existed in eleven other states.
Of course, California no longer allows independent candidates to use the word “independent” on the ballot, except that independent presidential candidates may still use that word. California hasn’t had an independent on the ballot for president since 1992.
The case has a hearing in Sacramento on May 2, Monday, at 1:30 p.m. Mark Seidenberg will be allowed to address the court, to represent the interests of the American Independent Party.
If both of the SOS’s arguments are simultaneously true, it follows logically that the AIP name also confuses voters who want to be nonpartisan, and thus should be removed from the ballot.
California does not have partisan nominations for offices other than President. It does not have Independent nominations for offices such as Governor, US Senator, or Assemblyman, nor does it have Democratic or Republican nominations for those offices. No candidate appears on the ballot for those offices as “Democratic”, “Republican”, or “Independent”
For the office of President there are partisan nominations. Candidates not nominated by a party are designated as “Independent” (please note capitalization as per Elections Code 13105(c)”
Just because 11 other states have made the mistake of permitting recognition of an “Independent Party” is no reason for California to follow suit. What do those 11 other states designate a candidate whose basis for appearing on the ballot is not an association with a political party?
Lets look at the Plaintiff in this lawsuit. We have William George “Bill” Lussenheide. He seconded a
resolution in June, 2008 at a cabal in Los Angeles County in June, 2008 to affiliate with the Constitution Party the American Independent Party when he was a registered member of the Republican Party. The meeting he did that at however was not connected to the American Independent Party.
It was Dr. Don Grundmann that moved to affiliate the AIP with the CP at that June, 2008, meeting of former active person in the AIP and other that was not set at a location approved by the State Central Committee. Said meeting was not called to order by a member of the AIP State Central Committee.
One week later Dr. Grundmann showed up at the AIP Convention in Sacramento as a delegate, spoke and the
left the Convention.
The claimed State Chairman of the “Independent Party” is Charles M. Deemer, who is a national committeeman and Treasurer of the “Constitution Party of California”. The claimed Secretary – Treasurer of the purported cabal “Independent Party” was an AIP elector on February 24, 2015 the
day that Charles M. Deemer filed a request for Political Body with the SOS. The location of the
caucus was at Fresno, CA on October 11, 2014. This Secretary-Treasurer was M. Stevens, who served
prior to 2007 on the AIP State Central Committee and the mother of the Constitution Party Chairman
Gary Odom.
At the 2008 Convention of the State Central Committee Dr. Don Grundmann was a delegate to the Convention. The last date that Dr. Don Grundmann was on the State Central Committee of the American
Independent Party was on September 2, 2008. Ida Grundmann and N. Johnson are the claimed Vice Chairpersons of the “Constitution Party of California”.
There are about 120,000 electors in California that placed as other political party preference
“Independent” Party. Deemer and Lussenheide want to use these 120,000 electors for the formation
of a political body to get ballot access on July 11, 2016.
That is why they want to use the name “Independent Party” so they do not have to do a membership
drive for the Constitution Party of California to get Ballot Access in November, 2016 election.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California
How to fix California’s political party mess:
I. Definition of Political Party:
A political party has the following qualifications:
(A) More than 100 registrants.
(B) A name that is
(1) Not “Independent”
(2) Not “California”, “United States”, or the name of any county or city in the state.
(3) Does not use “Independent”, “California”, “United States”, or the name of any county or
city in the state to modify the name of an another party (eg “Independent Libertarian”;
“California Republican”; “Fresno Democratic”) “California Whig” would be allowed so long
as there is not an extant Whig Party/
(4) Names that are obscene;
(5) Names that are confusing (eg “Democrat”)
II. Active Political Parties
An active party has the following characteristics:
(A) An elected state executive committee;
(B) Elected state officers, at minimum a state chair; secretary, and treasurer;
(C) Compliance with financial reporting laws;
(D) Audited financial reports;
(E) Biennial state convention;
(F) State party website, on which rules and bylaws, and notices of meetings, elections, agendas, and
minutes shall be posted. Any such postings shall also be filed with the Secretary of State.
(G) Rules and bylaws filed with the Secretary of State:
(i) Election of party officers and committees by registered members, without financial
encumbrance or discrimination;
(ii) Method of changing the rules and bylaws (must be ratified by registered members);
(iii) Biennial state convention;
(iv) Any affiliation with national political parties, including selection of delegates to
national conventions, and members of national governing bodies.
(v) Selection of presidential and vice-presidential candidates;
(vi) Selection of presidential electors;
(vii) Making of endorsements for sample ballots;
(viii) Other matters (eg the rules might provide for a platform, but that is not mandated)
III. Inactive Parties
If an active party fails to comply with provisions of II it will be deemed inactive, and will require a reactivation procedure (VI). There will be provision for temporary lapses.
IV. Abandoned Parties.
If a party falls below 100 registrants, it will have one year to rectify the problem by securing new registrations. If it remains below 100 registrants, it will be considered abandoned. Registrants will be informed, and given an opportunity to affiliate with a different party. If they fail to make a change, their registration will be changed to No Party Preference.
If a formerly qualified or active party has been inactive more than 10 years, it will be considered abandoned, regardless of the number of registrants. The 10 years will be measured from the later of (1) the change in the law; or (2) when the party became inactive.
V. New Parties.
A new party will hold a state organizing convention at which it will choose a name, elect officers, and create a set of rules and bylaws. The convention must be attended by at least 100 registered voters. The party may also count registered voters who attended local conventions that chose delegates to the state convention.
Upon confirmation that more than 100 registrants want to form a new party, and that it otherwise meets the qualifications of an active party, the registrations of the voters forming the party will be changed.
VI. New registrations.
Voters may only register with an active or inactive political party. If a voter attempts to register with another name, they will be told of the procedure for forming a new party, and given the opportunity to register with another party. If they fail to do so, they will be registered as No Party Preference.
VII. Reactivation procedure.
A party that has become inactive, other than a temporary lapse, may hold a Reorganization Convention, if a petition is received signed by 1% of registrants with the party (10 minimum). All registrants shall be informed of the convention(s). If 10% of registered members attend the convention(s), the party will be reactivated in the manner of a new party. If the activated party chooses a new name, current registrants will have the opportunity to: (a) change to the new name; (b) retain their current registration; (c) choose another party; of (d) have No Party Preference.
VIII. Party names.
A party may change its name if approved in a plebiscite approved by 50% of registered members. If a name change is approved, then registrations of party members will be changed. All registered members will be informed of the impending change, and given the opportunity to choose among (1) the new name; (2) the old name; (3) the name of another party; or (4) No Party Preference. Failure to respond will cause the registration to change to the new name.
Voters who choose to retain the old name will be considered to have formed an inactive party.
If an inactive party has a name that does not comply with the naming rules, then the Reorganization Convention must choose a compliant name.
IX. Major Party
A major party is an active party with at least 0.1% of voter registrations (approximately 17,000).
X. Provision for Party Elections.
Active political parties may elect their committees and other officers by either: (a) popular elections conducted by mail; or (b) at conventions open to all registered members. The state of California shall provide a biennial mailing to each registered member of (a) notice of party conventions; and/or (b) party ballots.
Such an election may not occur within 90 days of a state primary or general election. Counties will collect the returned ballots, including any verification, and turn them over to the parties for counting. Parties may contract with the counties for ballot-counting services.
XI. Voter-Nominated Elections
A candidate may have their party preference printed on the ballot if it is the name of an active party, or an inactive party that was formerly active or qualified (eg Natural Law, Reform, Socialist, Progressive, Prohibition, Liberty, Communist, Townsend, Independent Progressive, Americans Elect).
Candidates with other preferences may have “Preference: None” or “Preference: Independent” on the ballot. Any candidate may have a blank space. As now, the 10-year preference history will appear on the SOS web site.
Candidate qualification for voter-nominated and nonpartisan offices will be by petition (1/10 of 1% of votes for governor in the area where the candidate is seeking election). A candidate may also pay a filing fee in lieu of the petition. The fee will be 1/6 of the minimum wage times the number of signatures. As now, the candidate may combine signatures and filing fee. A minimum number of petition signatures (smaller of 50, or 1/2 the total signatures) will be required.
These requirements will make it harder to qualify for statewide office, but generally easier to qualify for district or local office.
A major party may have their endorsements appear in the sample ballot. Such endorsements may be made by the state party, county parties, or district parties, as provided by the rules of the party (the rule must apply to all offices).
XII. Presidential Preference Primary
All voters will be given the same ballot, with candidates grouped by party. The ballot will have an indication of the voter’s party affiliation, but the voter will be free to vote for any candidate. Results will be tabulated by party of the voters.
Parties are free to use the results for whatever purpose they wish, including selection of national convention delegates. Each party’s policy in this regard will be explained in the voter’s pamphlet.
Candidates for major party nomination will be selected by the SOS. A party may remove candidates, and require a loyalty oath to not run in the general election as other than the party nominee. Additional candidates may be added by petition of party members (1%, minimum 100). Other active parties may have their nominee placed on the ballot. Independent candidates may petition to be on the ballot (0.01% of registrants). Candidates selected by the SOS, but removed by a party will be placed in the independent section of the ballot. All candidates must consent to their placement on the ballot.
XIII. Presidential General Election
All candidates will be placed on the general election ballot by petition (0.1% of vote for goveror). However, registrants with a party will be deemed to have signed the petition for their party’s nominee, ensuring automatic qualification for the nominees of major parties.
Other active parties may use the larger of (a) the number of votes cast in the primary for their nominee; or (b) the party registration as the base of support; then supplement that by petition. Active parties may substitute for their presidential candidate.
Independent candidates may use the votes received in the primary as the base of their support, then supplement that by petition. Candidates who signed a loyalty oath will not be eligible to run as an independent candidate.
XIV. Transition
Currently qualified parties will become active parties (major party is a subset of active party). They will have 180 days to promulgate party rules and bylaws. If they fail to do so, they will be deemed to have adopted the relevant parts of Division VI and VII. After 180 days, those Divisions will be replaced by general requirements (but not generic procedures).
The SOS will count all registrations not affiliated with a major party or with No Party Preference. When the list is published, possible spelling variants may be noted, and the SOS will contact the voter for clarification.
Formerly qualified parties will be considered inactive, and may be reactivated (VII). If there are fewer than 100 registrants, they will have one year to gain new registrants, or be considered abandoned (IV). Formerly qualified parties with more than 100 registrants will be considered inactive if they have not been reactivated within 10 years of the new law.
Other groups with more than 100 registrants, that have never been qualified, will be considered inactive parties, and subject to possible activation (VII). If they are not activated within 5 years, they will be treated as if abandoned.
Thus, formerly qualified parties such as Reform, Natural Law, Progressive, Independent Progressive, Prohibition, Liberty, Townsend, Communist, Socialist, and Americans Elect, will be considered inactive for up to 10 years, so long as they have over 100 registrants. If both the Progressive and Independent Progressive parties seek reactivation, the second to be reactivated will require a new name.
These groups have had more than 100 registrants at some time since 2000: Humanist, Rock&Roll, Christian, WHIG, Conservative, Constitution, Justice, La Raza Unida, We Like Women, and WHIG Party. It is likely that some of these groups continue to have more than 100 registrants. The fact that there was an attempt to qualify these groups is not relevant to the activation process. It is simply that we have information about their number of registrants. Other groups like “Independent” may also have more than 100 registrants.
A political party is an organized group of registered voters, and thus must be organized by the registrants meeting in convention, rather than a select group qualifying a party (eg Americans Elect; Womens Equality; Lussenheide faction). This does not preclude a leadership group helping the organization.
Groups with over 100 registrants, that have never been qualified will have a 5-year window in which to become organized. This is to recognize that they might have become active parties in the past had the new law been in effect.
Groups with under 100 registrants will be considered abandoned.
Voters will be able to register with:
(1) An active party;
(2) An inactive party for 10 years after it is no longer an active party;
(3) A formerly qualified party for 10 years after passage of the new law;
(4) A group of with more than 100 registrants, at the time of passage of the law, for 5 years after
passage of the law.
If the number of registrants of any of (2), (3), or (4) falls below 100 for one year, the time period is immediately terminated.
If a voter is registered with any party preference other than (1), (2), (3), or (4) they will be informed, and given a chance to change their party preference or become No Party Preference. If they do not respond, they will be changed to No Party Preference.
New or updated registrations will also be limited to choosing among (1), (2), (3), or (4).
What about names of “towns” that are not “cities”, such as the Town of Fairfax, in Marin County. It is a
place that attorney Robert Barnes, Esq. claimed he was at for $450.00 an hour, in the case KING v. ROBINSON, when he was a claimed attorney for Markham Robinson in a Fairfield Court.
California has a city named “Sonora” and a city named “Sonoma.”
California has a city named “Santa Clara” and a city named “Santa Clarita.”
Those are far closer to each other than American Independent is to Independent.
Richard Winger,
You do not get it. During the case of KING v. ROBINSON in Fairfield, CA, attorney Robert E. Barnes, Esq. wanted Markham Robinson to pay him $450 an hour for the time he spent in Fairfax, Marin County. This was at a time when events took place in Fairfield, CA. To this day, I do not know how attorney Robert E. Barnes became to represent Markham Robinson and what went on in Fairfax, Marin County, CA that Mr. Barnes wants to be compensated for. Markham Robinson has no retrospection of hiring attorney Robert E. Barnes, Esq. or if not he that hired him, who claims to be his “Next Friend” that did hire Robert E. Barnes, Esq. to represent Markham Robinson.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California.
P.S. First it was trying to take control of the name “American Independent Party”. Then it was the
name “Real American Independent Party”, Now it is “Independent Party”. These issues have been going
on in courts since 2008.
\