On May 20, Emidio “Mimi” Soltysik filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit in Soltysik v Padilla. The issue is the California law that lets some party members have their party printed on the ballot (for congress and partisan state office), but not other candidates. The U.S. District Court in Los Angeles had upheld the law last month.
On May 17, the Independent Party filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit in Independent Party v Padilla. In the 9th circuit, the case is 16-15895. The issue is whether the Independent Party will be furnished with information about how many people registered into it. The U.S. District Court in Sacramento had upheld the action of the Secretary of State. He refused to ask county election officials to determine how many registered voters the party has. The U.S. District Court had ruled that if a party named Independent Party were to become qualified, that “might” cause confusion. However, there was no evidence in the case that confusion would result. There is evidence in the case showing that eleven states have a qualified party named Independent Party on the ballot (either currently or recently) but the U.S. District Court Judge did not mention that in his opinion.
Prior to 2010, California did not interpret a voter’s party affiliation as anything other than personal. It was characterized as an “intent to affiliate with a party at the next primary”. In other words, which primary a voter intended to vote in. A Decline To State voter was literally a voter who declined to state what their intent was.
California used the number of voters with a particular intent to determine whether that party qualified to hold a primary. A party that is currently qualified might not be qualified in the future (abandoned) or a party may be newly qualified. A party might decline to participate in a primary (eg the Libertarian Party does not participate in government-funded elections of party officers).
But regardless of whether a party was qualified or not, a voter’s intent to affiliate was personal and would never be changed unless the voter changed it. Proposition 14 did not change this. The preamble said that intents to affiliate would be changed to a party preference. SB 6, the statute that implemented Proposition 14, distinguished between those who Declined To State and those who intended to affiliate with a political party, whether Coffee, Constitution, Socialist, Libertarian, Democratic, etc.
A voter’s party preference remained personal and unchanging, unless the voter changed it.
Prior to Proposition 14, a “qualified” party could participate in a partisan primary, by having its own primary to choose its nominee for the general election ballot. The fundamental purpose of Proposition 14 was to extirpate this right to participate. Since there is no formal participation by any political party, no party is qualified to participate.
All parties are of course able to participate in informal ways, such as recruiting candidates, raising campaign funds, engaging in voter registration and GOTV efforts, endorsing candidates, etc. The State of California could not prevent the Socialist Party from recruiting candidates, or the Coffee Party from raising campaign funds, or the Constitution Party from engaging in voter registration and GOTV efforts, or the Democratic Party from endorsing candidates. But this not at all different from how they may participate in nonpartisan elections.
There is no way to interpret a voter’s political party preference as anything other than what they personally entered on their affidavit of voter registration, and signed to indicate that all the information is truthful and correct. If Mimi Soltysik’s party preference is not Socialist, there are three possibilities:
(1) Soltysik perjured himself;
(2) Soltysik was confused about the government form;
(3) The government was confused about the government form and was introducing a bizarre interpretation of what the voter intended.
If Dean Logan were deposed it would go like this:
(Shown Soltysik’s Affidavit of Voter Registration, which his office had produced).
Question: What is Emidio Soltysik’s political party preference?
Logan: Socialist
Question: How did you determine that?
Logan: I read the card, and checked that it was signed.
Question: You didn’t check any other source?
Logan: No. A voter’s party preference is what they wrote on the card.
Question: If Soltysik were to run for Assembly, what would his party preference be?
Logan: Socialist.
Question: How would that party preference be indicated on the ballot?
Logan: No Party Preference.
Question: How can that make sense.
Logan: The Constitution requires that a party preference be indicated on the ballot in the manner provided by statute. That is the manner provided by statute.
Question: That doesn’t violate the 1st Amendment?
Logan: No, the State has the right to ensure that political expression conforms to orthodox values when it appears on a official document like a ballot.
Soltysk is a Socialist. I do not question that as a fact. However, the party that formed on July 29,
1901 was deemed “abandoned” by a California Secretary of State. Therefore, it can not be listed on the
ballot.
At the October 11, 2014 cabal of the “Political Body” named the “Constitution Party” at Fresno, CA
formed the “Independent Party”. The “Independent Party” was a party in California’s past. William
Kent was a member of that party in California. It to was also deemed “abandoned by a California
Secretary of State.
The Fresno cabal had a “First Chairman” named Dr. Don Grundmann and an additional “Chairman” named
Gary Odom. Charles M. Deemer was elected Chairman of the “Independent Party” (while serving as a
National Committeeman and Treasurer of the political body “Constitution Party of California”). Gary
Odom’s mother serves as the Secretary-Treasurer of the “Independent Party”. At the date of the filing
letter of February 24, 2015 by Mr. Charles Deemer for a political body named “Independent Party”.
both Dr. Don Grundmann and Gary Odom’s mother were California electors registered with the “American
Independent Party of California”.
William “Bill” Lussenheide was the person that seconded a resolution of Dr. Don Grundmann in June, 2008
at a cabal in Los Angeles to have the American Independent Party affiliate with the “Constitution Party”. At that time of that resolution Mr. Lussenheide was a California elector registered with the
Republican Party.
Dr. Don Grundmann went on the State Central Committee of the “American Independent Party” in year 2002.
His last date on the AIP State Central Committee was September 2, 2008 (according to the records of the
American Independent Party). He remained an elector in the AIP until April, 2015.
The name “Independent Party” is part of the name “American Independent Party”. Therefore the use of the name “Independent Party” would confuse the voters.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California
The Socialist Party was never deemed by any California Secretary of State to be “abandoned.” The California election code says a qualified party with registration below one-fifteenth of 1% is deemed to be “abandoned.” But the Socialist Party did not lose its qualified status under that law. The Socialist Party went off the ballot in November 1938, because it failed to receive 3% for any statewide race. The law setting the registration threshold didn’t even exist in 1938. A prior version of the law passed in 1940 but was held unconstitutional in Communist Party v Peek.
Richard Winger,
Your post is very interesting. I think it would be helpful here to give the history of being deemed
“abandoned”.
We know one thing that in July, 1967, there was no party in California named the “Independent Party”.
The party of “William Kent” did not have any electors in it on July, 1967.
What was the requirement in 1938 to be ballot qualified?
It does not seem hard for the Socialist Party of California to get .33 of one percent to be ballot
qualified. I have no idea if they want to be be on the primary ballot in California, why they just
not file and designate the name, since the party has been not qualified since November, 1938.
Richard Winger, are you saying that the registration of the Socialist Party of California never fell
below 1/15th of one percent after in fell below the 3 % mark in November, 1938. When was that figure
lowered to 2 % under California law.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California
California Elections Code section 5101 states:
Whenever the registration of any party that qualified in the previous direct primary election falls below one-fifteenth of 1 percent of the total state registration, that party shall be deemed to have been abandoned by the voters. The Secretary of State shall immediately remove the name of the party from any
list, notice, ballot, or other publication containing the names of the parties qualified to participate in
the primary election.
NO robot party hack primaries.
[general] Election ballot access ONLY via equal nominating petitions– since each election is NEW.
It should be noted that Ch. 6 of the 4th Ex. Session of 1940 stated:
“No party shall be recognized or qualified to participate in any primary election which uses or adopts
as part of its designation the word “communist” or any derivative of the word “communist”.
It is clear that both the Socialist Party and the Independent Party does not fall into that derivative
word.
My suggestion is read the following and then comment below after reading.
“LEGAL OBSTACLES TO MINORITY PARTY SUCCESS”, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 57, No. 7, June, 1948, pp. 1276 – 1297.
You are confusing partisan offices with voter-nominated offices.
The intent of Proposition 14 was that:
“All registered voters otherwise qualified to vote shall be guaranteed the unrestricted right to vote for the candidate of their choice in all state and congressional elections.”
Denying a voter the ability to know the political party preference of some candidates is a restriction on the right to vote for those candidates. Imagine if a candidate who prefers the American Independent party, had to run as “Wets His Pants”. The Attorney General and Secretary of State might argue that this was an indication of the party preference of that candidate, and that it within the purview of the legislature as to how party preferences are indicated on the ballot.
“This act conforms to the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party (2008) 128 S.Ct. 1184.” The key finding of that case was that a candidate’s party preference is personal to him, and does not indicate that the party supports the candidate.
Before Proposition 14, Mimi Soltysik could have simultaneously sought the nomination of all six parties qualified to make nominations. Had he been nominated by all six, those names would have appeared next to his name on the ballot. “American Independent” indicated which parties had nominated him.
After Proposition 14, the American Independent party is not qualified to make nominations. Neither are the Libertarian, Democratic, Republican, Peace&Freedom, or Green parties. Nor are the Socialist, Constitution, or Coffee parties.
Kamala Harris prefers the Democratic Party. She can have that preference appear on the ballot because the Democratic Party could do what they can not do because of Proposition 14. That is moronic logic.
“Participate in the election” must be interpreted as limited to only those activities they are qualified for.
The Democratic Party may recruit candidates. But that is not because they are qualified to do so. Recruitment of candidates is fundamental to the 1st Amendment right of political association. Any person individually or in concert with others, including political parties may do so. For all we know the Constitution Party recruited Don Grundmann to run for the US Senate. The Democratic Party is not able to recruit candidates because they are qualified by state statute to do so. While recruiting could be considered “participation”, that participation is not predicated on being “qualified”.
Aaron Cervantes said he prefers the American Independent party. The state chair of the party was totally unaware of that candidacy. How can the party be said to be a participant?
The only formal participation by “qualified” political parties in elections for voter-nominated offices, is that they may have their endorsements printed in the voters pamphlet. But that provision explicitly specifies that is for qualified parties.
Jim Riley,
Have you read California Election Code section 8811. It states: “Whenever, upon the death of any candidate, the vacancy created is filled by a party committee, a certificate to that effect shall b filed, and upon payment of the filing fee applicable to the office, shall be accepted and acted upon by that officer as in the case of an original declaration certificate.”
A “party committee” is a “qualified party committee”. It is not a “political body”. It covers voter
nominated candidates that have died. The “Socialist Party of California” is not a “political body”.
It also is not a “qualified political party”.
The cabal designating itself as the “Independent Party” is no more a political party than Dr. Don Grundmann claiming to have formed the “Real American Independent Party”. All it is was an attempt
to get ballot access, because the Constitution Party has only 340 elector in California.
They are looking to the date of July 11, 2016 to get the count to get the independent party ballot
qualified. I expect Robert Barnes next move will be to file a motion to shorten time.
Dr. Don Grundmann has not been on the State Central Committee of the American Independent Party since
September 2, 2008. He is now running for the U.S. Senate as party “None”.
After the Socialist Party went off the ballot in California in November 1938, the only way for it to get on again was either to submit a petition signed by a number of voters equal to 10% of the last gubernatorial vote, or to obtain registration of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. It couldn’t do either. It sued in state court in 1956, but the California Supreme Court upheld the law.
The California vote test for a party to remain qualified (which was in addition to the requirement that it remain above 1/15th of 1% of the registration) was lowered from 3% to 2% in 1959.
The only reason the 1/15th of 1% registration requirement was added was to eliminate the Communist Party from the ballot. The opponents of the Communist Party were frustrated that the party kept meeting the 3% vote test, so they dreamed up the additional requirement for minimal registration. That is still in the law. So is the law banning subversive parties from the ballot. California legislative counsel said in 1975 that the subversive ban was unconstitutional, but no legislator has ever been willing to repeal that law.
Richard Winger,
Thank you for the last post. What was the 1956 case that stated the Socialist Party of California could
not get on the ballot.
Are you stating that the new .33 of one percent does not apply to the Socialist Party of California, That because they could no longer be in the primary, because of the 3 % rule, even though the law changed to 2 % in 1959?
I note the Reform Party is a Political Body, they fell below the 2 % mark. We know that they are at
just less than 15 K. Have they gone below the 1/15 of one percent? I do not think that happened yet.
If that be the case why is the Socialist Party of California not a “Political Body”, other than they
have not filed for that status with the Secretary of State?
8803(b) overrides 8811 for voter-nominated offices.
You should have the legislature remove Section 8811. It’s dead code.
The Contra Costa ROV does not agree with Jim Riley or does the SOS of California.