California has no law saying candidates for presidential elector must be registered voters. On October 1, 2016, the California Secretary of State accepted the American Independent Party’s slate of presidential electors, even though nine of them live in other states. Here is the AIP list (scroll down past the Democratic and Republican electors).
But, on November 2, the California Secretary of State sent Rocky De La Fuente (an independent presidential candidate who isn’t on the ballot in California) a letter saying he cannot be a write-in in California because seven of his presidential elector candidates are registered at California addresses different from the addresses listed on their write-in applications. Furthermore, the letter says De La Fuente won’t be permitted to alter his list, even though he submitted it well before the deadline and was not informed of any problem until after the deadline had passed. De La Fuente did submit a few alternate presidential elector candidates.
Here is the letter to De La Fuente. None of the election code references in the letter say anything about whether elector candidates must be registered voters. Section 8651 says a write-in declaration of candidacy must include the name, address, an oath supporting the Constitution, the date of the general election, and the name of the presidential candidate. Section 8652 consists solely of the write-in deadline. Section 349 defines “residence” and “domicile” but says nothing about registration.
The California Secretary of State has accepted the Republican presidential elector list, even though one of the Republican electors, Arun Bhumitra, holds a position with the federal government and Article II of the U.S. Constitution does not permit electors to work for the federal government. The Republican Party did not submit any alternate elector candidates. Also, the California Secretary of State has accepted 108 presidential elector candidates pledged to Donald Trump, and if Trump were to carry California, there is no way to tell which of those 108 electors were elected. California has 55 electoral votes. For more about that problem, see this story.
Any of the communist States to have Putin in Russia to be a 12th Amdt Prez Elector ???
Abolish the totally EVIL corrupt Electoral College with ALL of its FATAL machinations.
—
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the USA — including the slave colonies.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
How many LAWLESS actions will have happened in the 2013-2017 Prez election machinations ??? —
especially by the robot party HACKS in election law offices in the States/DC ???
i.e. what second did the USA become one more LAWLESS banana republic of LAWLESS tyrants ???
Surely he’ll sue over this.
All part of the trend towards becoming an extremely authoritarian one-party nation here in America. Ugh.
California ballots do not conform to Elections Code 13205(b). The whole election should be thrown out.
It needs to be noted here that some of the fixed acting
presidential electors under CA Election Code 7300 & 4.01 of the May 1, 2016 By-laws of the CA GOP addresses were not transmitted to the CA SOS by CA GOP. Therefore, we have an overvote with the GOP
list on its own without an addition of the 55 Nominee
Presidential Electors submitted first by the AIP in the
very early A.M. on October 3, 2016. Also note that the
list was due for the CA GOP on September 30, 2016 by
5:00 P.M. because the CA SOS had a closed office all
day October 1, 2016 and under the laws of CA the week end is from noon to midnight on Saturdays. The Secretary of State waived the submission requirement
for Jim Brulte, but will not waive it for Rocky De La Fuente.
Section 8651 says “residence address”.
The reference in the letter to EC Section 349, is apparently an attempt to determine the meaning of “residence address”. The election code defines “residence” with respect to a voter as their domicile, and not one of possibly several ‘residences’.
If the disqualified electors are registered at some other address, then they may be illegally registered. Though it is probably legal to notify the state of a change in domicile on election day (this might be limited to within a county, but De La Fuente’s elector candidates might all be from San Diego County).
Partisan elector candidates are required to be nominated by the SOS, and Democratic and Republican candidates must also supply a business address. The American Independent Party had to certify its lists, so perhaps the SOS does not check further.
Technically, independent and write-in elector candidates are filing on their own behalf, so the De La Fuente campaign would only be acting as their agent.
An interesting question would be why the SOS checked the addresses of write-in electors? There are very few write-in candidates in California. Were others disqualified? You apparently received a copy of the letter from the De La Fuente campaign. Of were they trying to disqualify the Sander’s write-in electors, and started checking all of the candidates.
California’s election code for presidential elections is a mess. Why are the provisions for the Green Party in Division Six, and those for the other parties in Division Seven?
Section 6909 requires the state to pay two-way travel mileage from an elector’s domicile to the meeting place at the state capitol, so it is reasonable to require a domicile address.
And incidentally, a replacement elector must be a citizen of California.
Jim Riley,
All political parties are in six. None are in seven. You are just incorrect in your post.
Jim Riley, where does it require nomination by the SOS of Presidential Electors? That is news to me.
There may be other write-in slates who were disqualified in California. The Secretary of State’s office in California is very close-mouthed and doesn’t release information very readily.
Darrell Castle and the Constitution Party were denied write in status.
I’d love to see some Republican and AIP elector candidates withdraw, if only to screw the partisan Secretary of State.
How do people from out of state get to be electors in California?
Isn’t Sanders a qualified write-in candidate? (Why don’t more of his supporters know that?)
Mark Seidenberg’s comment about a vote for the Republican Slate being an overvote since they omitted 10 persons entitled ex officio to be their party nominees for the Electoral College is GENIUS. If we, the American Independent Party, never nominated Trump, the Trump/Pence line would have to be discarded because of the defiant ineptitude of the Republican Party.
Of course ironically the AIP would never have analyzed the Republican Electoral College nominees so closely if the dual nomination of Trump/Pence hadn’t been bollixed up by the Republicans churlish, arrogant and unintelligent refusal of a common slate following the effective, sensible precedent of the 1940 and 1928 dual nominations involving the Republican Party.
Here is my analysis of the “Unreported Electors Entitled to an Ex Offcio Position (10)” category OXNQ (Occupied, statutory eX Officio, Not reported, Qualified)
The Republicans failed to report six (6) statutory ex officio Electoral College party nominees, two (2) heads of Republican-Chartered groups, one (1) CAGOP party official, and (1) party legislative leader, all entitled to an Electoral College nominee position according to Elections Code 7300.
There are 7 State wide positions for which nominations or elections in a party-nominated position. One of these, the 2010 State Treasurer position was won by Mimi Walters, but was appropriately omitted because she is a Congressman and not entitled to be on the Electoral College for that reason.
The six (6) other party nominated, omitted Electoral College nominees are all from the 2010 election which was the LAST election at which there were party nominated State wide candidates since after that the Top Two Primary State Constitutional amendment took effect, making all such State wide offices, VOTER NOMINATED.
The Republicans in their Bylaws defiantly assert that they are not subject to California statutory law or Constitution in their rules for these ex officio positions for Electoral College nominees. They also add two “ex officio” nominee positions not included in the Elections Code, Section 7300, which actually governs these matters.
Section 7300 DIRECTS the Republican Party to IMPLEMENT Section 7300 in THEIR, REPUBLICAN PARTY BYLAWS! What an outrage! You can’t do that say the Republicans and normally we the American Independent Party would agree. However this case is different.
The United States Constitution rarely uses the language of obligation or duty, like “shall” or “must” or “direct [in the sense of command].” But it says that the States SHALL appoint Electoral College members. It says that the legislature may DIRECT the manner of such MANDATORY appointments. Well the California State Legislature DID direct it in Section 7300 of the California Elections Code. And, still in that mode of COMMAND instructed the California Republican Party to put the provisions of Section 7300 IN THEIR BYLAWS. Now as a free political association the CAGOP is perfectly in their rights to refuse to do so, but if so, THEY CANNOT PLAY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE NOMINEE GAME. The CAGOP must forgo, if they will not comply, their PRIVILEGE of making such nominations. I say privilege, because nowhere in the United States Constitution is there the even merest HINT of political parties.
The six (6) persons deprived of their rights to be California Republican Party nominees are the following:
Steve Cooley Attorney General, 2010 Republican Nominee
Damon Dunn Secretary of State, 2010 Republican Nominee
Carly Fiorina US Senate Nominee, 2010 Republican Nominee
Abel Maldonado Lieutenant Governor, 2010 Republican Nominee
Tony Strickland Controller Nominee, 2010 Republican Nominee
Meg Whitman Governor Nominee, 2010 Republican Nominee
But there are 4 more omissions, enough by themselves to cause the Seidenberg-suggested overvote, namely the following:
Two heads of Republican-Chartered groups: Ivy Allen, California College Republicans Chairwoman, and Patty Kelly, California Congress of Republicans President. (both women. Hmmmm. Gender discrimination anyone?)
One (1) Assembly Republican Leader, Chad Mayes and one (1) CAGOP officer, Treasurer, Mario A. Guerra.
So to summarize, the Republican Electoral College slate has two fatal flaws in its composition (never mind its being submitted after the statutory deadline), a deficiency, one Constitutionally disqualified Commerce Department Trade Commission member (a major donor), and a much bigger surplus, the unreported ex officios, 6 ACTUALLY party nominated Republican State wide candidates, 2 heads of Republican-Chartered organizations, 1 CAGOP party leader, and 1 CAGOP officer, for a total of 10 additional nominees who have a RIGHT to be considered nominees.
Exactly corresponding to the 10 unrecognized by Party or Secretary of State Electoral College statutorily mandated ex officio nominees are another overage, 10 Republican Party Chairman appointee nominees.
Houston we have a problem! (A jocular reference to the Apollo 13 Mission)
Nomination of presidential electors of the various parties are in 7100, 7300, 7578, 7843, and 6864. For independent it is in 8303 and write-in candidates it is 8650. California Elections Code for presidential elections is a mess.
How do the Libertarians nominate presidential electors.
The American Solidarity Party’s Mike Maturen and Juan Munoz, who did achieve write-in status in California, would welcome the votes of the supporters of Rocky de la Fuente, Darrell Castle and Tom Hoefling in California.
Mark Seidenberg,
I meant “notification of their nomination”, rather than their ‘nomination” (see Elections Code 6909). Sorry for the omission of a word.
Elections code 7578 apparently does not require the presidential elector nominees to accept their nomination, or even be aware that they are nominated.
Doesn’t Government Code 1770(e) require a presidential elector to be an inhabitant of California?
When do the American Independent presidential elector candidates have to establish domiciliary in California? Is it by November 8, or is it in December when they meet?
Tim,
In California, write-in candidates for presidential electors file as a slate of 55 candidates, who designate the presidential and vice-presidential candidates they would vote for if elected. The presidential and vice-presidential candidates don’t need to approve (and possibly may not be able to formally disapprove).
In effect, they are a slate of 55 candidates running on the slogan of “If elected, We’ll vote for Sanders and Gabbard” A voter indicates their support for the slate by writing in “Sanders” and/or “Gabbard” on their ballot. California does permit reasonable facsimiles of a candidates name to be used. A “reasonable” election official might interpret one or the other to indicate support for the slate. The Secretary of State’s office present’s Tulsi Gabbard’s name in a odd fashion. Maybe they don’t know that the United States has a Vice President.
Will SCOTUS be election law WAR mode from Nov 8, 2016 to Jan. 20,2017 or later
— dealing with even more MORON State laws and State HACKS — as it did in 2000 in Bush v. Gore ???
I.E. some CA MORON cases involving the rotted Electoral College.
Reminder – Bush v. Gore — ALL the MORON HACKS in FL, legislative, executive and judicial did NOT have a definition of a LEGAL vote (esp for the now infamous Stone Age punch card ballots).
See the 2002 Fed election law — written in part for ALL lawless State MORON HACKS.
Markham Robinson,
Divisions VI and VII of the California Elections Code are blatantly unconstitutional. California should be denied all representation in the House of Representatives for having such illegal laws.
It says my email address will not be published, but not that I may not share it. Anyone who wants may get the details of this affair by emailing me at markyavelli@gmail.com. Markham Robinson. Or call 707-359-4884. http://www.aipca.org
Michael,
Please provide your source of information on Darrell Castle. My source of information is no one applied because he could not find 55 persons that wanted to
be write-in electors for him in CA.
Tim Riley,
What about Division VI & Division VII make then “blatantly” unconstitutional? This is news to me.
I note IN THE MATTER OF GEORGE H. CORLISS, 11 R.I. 638 it states that a “person disqualified as an elector
of the President and Vice President of the United States, by holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, cannot remove the disqualification by resigning the office, unless his resignation precedes his appointment as elector…”
I have no idea why Jim Brulte is not doing anything about
this issue before the election on November 8, 2016. Or why the California SOS has not removed Arun from the
late filed list of October 3, 2016. When they were due
on or before October 1, 2016 according to th bylaws of
CA GOP of May 1, 2016.
Jim Riley, I consider Division 6 and 7 of the California to be abominable because they even mention a Political Party by name. Authorizing and regulating the participation of political parties in a State is fine AS LONG AS THERE IS A SINGLE (much shorter) UNIFORM SET OF RULES FOR ALL POLITICAL PARTIES.
Mr. Seidenberg does not share this opinion as we do.
Markham Robinson
Jim,
In my view since there is no restriction on residence or even citizenship on electors in the Constitution, there should be none imposed by States with the single exception of having a Federal office of Trust or Profit.
And although I find specific rules for particular parties repugnant, I do not think that Division 56 and 7 of the CA Elections Code are Unconstitutional.
The AIP position is that State Legislatures have a Constitutionally bestowed plenary power over the MANNER of appointment, but not the QUALIFICATIONS for electors for President and Vice President of the United States.
In my preceding post change 56 to 6.