On February 8, the Ninth Circuit heard Soltysik v Padilla, 16-55758. This is the case over the California law that says members of qualified parties may have the name of the party they are registered in on the ballot. But members of unqualified parties must have “party preference: none.” The plaintiff, Mimi Soltysik, is a registered Socialist and when he ran for the legislature in 2014, he wanted to have “party preference: Socialist” on the ballot, but that was not allowed because the Socialist Party is not ballot-qualified.
The hearing lasted 43 minutes. The state argued that if a party is not ballot-qualified, it is not a party. The judges seemed to all feel that this is false. Clearly virtually everyone has heard of the Socialist Party, which is recognized by the Federal Election Commission as one of the eight national committees in the U.S. Here is a link to the audio.
The judges wondered why the state couldn’t change the ballot label to “party preference: no qualified party.” Or they wondered why the state couldn’t put an asterisk next to the name of candidates who are members of unqualified parties, so that Soltysik could have put “party preference: Socialist*”, with the asterisk leading to a note on the ballot saying “* not a qualified party.”
The ACLU attorneys, who argued for Soltysik, pointed out that the California voter registration form asks all voters if they wish to indicate a party preference, and applicants are free to choose a qualified party or an unqualified party as their party preference. Therefore, the “party preference” applies to both types of parties on the voter registration form, yet not on the ballot, so that is contradictory.
Every election is NEW.
EQUAL ballot access test(s).
What office in the case ???
When was cased filed/started ???
Asking for $$$ damages to bankrupt the hack defendant(s) ???
I wonder if the judges went back to chambers and said, “that lawyer for the State doesn’t believe a word he was saying.”
Elections Code 300.5 “Affiliated with a political party” as used in reference to a voter or to a candidate for a voter-nominated office means the party preference that the voter or candidate has disclosed on his or her affidavit of registration.”
CC/ROV #10086 which was issued in March 2010, in anticipation of the June 2010 primary at which Californians enacted Proposition 14, clearly shows that the SOS believed that a voter could have a party affiliation other than for one of the hexopoly.
The State is arguing that Elections Code 338 is a grant of participation rights in primaries. But it is only a definition of “party” when that word appears in the code. Elections Code 4 says the definition is not valid if the context requires otherwise.
A voter’s “political party preference” is not derivative of the term “party”. But instead a political party becomes “qualified” on the basis of having a certain number of voters who have a preference for the political party. The whole section on qualification of political parties does not make any sense unless a voter can express a political party preference for a non-qualified party. Elections Code 2187 requires county election officials to tabulate the number of voters who have expressed a preference for a non-qualified party. This category is independent of those who who have not expressed a preference for a political party. It should be an easy matter to determine how Dean Logan (a defendant in this case) has reported Soltysik’s party preference.
When Proposition 14 and SB 6 converted party affiliations to party preferences, it distinguished Declined To State (DTS) who were converted to No Party Preference (NPP) voters, from voters who were affiliated with a party. No distinction was made based on whether voters were affiliated with a qualified or non-qualified party – because there is no such distinction under California statute.
Political parties are not participants in voter-nominated elections in any meaningful sense of the word “participate” or “participant”. To the extent that they do participate in such elections, it is not on the basis of them being “qualified”. The Democratic Party may participate in non-partisan elections, such as for county supervisor, mayor, city council. They may recruit candidates, give financial support, even produce flyers linking the party’s other candidates. They likely would have to report contributions, but otherwise there would/could be no state regulation of their activities. But Socialist Party and the Anti-Crime Party could do exactly the same (perhaps legal ethics would restrict three federal judges from overtly participating in this manner). If NO party is “qualified” or ALL parties are “qualified”, “qualified” is without meaning.
The same is true for participation by a party in a voter-nominated election. The Democratic Party can recruit and give support to candidates. As with non-partisan elections, there is absolutely no requirement that the candidates recruited or supported by the Democratic Party be Democrats. It is a political decision made by the party. The same is true for the Socialist Party and the putative Anti-Crime Party.
There is one exception. Elections Code 13302 says that a qualified party may have its endorsements printed in the party’s voter guide (in theory a county could distribute a different guide to registrants of each party, I don’t think any actually do). But Elections Code 13302 explicitly gives this authority to “qualified political parties”. If “political party” always meant “qualified political party”, then this phrasing would mean a “qualified ‘qualified political party'”. This is nonsensical. Instead, in context, “qualified political party” is an exceptional and unique authorization for certain parties to participate in voter-nominated elections. The Democratic Party may have endorsements printed in the state-distributed voters pamphlet, the Socialist and Anti-Crime parties may not.
Given the added cost, including possible separate distributions, the modicum of support rule makes sense with respect to preparing and distributing voters pamphlets.
Note: Emidio Soltysik was the Socialist USA Party nominee for President in 2016. But the current legal action is based on his potential candidacy for the California Assembly.
California ballots state that the party preference of candidates is something that the candidate has “selected”. Emidio Soltysik did not select to have “No Party Preference” on the ballot, quite possibly because he knows it to be false. He may have even been discouraged from running based on having this falsehood officially associated with himself, and which can be considered pejorative.
While California could require additional evidence that three persons drinking beer had really created the Anti-Crime Party, they don’t have to do so. They could instead depend on disclosure by the voter/candidate. Texas does not have campaign finance limits, but it does have disclosure. California could prosecute voters who provided a false party preference on their affidavit of voter registration.
I would think that having 64,000 registrants is a bit of overkill. California could require a more modest number like 50 or 100, as well as formal activity (bylaws, an executive body, biennial state convention, control of the party by registrants, public notice of meetings, compliance with campaign finance laws, an annual registration fee (California charges corporations a $100 initial fee, and $25 annual). With a smaller number, California could eliminate the write-in option from registration forms. A new party could simply submit their application for recognition along with sufficient signatures from voters seeking to form the party. When the party is recognized, their party affiliation would be changed. This addresses the state’s concern about confusing names, which current law does not address.
Election officials could screen affidavits of voter registration for non-existent parties, just as they likely do for non-existent addresses. If an applicant says that they prefer the “Anti-Crime Party”, the election officials would provide an opportunity to select a recognized party, or be enrolled as “No Party Preference”. There could be a dormant status for political parties that do not remain formally active. Voters who have a preference for a dormant party would not have their registration changed.
A formal process based on all registrants associated with a dormant party would be required to reactivate it. If a party fell below the minimum, the remaining registrants would be informed before their registration was changed to No Party Preference.
It appears that the 9th Circuit will remand the case to the district court. If there is discovery, would it be possible to discover the role of public sector labor unions in changing the wording on candidate applications from what is was expressed in SB 6? Public sector labor unions were among the most active opponents of Proposition 14, and I understand that the staff of the Secretary of State’s office is unionized. In addition, Debra Bowem was a candidate in the second election conducted under Top 2, in which Michael Chamness was denied the opportunity of his preference for the Coffee Party was denied. Was Debra Bowen self-dealing to cripple opposition candidates. Bowen was also indirectly involved in the first Top 2 election, since it was for the Senate seat she had previously held. During the general election in 2010, the distinction between Debra Bowen, Secretary of State, and Debra Bowen, former senator for the district was muddied.
How about a JR const amdt petition ???
OR
NO primaries. NO party hack voter registrations.
PR and AppV