Steve Poizner, California’s former Insurance Commissioner and a 2018 independent candidate for his old job, spoke in Denver on August 19. The venue was the national meeting of Unite America, which promotes the election of independent candidates. During Poizner’s talk, he displayed a surprising ignorance of California election law and the experience of independent candidates in California in the past.
He said that before the top-two measure took effect in 2011, it was not possible for an independent to run for office in California. That statement comes in minute five. He also said that he is the first independent candidate in California history to get on the general election ballot. That is in minute four. Finally, he said that when he was elected as a Republican in 2006, California had closed primaries.
Actually, California voters elected independent candidates to the legislature in 1986, 1990, 1992, and 1994. Three of those four wins were by Quentin Kopp, who is still living in San Francisco and still very active in politics. It is stunning that Poizner seems unaware of Kopp.
California had a semi-closed primary, not a closed primary, in 2006. For proof, see this page on the Secretary of State’s web page, which shows that in 2006, both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party told the Secretary of State that independents could vote in their primaries that year.
Candidates who used the independent procedure in California appeared on the ballot for Governor in 1918 and 1978; for U.S. Senate in 1976; and for president in 1976, 1980, 1988, and 1992.
What expertise is required for ANY elective office ???
— esp. in the CA Soviet Socialist Republic — CASSOR
— where ONLY communism is of interest to the top HACKS.
How come the CA HACKS have not wiped the Insurance Commissioner office off the ballots ???
— to have an appointed HACK in the office.
Steve Poizner said he would be the first independent elected to a statewide office in California. The legislature is not a statewide office. As you you know, it would have been illegal for Lucy Killea to be elected as an indpendent without a change in the law. At the time, the party in effect owned its members. Killea was also quite interested in the election system used for the Nebraska legislature, where all candidates regardless of party run in the primary, and the Top 2 advance to the general election.
Quentin Kopp had narrowly lost the runoff for mayor in San Francisco to Dianne Feinstein. It was during that runoff that she was said to have found her political voice. Prior to that, she was the woman who was acting mayor after the assassination of George Moscone. She might not have won under IRV. There was no Republican candidate when Kopp was elected as senator.
In 1918, Theodore Arlington Bell was an independent candidate for governor. He had been the Democratic candidate in 1910 and 1914. There was no Democratic nominee in 1918. The reason there was no Democratic nominee was that long-time San Francisco mayor James Rolph had sought both Republican and Democratic nominations. Rolph, a Republican, had lost the Republican nomination but won the Democratic nomination. Under California law, Rolph could not be the Democratic nominee as a result of losing the Republican nomination. Since California had a September primary at the time, I do not know how Bell qualified.
There is a scholarly article ‘California’s Cross-Filing Nightmare: The 1918 Gubernatorial Election’ which may have additional details.
Ed Clark was the Libertarian candidate in 1978. He was prevented from having that label because the party was not qualified in 1978.
I don’t know if Richard is right or not about the “on the ballot for the general election” vs “elected.” But, I don’t think Jim Riley’s other claims negate any of Richard’s other statements. Clark was an independent. Doesn’t matter if he “technically” couldn’t identify as a Libertarian or not for the purpose of what Richard states. Ditto on Bell in 1918.
Mounting his third bid for the California governorship, Napa’s Theodore A. Bell qualified for the state’s 1918 general election ballot as an independent candidate by obtaining 12,093 signatures on nominating petitions — nearly two thousand more than needed. Strongly supported by the state’s wine interests, Bell’s independent nominating petitions were filed in Sacramento on October 2nd of that year.
Jim, Steve Poizner did say he would be the first independent elected statewide, but then almost immediately after he said he would be the first independent on the ballot, and in that sentence he didn’t say “statewide.” It is because of his statement that a writer for Independent Voter Network wrote a story, saying he would be the first independent on the ballot in California in 160 years. Fortunately she later corrected her story.
Poizner made other odd errors. He said he was last elected in 2007, when he was elected in November 2006 and sworn in in December 2006. He said top-two started in 2014, when actually it started in 2011. He said that only 24% of California voters are registered Republican whereas 26% are independents. But the last tally shows Republicans at 25.1% and independents at 25.5%.
Is Pozner a bit senile — like lots of incumbent reptile brain HACKS in the various regimes ???
— esp. in the gerrymander USA Congress — State HACKS getting elected to the Congress at ages 50-80 plus.
See ex USA Rep Conyers in Mich for example.
Re 1918:
(1) James Rolph would have been elected governor under Top 2;
(2) The Democratic Party was unable to place the top vote-getter in its primary on the general election ballot, and the Progressive and Prohibition parties were similarly disenfranchised;
(3) These parties were not able to name a replacement nominee;
(4) This fault in the segregated partisan primary system was changed in 1919;
(5) James Rolph was legally barred from petitioning on to the general election ballot;
(6) After this was determined, Theodore Alexander Bell petitioned onto the ballot. Petition signers who had voted in the primary (in August) were barred from signing the petitions which did not have to file until late September or early October;
(7) Bell had been the Democratic nominee in 1910 and 1914. It was unlikely that he would have mounted his late bid if the Democratic Party had not been denied ballot access. It appears that petition access to general election ballot was different in 1918 than it was in 2010.
p.s. Bell was a protege of James Phelan, who was a teetotaler. Bell who was elected to Congress from a wine-producing district, bridged the gap by sponsoring a tax on sugar-added wines, providing an advantage to California wines.
Re 1978:
Poizner did not move to California until around this time. He graduated from University of Texas in 1978, then received his MBA from LSJU in 1980.
David Bergland and Jim Gallagher appeared on the general election ballot in November 1978 as “Libertarian”. Does Ballot Access News consider them Independent candidates?
Why wasn’t Ed Clark also a Libertarian candidate?
@Demo Rep,
Poizner is 61.
p.s. there is a ‘i’ in Poizner.
@Richard Winger,
In a spoken context, one can infer that he was referring to statewide offices.
While Bell in 1918 and Clark in 1978 did have “Independent” next to their name, they had the backing of the Democratic and Libertarian parties respectively.
In California, executive officers take office in January following their election. You might be thinking of legislators who do take office in December.
Do you agree that Insurance Commissioner, Secretary of State, and Treasurer should be non-partisan offices?
I don’t think those offices should be elective. Election officials should not be elected. Whether they run in partisan elections or non-partisan elections, there is a conflict of interest when the election administrator himself or herself must run for office. I believe that no other country in the world elects its election administrators. I once met with some visiting election officials from Mexico and they said the most horrifying fact they had learned about the United States was that there was no neutral body in charge of election administration.
Who appoints that *neutral* election administration ???
Partisan HACKS in the legislative body ???
—
PR and nonpartisan AppV
How about the candidates for other offices be the *neutral* body ???
example — all the non-governor candidates regarding governor — or perhaps only the judge candidates regarding governor and other exec offices.
Perhaps all the exec and judic candidates regarding legis offices ???
Approx. zero trust in always scheming robot party legis HACKS for any office.
OR, of course — a random set of Electors/Voters —
Good enough for a jury verdict — good enough for election results ???
Does the BAN database have ANY *nonpartisan* bodies regarding elections in the USA ??? —
stuff on ballots, counting votes, results ???
ANY juries regarding disputed *facts* about voted ballots ???
They’re suitable for display screen and transfer printing.
I favor the election of election officials since they set policy and they need to be accountable.
I oppose the SF one-party system and any single-winner election district that uses ranked choice voting.