Tom Campbell, a former Republican member of the U.S. House from California, and a former Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, wants to start a new centrist party. He and others working on this idea have not chosen a party name, but they are thinking perhaps “Center Party” or “Bear Flag Party.” See this story. The proposed party would be just for California, not the entire nation. Thanks to Politico for the link.
Dying Elephants in CA — replaced by Bears [to CONFUSE non-communist CA Donkeys] ???
—
PR and AppV
The Bowen-Padilla gang are violating the US Constitution and California Constitutions in requiring parties to be qualified in order for a Top 2 candidate to express a preference for that party.
CA — EQUAL REQUIREMENT FOR ***ALL*** *parties to be qualified* ???
@DR,
In the Washington Grange Top 2 case, Washington AG Rob McKenna argued that a candidate’s party preference was personal political expression and not an endorsement/nomination by a political party. The SCOTUS on remand had the district court determine whether voters could distinguish between the two on the ballot.
SCOTUS ruling in the Washington Grange case is that a candidate’s party preference is personal political expression (1st Amendment protected) and not an endorsement/nomination by the political party. On remand, the district court determined that voters were able to distinguish that a candidate’s party preference was a personal political expression (and thus 1st Amendment protected). If it implied party endorsement/nomination, then it could be inferred that the state was interfering in party matters.
As you know, the 1st Amendment is to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech does not need protection. Imagine if California limited candidates to express support for concepts such as “Apple Pie” or “Motherhood” or “Blue Skies”, and required candidates who did not subscribe to those beliefs as having “no opinion”, even if they supported “Clean Water” or “Good Schools” or “Legal Marijuana”. The state would be enforcing its beliefs on candidates. California: “You can express your opinion so long as it is approved by the government.”
The fact that California restricts candidates to preferences for the six political parties that were qualified to make nominations could lead voters to conclude that they were nominations.
California does not restrict voter affiliation to “qualified” parties. In reports of registrations prior to 2010, the state reported the number of voters affiliated with each “qualified” party, the number affiliated with miscellaneous other parties. The fact that the state aggregates the numbers of “non-qualified” parties has no particular significance. If an expense report has a category for “miscellaneous other expenses” it does not mean they are not expenses, it just means they are not of specific categories such as food, lodging, and transportation.
Prior to the June 2014 primary at which California voters approved Top 2, the SOS sent a memo to county election officials, emphasizing the distinction between “Declined To State” voters and those who were affiliated with non-qualified parties.
Proposition 14 recast party affiliation as party preference. In the statute changing voter registrations, there is a distinction between Decline To State voters who were converted to No Party Preference, and all other party affiliations which were converted to party preferences. There is no distinction between those who prefer the Democratic, Libertarian, etc. and Natural Law, Reform, Coffee, Constitution, or Bear Flag preferences.
If Tom Campbell were to register as preferring the Bear Flag Party, he would have to sign an affidavit certifying that the information contained is truthful and correct, subject to perjury charges. If Alex Padilla believed that Campbell had committed perjury, he should refer the matter to the Attorney General for possible criminal prosecution.
The California Constitution says that candidates and voters may participate in Top 2 primaries _regardless_ of their party preference. California may not have regard for or take into account the party preference of a candidate. For example, if a candidate preferred the Bear Flag Party, California could not require more signatures because that would be making a distinction based on party preference. And California can not tell some candidates that they can have their party preference appear on the ballot, and others that they can not, because that is making a distinction based on party preference.
If Tom Campbell prefers the Bear Flag Party, it would not be truthful or correct to state that he has No Party Preference. If he wrote on his affidavit of voter registration that he had No Party Preference, he has potentially committed perjury (perjury has an element of intent).
Yet if Tom Campbell were to run for a Top 2 office, Alex Padilla would require him to say he has No Party Preference. If Campbell were to write on his application that he preferred the Bear Flag Party, Padilla would likely write him a letter,
“Re: Your Part Preference”
Note it is not parties that are equal before the law, but rather the candidates, in a candidate based system such as Top 2.
In the California primary, can a candidate indicate more than one party preference?
No, Walter. The party preference must match how the voter is registered (assuming the voter is registered into a qualified party, as Jim explains very well above). And no one can be simultaneously registered in more than one party, so the ballot label can only mention that one party.
CA — EQUAL REQUIREMENT FOR ***ALL*** *parties to be qualified* ???
Simple YES or NO answer will be enough.
Gerrymanders with top 2 primary —
1/2 votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander districts = 1/4 CONTROL in general election
— much worse REAL CONTROL in top 2 primary.
Also higher percent of NON-votes if NO D or R candidates in each gerrymander district.
—
REAL reforms–
NO primaries.
PR and AppV
@DR,
In a candidate-based system such as Top 2, it is not parties that are equal before the law, but rather the candidates.
Thus, your question is irrelevant.
Even I can detect that there is a mini-connection between *qualified parties* and candidate party labels on the ballots.
Try 3 —
CA — EQUAL REQUIREMENT FOR ***ALL*** *parties to be qualified* ???
Simple YES or NO answer will be enough.
@DR,
What is the “mini-connection” between qualified parties and candidate preferences?
Could it be the qualified party’s name and the candidate’s party name on the ballots ???
4th and Last try — YES or NO ???
@DR,
A candidate’s party preference need not be that of a “qualified” party.
More chaos —
JR wrote — above Sep 22 212 AM
The fact that California restricts candidates to preferences for the six political parties that were qualified to make nominations could lead voters to conclude that they were nominations.
??????? —
What are the *basics* of the CA top 2 primary *system* regarding candidates — in under 100 words ???
Ballot access- HOW ???
Ballot labels- WHAT ???
For statewide office 65 signatures and a filing fee.
For district offices 40 signatures and a filing fee.
There is the potential for in lieu of signatures instead of the fee, but if someone was thinking about paying circulators, they would use the money for the fee.
I can not explain the answer to your second question in the remaining 51 words that you have allocated.
Ballot labels- WHAT ??? — even under a mere 1,000 words.
Case(s) still pending about the candidate labels ???
Justice JR —
The CA regime says [spaces added for super-clarity] —
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/frequently-asked-questions/#primary-election
What do party preferences mean when listed with candidates’ names on the ballot?
What are the qualified political parties and abbreviations of those party names?
The term “party preference” is now used in place of the term “party affiliation.”
A candidate must indicate his or her preference or lack of preference for a qualified political party.
If the candidate has a qualified political party preference, that qualified political party will be indicated by the candidate’s name on the ballot.
If a candidate does not have a party preference, “Party Preference: None” will be indicated by the candidate’s name on the ballot.
Similarly, voters who were previously known as “decline-to-state” voters (because they did not have a party affiliation) are now known as having “no party preference” or known as “NPP” voters.
Abbreviations for the qualified political parties are:
DEM = Democratic Party
REP = Republican Party
AI = American Independent Party
GRN = Green Party
LIB = Libertarian Party
PF = Peace & Freedom Party
—-
Justice JR can send all complaints to the CA SOS and/or the USA and CA courts.