On September 26, the final brief was filed in the Ninth Circuit in Merritt v Padilla, 18-55457. This is the case over Paul Merritt’s statement in the California Voters Handbook. For a large fee, candidates for statewide office are permitted to write a statement about their candidacy, which is printed in the book that is mailed to every registered voter. In 2016, Paul Merritt, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate, paid for a candidate statement and referred to himself as an “Independent candidate.” He is not registered into any party, so he is an independent.
The Secretary of State deleted the “independent candidate” words from the title of Merritt’s statement, without even telling him. He only found out when his county election official informed him. Yet the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the Secretary of State, so Merritt is appealing.
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
———–
Standard govt reason/excuse for label machinations —
lessen voter CONFUSION.
@DR,
At the time the California legislature proposed Prop 14 to California voters they passed implementing legislation. SB 6 would be operative only if Proposition 14 was approved. Proposition 14 in its preamble stated that:
“This act, along with legislation already enacted by the Legislature to implement this act, are intended to implement an open primary system in California as set forth below.”
That is, it was the intent of the People in approving Proposition 14, that SB 6 be the implementation.
SB 6 added the following section to the 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.”
An affidavit of registration is what a voter fills out when he registers to vote. A voter is required to sign this affidavit to certify that its contents are truthful and correct, subject to perjury charges. A perjury conviction likely requires an element of intent (e.g. if an affiant lied about his age, citizenship, or felony status in order to vote illegally he might be prosecuted. A deliberately falsified address might be prosecuted. It might be difficult to prove a materially falsified party preference, but a voter is likely not going to be so cunning as to not simply be truthful. In the case of Emidio Soltysik, he was the presidential candidate of Socialist Party USA so his party preference appears to be sincere.
It is nonsensical to believe that there is any difference between a voter’s party preference for a so-called qualified party and any other party. It is aspirational on the part of the voter. Just because a voter has to indicate his party preference by a write-in on his affidavit of registration does not make it any less valid. The party qualification scheme is unworkable if a voter could not express a preference for a non-qualified party. Every political party over the last half century, except the Americans Elect Party has qualified by having 10’s of thousands of voters writing in the name of their party in order for it to qualify (American Independent, Libertarian, Green, Natural Law, Reform, and Peace&Freedom have all qualified this way. When the Peace&Freedom Party became non-qualified, the registrations of existing voters did not change, and they were counted when the party re-qualified.
The actual meaning of party affiliation was “intent to affiliate with a party at a subsequent primary”. At some time prior to the primary the SOS would determine which parties qualified to have a primary to make nominations. There is no guarantee that the Democratic Party will have a presidential primary in 2020. The party might implode like the Whigs and be abandoned by its current registrants. And a new party might be qualified by then. The purpose of qualification is to determine if a party has a modicum of support such that California will provide a segregated partisan primary for the party and place its nominees on the general election ballot.
California under Proposition 14 eliminated partisan primaries other than the presidential preference primary and elections for party central committees. No party is “qualified” to have a primary or make nominations for other offices. Proposition 14 extirpated such privileges.
On March 9, 2010 the SOS released CCROV #10086.
https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ccrov/pdf/2010/march/10086em.pdf
This was a directive to county elections officials that voters registered with non-qualified parties would be permitted to vote in the Republican and Democratic June 2010 primaries at which Proposition 14 was approved. While it was generally thought that the two parties permitted Declined To State voters to vote in their primaries, a careful understanding of the relevant statute Elections Code 13102(b) reveals that those permitted to vote in those primaries were those not registered with qualified parties participating in the primary. That is, Decline To State voters AND voters affiliated with non-qualified parties AND those affiliated with qualified parties not participating in the primary. For the 2012 presidential primary, the Democratic and American Independent parties opened their primary to No Party Preference (NPP) party preference voters; voters who preferred non-qualified parties such as Socialist Party USA; and American Elects preferring voters (while the party was qualified to participate it chose not to participate).
The preamble to Proposition 14 said that existing party affiliations would be converted to party preferences. SB 6 provided this conversion
SB 6 added the following section to the Elections Code:
“2151(d) As of the effective date of the statute that added this subdivision, any voter who previously stated a political party affiliation when registering to vote shall be deemed to have disclosed that same party as his or her a political party preference unless the voter files a new affidavit of registration disclosing a different political party preference or no political party preference. Any voter who previously declined to state a party affiliation shall be deemed to have chosen the “No Party Preference” option unless the voter files a new affidavit of registration disclosing a different political party preference.”
Note that the distinction is between Decline To State voters and party-affiliated voters, who were converted to No Party Preference voters and party-preferring voters, respectively. There is NO distinction between qualified and non-qualified parties.
Conclusion: a voter’s party preference is what they indicated on their affidavit of registration. Under no circumstances may anyone other than the voter change it.
SB 6 added the following section to the Elections Code:
“8002.5. (a) A candidate for a voter-nominated office may indicate his or her party preference, or lack of party preference, as disclosed upon the candidate’s most recent statement of registration,
upon his or her declaration of candidacy. If a candidate indicates his or her party preference on his or her declaration of candidacy, it shall appear on the primary and general election ballot in
conjunction with his or her name. The candidate’s designated party preference on the ballot shall not be changed between the primary and general election. A candidate for voter-nominated office may also
choose not to have the party preference disclosed upon the candidate’s most recent affidavit of registration indicated upon the ballot.”
That is, the party preference of a candidate is what he disclosed on his latest affidavit of registration. This is similar to the provisions for occupation/profession/office designation on the ballot. The State of California can not compel a candidate to have a designation. A few candidates don’t. The candidate must also be able to prove that he actively pursued the occupation in the last year. If you claim to be a “teacher” you have to show that you actually taught and made income. There also restrictions on designations that might imply endorsement. A CEO wouldn’t be permitted to indicate which company. For a candidate’s party preference, the proof of party preference is based on what he stated on his affidavit of registration. California also prevents a candidate from changing his preference between the primary and the general election. This would be impossible in any event since the candidate only files one application of candidacy. If a candidate did change his party preference on his voter registration after the primary the change would not be reflected on the ballot. In addition, the registration history over the past 10 years is published on the SOS website.
https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2018-general/party-preference-history.pdf
Under SB 6 a candidate could not state a party preference other than what he indicated on his voter registration. He would have the option to have a blank space appear on the ballot.
thanks for posting the Merritt appeals brief; It’s quite persuasive. (Can’t believe SoS censored Merritt.)
But it seems odd (and unhelpful) that his attorney, in the brief’s conclusion, wrote: The State must not be allowed to discriminate against unorthodox candidates and the voters who support them. Unorthodox??
Seems a better (and more strategic) adjective should have been used: …discriminate against minority candidates or …discriminate against political-minority candidates, or legitimate candidates, or simply no adjective at all.
I just looked it up; Webster Dict. defines the word thus:
un·or·tho·dox [ˌənˈôrTHəˌdäks] ADJECTIVE Contrary to what is usual, traditional, or accepted.
Afterall, isn’t being independent and having such a moniker quite traditional and accepted for decades (centuries?) in US and most parts of the world.
JR – Send your observations to the courts and lawyers involved.
The courts will note —
Mere preambles in laws do NOT mean too much — compared to the actual text of laws.
Text in mere laws (even with preambles) can NOT violate constitutions.
—-
IE — DEVIOUS corrupt govt HACKS writing more devious corrupt stuff —
to confuse/mislead the voters.
NO primaries,
PR and AppV
The CA Mess affects the other States —
ie — voter petitions to form *statewide* new parties — ie the party’s name >>> ballot label of the party’s candidates.
also – voter petitions for *independent* candidates — *independent* label on ballots.
Thus — NO more *statewide* parties ??? —
Individual candidates in ANY election area with ANY label ???
Same for fee candidates ???
Thus — AAA-ZZZ ballot labels ???
Force regimes to have office *boxes* ??? — NO more party lines/columns on ballots ???
End of all straight party logo voting ???
@DR,
In this case Proposition 14 and SB 6 were passed in a coordinated manner. SB 6 explicitly says that it would not be operative unless Proposition 14 were approved. Proposition 14 says that there was implementing legislation.
The California Constitution does not state what a “political party” is let alone what a “party preference” is. It is necessary to look at the implementing statute. A party preference is a voter enters on their affidavit of registration.
Unfortunately there was never discovery. The SOS or her unionized staff may have been trying to sabotage Prop 14. Gautum Dutta may have been cooperating, rather than being a true adversary.
JR–
Thus — one more screwed up election law case by an incompetent clueless lawyer —
add to the long list since 1962-1964 ??? — 50 plus years and counting ???
When did election law require 500 IQ constitutional lawyers with 40 years experience ???
—
Answer — when the SCOTUS HACKS had their FIRST election law case ??? — 1870s ???
Some sort of definition of *qualified political party* in a CA LAW ???
— to also go with Prop 14 ???
Justice JR —
ANY words in the below that are *unconstitutional* ???
———
Elections Code – ELEC
DIVISION 5. POLITICAL PARTY QUALIFICATIONS [5000 – 5200] ( Division 5 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2. )
CHAPTER 2. Parties Qualified to Participate in the Primary Election [5100 – 5102] ( Chapter 2 enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2. )
5100.
A party is qualified to participate in a primary election under any of the following conditions:
(a) (1) At the last preceding gubernatorial primary election, the sum of the votes cast for all of the candidates for an office voted on throughout the state who disclosed a preference for that party on the ballot was at least 2 percent of the entire vote of the state for that office.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a party may inform the Secretary of State that it declines to have the votes cast for a candidate who has disclosed that party as his or her party preference on the ballot counted toward the 2-percent qualification threshold. If the party wishes to have votes for a candidate not counted in support of its qualification under paragraph (1), the party shall notify the secretary in writing of that candidate’s name by the seventh day before the gubernatorial primary election.
(b) (1) On or before the 135th day before a primary election, it appears to the Secretary of State, as a result of examining and totaling the statement of voters and their declared political preference transmitted to him or her by the county elections officials, that voters equal in number to at least 0.33 percent of the total number of voters registered on the 154th day before the primary election have declared their preference for that party.
(2) A person whose party preference is designated as “Unknown” pursuant to Section 2154 or 2265 shall not be counted for purposes of determining the total number of voters registered on the specified day preceding the election under paragraph (1).
(c) On or before the 135th day before a primary election, there is filed with the Secretary of State a petition signed by voters, equal in number to at least 10 percent of the entire vote of the state at the last preceding gubernatorial election, declaring that they represent a proposed party, the name of which shall be stated in the petition, which proposed party those voters desire to have participate in that primary election. This petition shall be circulated, signed, and verified, and the signatures of the voters on it shall be certified to and transmitted to the Secretary of State by the county elections officials substantially as provided for initiative petitions. Each page of the petition shall bear a caption in 18-point boldface type, which caption shall be the name of the proposed party followed by the words “Petition to participate in the primary election.”
(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 32, Sec. 56. (SB 837) Effective June 27, 2016.)
5100.5.
(a) Upon the occurrence of the gubernatorial election, each party shall have its qualifications reviewed by the Secretary of State. A party that does not meet the standards for qualification set forth in Section 5100 shall be prohibited from participating in any primary election. A party shall maintain its qualification to participate in any subsequent primary election by complying with any of the conditions specified in Section 5100.
(b) A party seeking qualification under provisions of this section and subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 5100 shall file formal notice with the Secretary of State that the party intends to regain qualification.
(c) Unless formal notice as required in subdivision (b) is timely received by the Secretary of State, he or she may have the name of the party omitted from any list, notice, ballot, or other publication containing the names of the parties qualified or seeking qualification that the Secretary of State may cause to be printed or published.
(d) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 8001, this section shall only be applicable to a party that has successfully obtained that status for the first time after having been a political body, and shall not apply to a political party that has been disqualified.
(Added by Stats. 2000, Ch. 1081, Sec. 7. Effective January 1, 2001.)
5101.
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 not be qualified to participate in the primary election but 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.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
5102.
No party shall be recognized or qualified to participate in any primary election that either directly or indirectly carries on, advocates, teaches, justifies, aids, or abets the overthrow by any unlawful means of, or that directly or indirectly carries on, advocates, teaches, justifies, aids, or abets a program of sabotage, force and violence, sedition or treason against, the government of the United States or of this state.
(Enacted by Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.)
The quick brown fox
@DR,
I deliberately withheld a bit of information. Debra “Orwell” Bowen made a regulation that the party preference of a candidate for a Top 2 office be “None” if the candidate had previous “declined” to state a preference for a “qualified” political party on their affidavit of voter registration.
The legislature codified this as AB 1413 in 2012 (see Elections Code 8002.5) which is direct conflict with Elections Code 300.5.
Yikes —
How many CA Election Code sections are involved in the super-mess —
before – during – after Prop. 14 ???
Need a super-computer to keep track ???
— since the gerrymander HACKS often write new stuff.
— regardless of earlier totally or partially conflicting stuff on the same subject.
Add the regs of exec HACKS to the mess
— keeps the appellate courts super-busy — often SCOTUS.
@DR,
Section 5102 may be unconstitutional.
What do the words “qualified to participate” mean?
Are parties qualified to participate in nonpartisan primaries? Only in the sense that any party qualified or not may participate. If the Whigs endorse a candidate for city council, are they “qualified” to do so?
What is the rational ground, let alone compelling purpose for California to restrict some candidates from expressing their 1st Amendment-protected personal political beliefs on the ballot?
5100(a)(1) is gibberish.
@DR,
Political parties are qualified to have presidential primaries and state operated internal elections (yikes!) And to make presidential nominations. Voters are informed of this when they register.
What is a sample label for the candidates of the 6 *qualified* parties in the 1st posting above ???
IE is *Party* part of a the label ??? — IE Adjective Party ???
versus the *independent* candidates
— Adjective only [NOT same as the adjective in 1 of the 6 parties] ???, Adjective and Noun — Party Noun??? / NOT Party Noun ??? / Other Noun / NO Noun ???
I mention again — the 1st Amdt has ZERO effect on *election mechanics* —
voter definition, offices/issues on ballots, votes
See the Sources of Our Liberties book 1959 — before SCOTUS lunatics in 1960s.
14 Amdt, Sec. 1 has limited effect on such *election mechanics*.
@DR,
Are you referring to the voters pamphlet?
http://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2016/primary/candidates/us-senate-csandidate-statements.htm
Paul Marriott’s submission included an initial line of
Paul Merritt Registered Independent Voter
http://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2016/primary/candidates/us-senate-candidate-statements.htm
Correction to link
@DR,
California has created a limited public forum to which the 1st Amendment does apply.
Since specific human candidates are being elected
— technically NO labels are needed – except perhaps for folks with the same names
— John Smith Donkey, John Smith Elephant (if candidate addresses are not used).
IE Election Day Official Ballots are NOT press/speech/platform items.
With the CA top 2 primary — the party/nonparty labels have become quite irrelevant.
Electing 1 of the 2 Nov. candidates in various gerrymander areas — regardless of any ballot labels.
—
NO primaries.
PR and AppV
@DR,
Presumably you understand the distinction between necessity and utility.
Whether labels are necessary is irrelevant.
Imagine the small city of Demorepublica (Demo Rep for short) was electing a mayor. The mayoral candidates could make a speech before the assembled populace, who would then vote.
SORRY — CA is super-big
a mere 14,181,604 Prez voters in 2016 —
NO meeting of assembled populace — except perhaps via TV/internet ??????
What group invented ballots ???
Greeks or earlier ???
Rock ballots ???
Any rock ballots used to kill candidates ??? — the fatal NO votes ???
First printed ballots after printing presses invented in 1400s ???
First printed ballots with candidate labels — addresses/parties ???
—
The mere issue in the label cases (regardless of all side distraction stuff) —
How much can a govt CONTROL what is on the OFFICIAL govt ballots ???
— ie must be in Consts to stop the now standard HACK machinations
— akin to having specified voter qualifications, election dates, offices, take office dates, office terms IN CONSTS.
Any regimes that require incumbent HACKS to have
INCUMBENT HACK or
merely INCUMBENT
on the official ballots ???
Or merely optional in some regimes ???
@DR,
You are talking about details. When a person votes they might watch a video presentation for each candidate. Or see this for the 2017 Cambridge elections.
http://vote.cambridgecivic.com/
While this appears to be privately funded, it could be operated by the SOS.
@DR,
You may wish to Go Ogle this:
http://www.rwinters.com/elections/index.html#PR
In Cambridge, ballots do contain “Candidate for Reelection”. This may be Massachusetts law. Cambridge elections do have a tendency to reelect incumbents but there are likely additional factors beyond the label on the ballot.
ALL STUFF ABOUT ELECTIONS IS/ARE *DETAILS* — FOR 2500 YEARS PLUS.