On October 2, the California Secretary of State released a new registration tally, the first since May 21, 2018. The percentages are: Democratic 43.75%; Republican 24.50%; American Independent 2.59%; Libertarian .741%; Green .46%; Peace & Freedom .38%; independent and miscellaneous 27.33%; unknown .25%.
At the May 2018 tally, the percentages were: Democratic 44.36%; Republican 25.07%; American Independent 2.65%; Libertarian .745%; Green .48%; Peace & Freedom .39%; independent and miscellaneous 26.11%; unknown .20%.
Among the unqualified parties, the Constitution Party declined from 315 to 296. A new unqualified party, the California National Party, has 721 registrants.
The correct adjective is “non-qualified”.
The California National Party is the party advocating for independence. They were on the January report which supposedly determined qualification for the June primary. After each qualification deadline, a party seeking to qualify is deemed to have abandoned its effort, and must reapply. The Constitution Party and Humane Party reapplied in the spring and were reported in the next two reports. The California National Party did not reapply until this summer.
California now has two types of qualification: (1) participate in next primary; (2) participate in next presidential general election. A Type 2 party does not have a presidential preference primary, but may place its nominee on the general election ballot.The Good Government, K9, and New American parties are attempting to qualify for the November 2020 presidential election. Their qualification test is not until summer of 2020, and won’t be deemed to have abandoned a qualification effort until then.
About 16% of Nevada County voters are Other Party voters, and only about 8% of voters as No Party Preference. Presumably most of these voters said they were “Independent”. Similar voters in other counties are (mis?)classified as NPP.
What California should do is greatly reduce the number of registered voters needed to be recognized, but require cognizable organized activity. This would be somewhat analogous to how corporations are recognized. Corporations have bylaws, a board of directors, executive officers such as president, secretary, and treasurer. The board of directors is elected by the shareholders, and there is annual shareholders meeting. The corporation is obligated to make certain official reports, file its bylaws, report its finances.
The “shareholders” of a political party are the body of its registered voters, the state executive committee is it board of directors. Instead of annual shareholder meetings, there could be biennial state conventions. The bylaws would be determined by party subject to approval by its registered voters, eliminating the nonsense of statutory rules that California currently imposes.
When a new party forms, it would include a petition by the minimum number of voters who are registering with the party. Once the filing is verified the voters registration would be changed and other voters could register with the party. The current practice of voters writing in the name of an recognized party would cease. A voter who attempted to do so, would be informed of this, and be given an opportunity to choose another party, and be informed of the procedure to form a new party.
If party registrations fall below the minimum, the party would be considered disbanded. Any remaining registrants would be switched to NPP (with lower qualification standards there is no need There would be a warning (6-12? months) that would permit recruitment of new members.
A party could also have a dormant status, if it failed to maintain its annual registration. Voters could reactivate the party, perhaps by a process that is approved by a quurom of registered members. Voters could continue to register with a dormant party and candidates could have their preference for the party expressed on the ballot. They could not make presidential nominations and endorsements unless reactivated.
There a number of former qualified parties that likely have 100 registrants, including the Reform and Natural Law parties, and perhaps the American Elects, Progressive, and Prohibition parties. These groups should be considered dormant parties, and have an opportunity to reactivate.
The same should be true for other groups that 100 voters are registered with such as Consevative, We Like Women, Justice, and Constitution parties. All original affidavits of party registration should be reviewed and classified. If there are fewer than 50 or 100 registrants, the party should be treated as tentatively abandoned. Voters will be informed that if registration is not increased, their registrations will be changed to NPP.
There are a large number of voters who said that they were “Independent”. Many were likely DTS or NPP voters but didn’t like the name. Others may have actually wanted to affiliate with an Independent Party. Some counties appear to have arbitrarily switched such voters to NPP. Since the names is problematic, registrations should be converted to “California Independent”. Voters would be informed of the change and be given the opportunity to select another party or NPP. California Independent Party would be classified as a dormant party.