The Associated Press has written this story about the December 3 opinion of the Ninth Circuit concerning party labels for candidates who are members of unqualified parties.
UPDATE: here is a longer story from the San Francisco Chronicle. FURTHER UPDATE: here is a story in the Metropolitican News-Enterprise, published in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Times still hasn’t covered this story, even though Soltysik lives in Los Angeles.
SFC writers get lots of practice writing about the moron ops of the USA 9th Ct App appointed HACKS — based in SF, CA.
SOS Debra Bowen who had been term-limited out of the Senate, and probably hoped to become governor, overrode the clear language of SB 6 which was the implementing legislation for Top 2. Bowen, apparently bored with her office, jumped into a special election for Congress, which happened to be the 2nd special election conducted under Top 2. In effect, she was self dealing by preventing potential opponents from presenting their alternative views to the public.
The clear message of the Washington Top 2 litigation was that a candidate’s political party preference was the viewpoint of the candidate and not an endorsement or nomination by a party, qualified or not. On remand from the SCOTUS, the district court was directed to determine whether voters could distinguish between the two concepts. The district court determined that they could, a decision that was upheld by the 9th Circuit. The SCOTUS did not take an appeal.
Even if she believed that voters might be confused by candidates who had expressed a preference for non-qualified parties she had no authority to modify the intent of the legislature. It is possible that the unionized staff at the SOS office were attempting to sabotage Top 2. Labor unions were the major opponents of Proposition 14. A relatively small organized group may be able control a primary. They can inform their members who to vote for, and expect high turnout with disciplined voting.
Let’s say a group has 20,000 members, family members, supporters, and associates. 90% vote and 90% vote for their candidate. That is 16,000 votes for their candidate, and 2,000 for the opponent.
Meanwhile, the general public is less likely to vote, and will be more random in how they vote. If 50% vote, and 2/3 vote for the opposing candidate, that is 13,000 for the union-backed candidate and 26,000 for the opponent. The union candidate wins the nomination 29,000 to 28,000 based on higher turnout and cohesion.
A reason for lower turnout by Democratic voters in primaries relative to Republicans is that “less informed” voters are not encouraged by a self-chosen “informed” cadre to vote. That will wait until the general election.
California perhaps could regulate parties and registration more. In Florida voters are required to register with a recognized party. If the party loses recognition, the registrations are reset to NPA. But is easy to gain and maintain recognition in Florida. The hardest test appears to be to have $500 in expenditures or contributions. Some parties have met the contribution threshold by an in-kind contribution of office space, which might consist of a desk and three chairs, plus access to a typewriter and telephone and a mailing address.
But California does not have to do this. They may rely on disclosure alone. A voter writes a party preference on his affidavit of voter registration, and signs it after being warned of the possibility of being charged with perjury. This is similar to campaign contribution regulation in Texas. There are no contribution limits, but there is disclosure.
When a candidate in California specifies their profession or occupation or office, they are required to have proof. If you claim to be a dentist, you better be licensed and actually had income in the last year from dentistry.
So California could require that there is some reality to a party. A voter and candidate could express a preference for the Good Schools Party or Clean Water Party, but not for good schools or clean water.
There might be a minimum registration requirement, say 100 voters. There would have to be bylaws and an organizational structure. A party needs a state executive committee, a chairperson, secretary, and treasurer. A minimal web presence might be required. California should require a party to have a republican form of governance. The executive committee is ultimately responsible to the registered voters. Instead of the current system where voters write-in the name of a potential qualified party, the supporters of a new party would sign a petition or attend an organizational convention. If there are sufficient members, their registration would be changed. A party that does not maintain an organizational structure would dormant. Voters could still register or maintain a preference for the dormant party, but an activation process would be required.
California’s interests are respected, since they could regulate confusing names such as Demonrat, Grin, American Inpedendent, etc. California could ensure that there is some reality in the party, and not a fake party like Americans Elect. Voters could check out what policies a recognized party advocates. Meanwhile, there would be minimal state interference in internal matters.
Though California could and perhaps should implement such a system, they don’t have to. But that does not mean that may maintain the unconstitutional aspects of the current scheme.
NO primaries = NO primary label problem
EQUAL ballot access laws — including labels.
PR and AppV