California State Senator Tom Umberg has introduced SB 505, to alter the method by which candidates may be placed on presidential primary ballots. Existing law does not require a presidential candidate to file. Instead, the Secretary of State automatically places candidates on a presidential primary ballot who are discussed in the news media. For minor qualified parties, the tradition has been that the Secretary of State relies on advice from the state party chairs, although in 2016 Secretary Alex Padilla refused to print some of the names suggested by the chair of the American Independent Party, and one of the names suggested by the Peace and Freedom Party.
The bill requires candidates to file, and sets qualifying criteria. Candidates must meet at least two criteria:
1. Appear in a “national presidential debate”. The term “national presidential debate” is not defined. Candidates who believe they have met this criteria must file supporting documentation that the event took place. One wonders if a Republican “national presidential debate” would be considered to have taken place if President Donald Trump had not participated in such a debate.
2. Qualify for funding for primary season matching funds. Virtually no presidential candidates still file for primary season matching funds. The bill is vague about whether “qualify” means that the candidate actually files for the funds, or whether it means that the candidate would have received the funds if he or she had filed for them.
3. The candidate has been placed on another state’s presidential primary ballot, or another state’s caucus ballot, or has qualified to be in a caucus if that state doesn’t actually have formal caucus ballots.
4. The candidate has done all of the following: (1) set up a presidential campaign office in California; (2) set up an internet webpage; (3) filed with the FEC; (4) arranged to have his or her party send a letter expressing support for that candidate being on that party’s primary ballot.
Alternative three is impractical, because the California documentation is due in early December of the year before the presidential election, and very few states have set their presidential primary ballots that early. The only states with earlier presidential primaries than California are New Hampshire and South Carolina, and the South Carolina Republican Party may cancel its 2020 presidential primary.
Does this mean Vermin Supreme might not be on the primary ballot in California?
If I understand the formula correctly, the Peace and Freedom Party would have difficult qualifying any candidates for its primary. And the Green primary in 2020 might be limited to Jill Stein. By the way, does California hold a primary if there is only one candidate on the ballot?
EQUAL nominating petitions / filing fees — ALL offices.
California does hold a presidential primary for a party that has only one candidate on its ballot. For instance, the 2004 Republican presidential primary only had George W. Bush printed on it.
Do you anticipate the Peace & Freedom Party will send a representative when this bill is heard in Committee?
P & F could hold a national presidential debate, ie one for national candidates seeking the P & F endorsement. To be on the safe side they might want to qualify in at least one other state, and there are some very easy ones out there.
4 would be easy enough, as an “office” could be in a supporter’s home, websites can be set up in a matter of minutes with no cost, FEC filing is easy when you don’t raise much money, and P & F could draft a letter to the state on behalf of whichever candidates they want to have in their primary.
I can see where they would have issues with 2 and 3.
Greens should certainly be able to do 1 and 4 also, no?
4. The candidate has done all of the following: *** (4) arranged to have his or her party send a letter expressing support for that candidate being on that party’s primary ballot.
—
See 2016 Donkeys in DNC — rigged only for support for Clinton.
—
How ANTI-Democracy EVIL byzantine are the gerrymander HACKS now in the USA Congress and State legislatures — with their now zillion conditions for ballot access ???
DemoRep making as much sense as he always does.
Looks like they’re really trying to rig the election in CA with vague and easily manipulated new rules. They could easily shut out all third party candidates with these rules.
For 1, they’ll probably claim that because the major corporate media networks didn’t televise any of the third party debates, or that because the third party candidate isn’t on the ballot in all 50 states at the time of their filing, no third party candidates participated in a national presidential debate.
For 2, it is difficult enough for a third party candidate to qualify for primary season matching funds. Jill Stein managed it in the last presidential election, but she didn’t qualify until April of 2016, well after what the deadline would be in CA. It is likely that no third party candidate would qualify in the December before the election, excepting possibly a Libertarian candidate. Jill Stein has indicated that she’s not running this time around.
For 3, Richard Winger here has already explained this well enough.
And for 4, pretty much all organized third party candidates could meet this requirement, but since two of the requirements need to be met, it likely won’t matter.
This bill would be a disaster for third party presidential runs, and it wouldn’t surprise me if a motive of the author and supporters of this bill was to fill in the gap in their assault against third parties that CA’s Top Two missed. Of course, I might just be overly pessimistic, but the current political climate would suggest otherwise.
How many COMMAND/TYRANT ORDERS from the Donkey/Elephant HQ in Devil City to WIPE OUT ALL third parties and independents by ANY/ALL means possible ???
IE ballot access *freedom*/equality matches any of the stuff to abolish slavery in 1776-1865.
How many lawyer HACKS of such TYRANTS are posting their stooge comments on this list ???
Don’t know. How many?
Hire some Sherlock Holmes type detectives / internet code breakers / NYT/WP ace reporters and report back ASAP.
Perhaps top HACKS are ONLY having oral commands at 4 AM — ZERO paperwork.
See olde Get Smart ! TV shows — the cone of silence.
That would seem like a pretty extreme reading of #1 but it wouldn’t matter to the Libertarians – their CA primary, like all their other primaries, has nothing to do with the actual candidate selection, which happens at the state convention to pick delegates to the national convention which picks the candidates.
Do other alt parties do it differently from that? Are any of their primaries binding? P & F might be since they are at this time CA only? What about Greens etc?
None of the smaller qualified parties in California considers the presidential primary binding, except perhaps the Green Party. Lenora Fulani won the Peace & Freedom Party presidential primary in both 1988 and 1992, but PFP never nominated her. In 2012, Rocky Anderson won the PFP California presidential primary, but PFP nominated Roseanne Barr. And in 2016, the AIP presidential primary was won by Alan Spears, but the AIP nominated Donald Trump, who appeared on the November ballot as “Republican, American Independent.”
Richard is correct that small party primaries are mostly not binding on nominating conventions. But removing even a “beauty contest” from the primary ballot is another step toward making small parties completely invisible to everyone except a handful of activists.
The California Constitution requires the SOS to place those candidates who are recognized candidates throughout the nation OR throughout California for the office.
This was added to the constitution in June of 1972, following the 1968 primary in California in which neither Richard Nixon nor Hubert Humphrey apperared on the primary ballot in California. The only Republican candidate was governor Ronald Reagan, who at the time could not be considered a national candidate. In 1964 the Democratic primary had slates pledged to governor Pat Brown and LA mayor Sam Yorty, but none for Lyndon Johnson or Georege Wallace. Fundamentally, the common practice was to have a favorite son who could lead a large uncommitted slate at a brokered convention.
While it is reasonable for the legislature to codify how the SOS makes his finding of recognition or advocation for, they may not ignore that the criteria must be applied both nationally and in California. That is, the SOS does not have discretion to only look at the national situation OR the California situation, but must look at both.
In the context of a presidential preference primary where each party has an exclusionary primary, “recognized candidate”, must be interpreted as meaning someone recognized as seeking the nomination of that party. Traditionally in America, office holders are chosen by the people, and do not necessarily seek that office. Office holders might be chosen by a town meeting, and if they did not serve be find. Evading service as an office holder was treated as similar to draft evasion, tax evasion, or evading a jury summons. Prior to government-printed ballots, there was no formal way to seek office. William Sherman at best was attempting to discourage Republicans from nominating him, and voters from voting for him.
In many states, candidates are placed on the ballot by petioners, who must gain the assent of the candidate, rather than an egotistical candidate declaring his candidacy along with the endorsement of his sycophantic groupies. California does not require slates of independent presidential elector candidates to be pledged to any presidential candidate. The language is permissive.
When the 1972 amendment was approved, opponents argued that it was the right of presidential candidates to skip California for strategic reasons, or to avoid factionalism due to the then late date of the California primary. Proponents argued that a candidate could withdraw by filing an affidavit that he was not a candidate. HB 505 reverses this process by requiring a candidate to file withthe SOS.
The citation of 52 USC 30101 is either wrong or misleading. That statute provides for contribution and expenditure reporting to the FEC. The matching funding statutes are in the IRS code (26 USC 9031 er seq). It could be argued that registration with the FEC is required to receive private funding, and that the FEC confers recognition by placing the name on the website.
If the Democratic Party sponsors a debate for candidates seeking the Democratic nomination, then the Green, Libertarian, or American Independent, or Peace & Freedom parties may sponsor a debate. This debate could be livestreamed with Skype or some other phone.
Placement on the ballot in New Hampshire has nothing to do with recognition throughout California. It is unclear what the distinction is between a caucus ballot and a caucus.
Elections Code 6041 explicitly recognizes that a Democratic candidate might be generally advocated for in California.
Elections Code which requires qualification in every congressional district in order to be placed on the ballot in any congressional district is likely unconstitutional. The procedure in statute does not appear sufficient, unless a separate petition must be circulated in each congressional district that is part of a county, a total of 123 petitions.
Political parties have the right to disregard all party-specific regulations. It would be a lot simpler for each party to notify which candidates they recognize as seeking the presidential nomination of their party.
Granting authority to the SOS to determine which candidates are recognized is likely unconstitutional. See Democratic Party v Wisconsinex rel.La Follette. California should get entirely out of the delegate selection business, beyond providing precinct-level preference results.
Richard:
Will this bill eliminate the 1% petitioning option available for unselected candidates by the Secretary of State?
@Deemer,
The California Constitution has a specific requirement that the Secretary of State make a determination as to the candidates whose names are placed on the ballot, and also permits candidates to petition.
The timing is problematic for petitioning. The SOS must make the announcement at least 88 days before the primary (December 6, 2019). The petition must be filed 81 days before the primary (December 13, 2019). The petition may be circulated 120 days before the primary (starting on November 4, 2019l.
So a candidate would have to be organized enough to petition, yet not be recognized as a candidate. Remember that the 1% petition must be met in every congressional district, and signed by registered party voters.
California statutes regarding presidential elections are a mess. There is not actually anything in statute that states how marks on a ballot paper translate into votes.
California would be better off going to a direct primary. This would solve the perceived problem in 1972 about candidates skipping California.
UNEQUAL registered voters in each USA Rep gerrymander district.
Where is that Model Election LAW ??? —
nonstop being updated by armies of profs ???
Not suprised 🙁
Regarding item 3, doesn’t New Hampshire just require a filing fee of $1000 to get on the primary ballot? And the deadline for the NH ballot is in November. That would seem to give any reasonably serious candidate clear sailing to satisfy item 3.