California State Senator Tom Umberg has amended his SB 505, the bill to set detailed guidelines on who can get on a presidential primary ballot. The “debates participation” option is now more stringent. Originally the bill just said a candidate must participate in a “national debate”. Now it says only debates sponsored by ballot-qualified parties count, and the debate must be available for viewing in at least two states. However it does not say the debate must be broadcast, so it could be a You Tube. Here is the amended copy of the bill.
So could a rogue county committee put up a youtube debate, invite all candidates knowing they won’t come, and just have their preferred candidate answer questions?
The legislative counsel’s analysis is flawed in that it does not mention that statutes are implementing the constitution, and that “generally recognized” applies to either the nation or California. Current statute explicitly recognizes that the Green and Peace&Freedom parties may nominate independently of a national party, and the American Independent party does so in practice.
The bill in general violates the rights of political association, by using a definition that might be appropriate for one party (the Democrats, in one particular election) and not for the other five.
What is Umberg trying fix? Which of the 43 candidates found to be recognized for the 2016 primary should not have so been found, or which other candidates should have been included?
6000.1(a) is ambiguous. 52 USC 30101 is the entire code related to presidential candidates. Umberg probably means qualifiem for matching funds. But in 2016, only two candidates received matching funds, Martin O’Malley and Jill Stein. Other candidates either did not apply, or refused to abide by campaign limits.
6000.1(b) The Republican Party does not currently intend to sponsor any debates. In 2016, the first debate sponsored by the Libertarian Party did not occur until May 2016. One of the prior debates was on RT America.
Note that the SOS must make his determination by December 6, 2015.
6001.1(c) and 6001.1(d). Which other states will have determined the candidates for primaries by that time.
6001.1(e)(1) What relevance is whether a candidate has a campaign office in California. The constitution was amended because Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon were not on the 1968 California primary ballot. What constitutes a “presidential campaign office”. A laptop and a volunteer at Starbucks?
6001.1(e)(4) Bernie Sanders and Beto O’Rourke do not qualify.
6001.2 would require a candidate to file to appear on the primary ballot. This is a direct contradiction of the California Constitution.
The petition procedure for Democratic candidates requires 500 signatures in every congressional district collected in 39 days, only seven of which are after the date of the SOS announcement of recognized candidates.
A Republican candidate would require 47,099 signatures.
It appears that the initial intent was to adjust deadlines and make them consistent, and then Umberg got carried away.
There are no procedures in statute applicable to the Libertarian Party.