California Senator Tom Umberg is amending his SB 696, so as to transform it into a bill that bans any party from using “Independent” as part of its name.
The American Independent Party is now on the ballot in California. If this bill becomes law and is not overturned, the American Independent Party would be required to change its name, but it would retain all the registered members it now has. Read it here .
According to Senator Umberg’s office, the word “Independence” would also be banned. The bill bans variations of the word “independent”.
See earlier —
http://ballot-access.org/2019/06/21/california-bill-to-forbid-independent-as-part-of-a-party-name/
Thus NOOOO
AM DOI Party – on ballots ??? —
or perhaps just in the streets in R mode ???
—
How many RED communist clones/robots in the CA legislature ???
Would “dependent” be banned as a variant of “independent”? How about “In Da Pendant”? Could it get you in the pen, that?
IN ???
DEPEND ???
ENT ???
Tyrant gerrymander hacks at work.
See today XXXX word op in SCOTUS.
—
Must sue for BIG $$$ Damages –
to bankrupt the statist control freak monsters.
Basically the Democrats are trying to further curtail and restrict minor parties in that state. How “democratic” of them.
CQ – RED Donkeys NOT so-called *Democrats*.
When do China/Russia troops take over RED CA ???
See Russia TAKEOVER OF CRIMEA.
Ed Ng, very good observation!
The American Independent Party of California will not change its name at the request of Senator Umberg that
only got his seat by a two lead.
It will not even be placed on the agenda for the meeting
of the State Convention In 2020.”
MS — see the FXXT word SCOTUS OP — 1 Amdt.
How soon before ONLY *Democratic* [aka RED communist] is allowed on ballots in RED communist CA ???
NO problemo for the RED communist HACK judges in the USA CT APP 9 Circuit ???
Richard:
Do you know what the so-called “justification” is being used for this attempt to patently infringe on the American Independent Party’s right of freedom of speech in the name of its political party? Because should they be implying that people are not registering in the party that they want then the Democratic Party should be looked at similarly. It would be interesting to find out how many people who are currently registered in the Democratic Party (based on the agenda its Sacramento leadership is pushing) don’t realize that they’re really in the NEW Progressive Party! The original Progressive Party went off the ballot over a decade before the American Independent Party and the Peace & Freedom Party qualified for the California ballot in 1968. Also, I wonder if the legislature’s pushing this item would be attempting it if the American Independent Party had been steadily running dozen(s) of candidates for Congress & the California legislature. The argument that people are registering in the wrong party would be hard to justify with many (if not most) voters seeing a local in addition to state-wide AIP candidates.
DemoRep, you are referring to Iancu v Brunetti, 18-302, letting a clothes company have a trademark for its FUCT product.
Charles Deemer, the justification is that so many people registered into the AIP thinking they were registering as independent voters. That happens in every state when a party has “independent” or “independence” in its name, including Nevada (Independent American), New York (Independence), Alaska (Alaskan Independence), Delaware (Independent Party), Connecticut (Independent Party), Florida (Independent Party), Oregon (Independent Party).
RW-
Hmmm — FUCT Voters Party [by Donkey/Elephant statist hacks] ???
TV attack ad –
IF you are a FUCT voter, then take REVENGE and vote FVP !!!
FVP Expletive logo coming soon ???
—
CD/RW — due to ROTTED useless skooools many voters do NOT know what *independent* means ??? Duh.
The Soltysik lawyers should depose Umberger. The legislature finds that it is confusing and inherently misleading for a party name that includes the words “no party preference” for voters who wish to be independent of any party. Such voters believe would believe that Soltysik was independent of any party, which is contrary to fact.
California should permit voters and candidates in Top 2 elections to identify as “independent” or “nonpartisan”. Any confusion to voters is not caused by Amercan Independent party, but the denial by the state of California to the use of independent.
The last “independent” presidential candidate was Ross Perot in 1992, almost 30 years ago.
If California were to recognize smaller political parties (as few as 50 or 100) registrants it could then recognize petitioning candidates as nominees. A more reasonable petition level would be 1/10 of 1% of the votes cast. Based on the 2016 election, this would be 14,611 signatures.
The American Independent Party has a property interest in the name of the party that has been in use for the last 50 years. With over a half million registrants, it would cost millions to surevy the members and come to a consensus as to a new name. Any confusion is a result of state action in not permitting independent voters to register as such.
A simpler solution is to eliminate all partisan registration. If there is a concern about political association, simply let each party provide a list of registrants permitted to vote in their primary.
Provide each party the final list of partisan registrants, and give them weekly updates of new registrations so that if they should wish to maintain a list of adherents they may do so.
When the primary happens, a voter could choose any party that accepts them.