On September 3, California Senate Bill 696 was amended to be even more severe. This is the bill that requires the American Independent Party to choose a new name that doesn’t include the words “independent” or “independence”. As amended, the bill requires the party to choose a new name by October 29, 2019, or it would be disqualified the following day. Here is the amended bill.
So, be creative. Call yourself the “American Declaration of” Party
@Walter: “American Declaration of Party”?
Maybe they could call themselves the A.I. Party. That way, they could still use all their merchandise that says “AIP”, and maybe people in the tech industry would think it stands for “Artificial Intelligence Party.”
I wonder why the government is being so charitable? They didn’t ban the word “American” from a party name. All Hail Caesar!
The RED gerrymander hacks at work in the CA Soviet Socialist Republic – CASSOR.
HOW SOON BEFORE A MERGER WITH RED CHINA / RED RUSSIA — RED UNITED STATES — RUS ???
—
PR and Appv and TOTSOP
I was confused by the name when I noticed it on the ballot in California a couple of years ago and I think I even complained about it, although I don’t recall who I complained to. What is your platform in terms of where you fit in on the political spectrum?
ex post facto: formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [From Latin, meaning “from what is done afterwards”]
The attempt by California to make illegal now what was formerly a legal and acceptable political party name breaches the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9.
Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798])–and thus the United States for over 220 years since that decision–has defined ex post facto law as follows:
“1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.”
Personally, I do not see, if or when it is placed under legal challenge, the State of California being successful at this ex post facto law.
This would seem to be a Bill of Attainder – criminalizing ex post facto the acts of specific persons. The US Constitution, Article 1, section 10 prohibits states from passing any bill of attainder.
In New York the legislature banned any party from having the word “American” in its name, but they passed the bill only after the American Labor Party had lost its permanent party status.
@FWW,
Read that decision carefully. Notice that they speak of criminal action. For example if it was not illegal to spit on the sidewalk before September 5, 2019, when a new anti-spitting ordinance comes into effect; and a police officer observes you spitting on a sidewalk today, you can not be prosecuted for your past conduct. You can be prosecuted for future conduct.
Even were this to apply to civil matters, California would probably argue that they were only sanctioning future conduct.
The bill has not even passed the assembly, and must be repassed by the senate, and signed into law, which raises all kinds of due process concerns. If the party does not submit a new name by October 29, or the SOS does not approve the new name, the party would be disqualified on October 30.
Were the party to attempt to consult with its membership, it would take millions and months to organize that. It is an unlawful taking of a name that has been in use for over 50 years (before Umberg was even eligible to vote).
@GB,
California would probably argue that the AIP was not being singled out. It would ban future use by the Official Monster Raving No Party Preference Party, and Decline To State Whether I Am Or Ever Have Been A Member Of The Communist Party Party.
This action by the Secretary of State’s Office makes ABSOLUTELY no logical sense. It seems to me that their main line of attack is that people “supposedly” are registering in the party because they want to an Independent voter. Well, now that there are bills floating around to allow same-day voting, that should negate their argument of erroreous voter registration. Anyone who would be surprised at being registered in the American Independent Party could then change on election day. Incidentally, California is now changing to voting in large super precincts over the last 10 days before the March election. Which should also imply that the State should return to the old rules for absentee voting. At least that’s how things are going to be Los Angeles County next year.
See 2017 edition / 2018 Supp. of *Constitution Annotated* — attempt to summarize/decipher SCOTUS ops.
Mr. Machi,
They’re far right wing, dating back to segregationist George Wallace running for president in 1968 as the American Independent Party candidate.
I’m not sure why one would complain about a party that’s been around for over 50 years. Perhaps study history a little better and you won’t be so confused?
The fundamental problem is that California uses the unappealing term of No Party Preference. The word Independent is positive and affirmative. “No Party Preference” sound like “Ummm (Picks a booger out of their nose) I Dunno”. A Big Ummbooger.
The State of California also uses No Party Preference in two different meanings. Sometimes it means that the voter has no party preference, and other times it means I don’t have a preference for the state-endorsed orthodoxy.
It is not “American Independent” that is confusing, misleading, or deceiving, it is “No Party Preference”. Take note, Soltysik plaintiffs.
If there was an “independent” option on voter registration forms, there would not be any confusion.
If there are confused voters, the harm is minimal. The only tangible effect is a voter might be denied the opportunity to request certain presidential ballot. It has absolutely no effect on any other office.
Under other legislation, voters would be sent a notice of their current registration status, including party affiliation, along with an explanation of what their voting options will be. In addition an explanation of how to update a registrstion (address, name, affiliation, will be given), and finally voters will be able to change their affiliation on election day.
@Deemer,
This action is not by the SOS. It is a bill by Senator Umberg.
His original bill was something else, and passed by the Senate (so the concept was never considered in a senate committee). California apparently permits a senator to amend his bill while it is before an Assembly committee. The Democratic members said that the better solution is to let voters use the term “independent” rather than the confusing, misleading, and deceptive “No Party Preference”. But would go along for party sake.
Because there was a fiscal note (the SOS has to send notice of the involuntarily changed affiliation) it went before an Appropriations Committee, where the chair read 200 bills with their status and a “roll call vote”.
A for unanimous.
B for party line vote
SB 696 was said that there would be amendments made later. Umberg refused to tell AIP officials what those amendments would be.
@AM,
Read your voters pamphlet.
Yep; the California state government REALLY has it out for the California AIP.
Though if this bill ends up passing and being held up in court (worst-case scenario); Mark Seidenberg, Markham Robinson and the leaders of the AIP can always give the Cali state government the middle finger by renaming themselves the ‘American Non-Partisan Party’, or the ‘American Unaffiliated Party’ -in compliance with the new law. :3
I’d call it the No Affiliation Party.
Always Inspired Party ???
Always Intelligent Party ???
ANTI INSANE-STATISTS Party ???
ETC.
@CQ,
The North Dakota branch of Democrats is the Democratic-Nonpartisan League. Padilla would probably say that ANPP is too similar.
The AIP should look up this as a public awareness opportunity. A creative rename will serve that purpose
I do not think they should be forced to change their name, but reality is that the American Independent Party is basically an empty shell of an organization. They have not had a candidate who ran a campaign of any significance (even by third party standards) since 2010, and the vast majority of people who are registered to. Vote under the AIP banner have no idea what the party stands for or that it is even a political party. The AIP has turned into about as much of a do nothing organization as a political party with ballot access can be.
WALTER ZIOBRO- What do you think the state would say if the American Independent Party tried to rename itself the Democratic Republican Party? That would be creative.
Never let a crisis go to waste. All of this BS is EXCELLENT MATERIAL for which to BUILD the AIP. Leverage this. People are outraged. The AIP ought to triple in size.
Jim Riley-
The current bill is clearly aimed at The American Independent Party – all discussion of the bill refers to the issue of the AIP confusing voters, and there is no “class of parties that include independent in their name” – just the one party. So it clearly is a Bill of Attainder aimed at specific person – in this case the AIP as a corporate person – and it clearly shows the lack of legal discretion on the part of the legislature. I specifically mentioned the case of the New York American Labor Party to show how this can be handled legally.
@GB,
If you were to sue, would you be so certain that the bill of attainder claim was so certain that you would not include arguments about due process, illegal taking, relative harm, and alternative remedies.
California would surely argue that the statute was primarily prospective, and allowing “independent” has opened a potential flood of other names such as “Official Monster Raving Loony No Party Preference Party”.
Incidentally, you might have the sequence of events regarding American Labor Party out of sequence. ELN $ 2-124 grandfathers parties with names including “American”.
Jim Riley,
What is “ELN ? 2-124”?
As for “Official Monster Raving Loony No Party Preference Party” would the code change from “NPP”
To “OMRLNPPP”?
Even Gene Berkman suggested the “Decline To State” Party could change its name to “Decline The State Party”!
The State of California may think it is omnipotent…yet it only has the power ceded to it by the citizens. This censorship effort is clearly an over reach on their part. This violates established precedent of some 51 years as well as Freedoms of Expression and Association. How far will the Marxists be allowed to go in Cali? Time to resist! Long Live the American Independent Party of California!
The AIP may not be the best for this, but California needs a No Preference Party.
Decline the State Party sounds even better. And maybe there should also a No Bills of Attainder party, so voters could go ahead and vote for the NBA.
Nice to see so many people rush to the defense of segregationists.
@MS,
ELN$2-124 is a section of the New York election code governing names of political parties. It proscribes names that include words like “American”, “United States”, “New York State”, etc.
It includes a section that says that parties in existence could continue to use their current name. It was probably aimed at the American Labor Party, which existed from 1936 to the mid 1950s.
In New York, to remain qualified a party has to get 50,000 votes for governor at every election. Registration doesn’t matter. Other offices don’t matter. ALP remained qualified as long as it nominated the Democratic candidate, but as soon as it nominated someone else faded away.
In California, if voters are confused, misled, or deceived, it is not by the name “American Independent”, but rather by California’s use of “No Party Preference”
Michelle,
They haven’t been segregationists in quite a while. They do have some other positions which would preclude me from ever voting for or supporting them though. But that’s not the same thing as supporting having the state make their name illegal after they had it for over 50 years.
The author of bill failed to go after “Nonpartisan”, “Unaffiliated”, “Nonaligned”, “Neutral”, “Uncommitted”, “Undecided”, and “Undetermined”.
eeyn,
It is my current understand the “Undermined” are those melectors that answered both “yes” and “no” to question # 15 on the application that the SOS made in a flaw design.
It is a lot like the problem in Los Angeles County in the Primary 2008 with the double bubble ballot where the electors did not state if they wanted Obama or Don Grundmann for POTUS.
@MS,
Undermined is a party in the Gold Country.
You may be thinking of Unknown which is the status of voters caught by Automatic Voter Registration. California no longer registers them as NPP, since that might cause disqualification of smaller parties.
SB 696 does not disallow use of Unknown.
Umberg did another amendment to SB 696 on September 6, 2019
Still waiting for ONLY *** RED DONKEY *** to be *legal* in CASSOR.
@MS,
AB-681 would permit a voter to change their party affiliation up to election day. Even if someone were confused by Bowen-Padilla, they could correct their mistake up to election day.
Unknown Party would be an interesting name choice.