On September 10, the California Assembly passed SB 696 by 64-14. All of the “No” votes were cast by Republicans. The bill requires the American Independent Party to change its name by October 29, or it will be disqualified from the ballot.

No state has ever before forced a ballot-qualified party to change its name. The bill is ambiguous as to whether “Independence” could be part of a party name. The bill bans the word “Independent” as part of a party name, and also says the ban applies to any derivative of the word “Independent.” Supporters of the bill say the intent is to also ban “Independence”.

At one time in the past, 47 states have had a ballot-qualified party with either “Independent” or “Independence” as part of its name, or all of its name. One of the most significant of such parties was the Independence Party, formed by William Randolph Hearst in 1906, which ran Congressman Thomas Hisgen for president in 1908.

If this bill becomes law and is not held unconstitutional, there will no longer be any excuse for California to bar independent candidates for Congress and partisan state office from having “independent” as their ballot label. When the ban on the word “independent” was challenged in court in Chamness v Bowen, the state’s defense was that if it allowed independent candidates to be “independent” on the ballot, that would cause confusion with the American Independent Party.