On September 13, the California Senate passed SB 696, so it is now on its way to the Governor. It had already passed the Assembly. This is the bill that makes it illegal for a party to have the word “Independent” or “Independence” in its name. If the American Independent Party doesn’t re-name itself by October 29, it is removed from the ballot, and all the voters who are registered in the party will be transformed into independent voters.
The vote was 29-11. It needed 27 votes because it has an urgency clause.
It is believed that the party will soon file a lawsuit against the bill, assuming Governor Gavin Newsom signs it.
Pretty scary stuff.
Can the just drop the word “Independent” and be okay?
@CO,
That would probably be considered a terror organization in some parts of California.
I think what the AIP leadership did to the Constitution Party was dirty, and that they are a do nothing, empty shell of an organization, but even so, I do not think they should be forced to change their name.
More human density per sq yard = MORE communist ???
See ants in anthills/holes ???
NOOO shortage of wannabee monarch ANT [insect brain] *leaders* — for 6,000 plus years.
“I think what the AIP leadership did to the Constitution Party was dirty, and that they are a do nothing, empty shell of an organization, but even so, I do not think they should be forced to change their name.”
The middle part is correct, they have been a do nothing empty shell for a long time. I don’t see that they did anything dirty to the Constitution Party however. The AIP existed long before the Constitution Party. Their mutual association in 1992-2008 gave the Constitution Party undeserved credit/propaganda talking points in claiming to have more registered voters than Libertarians and Greens, masking the fact that the Constitution Party was in reality much smaller by just about any measure. The AIP non-CP faction simply outgamed the Grundmann theocratic/self hating closet gay/turns out now they are also white nationalists faction, or maybe that’s just Grundmann. They turned out to be better at following the byzantine election code than the Grundmannites. Both groups are despicable people, so why should it be presumed that the AIP owed Grundman or the CP some kind of loyalty?
As for taking away their name and thus their ability to profit off selling their ballot line, enjoying making people come out and kowtow to them, etc: since they are an empty shell of an organization, it won’t do much except remove a confusing label from the voter form which causes a lot of people to register in a way other than their intent due to lack of knowledge or attention. On the other hand I will grant the point that it would set a bad precedent. But back in the plus column, it would take away the state’s current excuse for not allowing independent candidates to use that ballot label. It will be interesting to see what other phony excuse they will cook up for that next.
The state paying for a defense against their coming lawsuit has its good and bad sides as well. On the one hand it is a waste of extorted tax money, albeit a trivial portion of what California shakes its residents and visitors and anyone doing business there, ordering products from there or even just passing through for. On the other it will provide many entertaining updates here, so we have that to look forward to. Stock up on popcorn and popcorn accessories in bulk as this will be dragged out for a while.
Will be an interesting suit on Constitutional grounds – 1st Amendment freedom of association – and freedom of that association to call itself whatever it wants (within limits of community decency?) I suppose a party name like the “Bad MF’ers” (ala Pulp Fiction) might be a problem? … or maybe not considering it’s California.
Beyond the lawsuit is there an active rumor mill as to what the AIP might change its name to?
They could keep their initials and become Auction In Progress. That way anyone who would like to buy their presidential ballot line will be advised that it is for sale to the highest bidder, or perhaps to the one who kisses their party boss’s asses most ably.
Given their co-nomination of Trump in 2016 it might be fitting if they kept their initials and became the American Idiot Party. That would also increase their share of the ironic hipster vote. American Irony Party? Or, in homage to Trump’s trade views, American Iron Party? If they are not too stuck on their initials they could make a play off Trump’s Keep America Great slogan and become the Keep Europe Germanic Party, or KEG party for short, thus ensuring a big share of the bro vote.
Four members of the AIP filed to run for U.S. House in 2018: Mike Tsarnas in the 9th district, Vincent May in the 13th district, Robert Ornelas in the 19th district, and Ted Alemayhu in the 39th district. Of course because of the top-two system, they were not on the November ballot.
By contrast, only one person from the Peace & Freedom Party filed in 2018 to run for U.S. House, Jordan Mills in the 49th district.
In 2014, the AIP had a candidate for Assembly who did get on the November ballot. George R. Williams polled 38.06% of the vote in November 2014 in the 79th district. Of course he only got on the November ballot because only one major party ran anyone for that seat in the primary.
American Insurrection Party [against RED communists] ???
The AIP, while an affiliate of the Constitution Party, put Alan Keyes on the ballot in 2008, instead of the officially CP nominated candidate of Chuck Baldwin. Baldwin was a much better, and more principled, candidate than Keyes. The AIP then went on to disaffiliate with the national Constitution Party, which hurt the CP, and since then, the AIP has turned into even more of a do nothing empty shell of an organization than it was before. I heard that the faction that took control of the AIP’s State Committee shut anyone who wanted to be affiliated with the national Constitution Party from voting at their conventions.
I wonder if they could rename themselves “American Independen Party” and just leave off the “t” making it look like the state government is screwing up the spelling.
Scott, no, because the bill bans any word derived from “independent”.
Andy, I agree with you that it was wrong for the AIP to act as it did in 2008. But there is a bigger principle at stake here. The First Amendment protects a party’s right to choose its own name, within certain limits. 47 of the 50 states have at one time or another had a party on the ballot with either “Independent” or “Independence” in its name. Banning those words means that a party that believes in secession could not have the name which explains its purpose, such as the Alaskan Independence Party which was founded to work for secession. There was recently a small California party that wanted to work for secession, named the Independent California Party, and not it can’t re-file as a political party using that name either. The bill violates the First Amendment. It also violates due process by taking effect so quickly.
@JB, EN,
It will be blocked on due process and unlawful taking grounds. California never changes a voters stated party affiliation ever since it has had voter registration. Even when a party became non-qualified, the registrations are retained. Otherwise the Peace&Freedom Party would never have requalified. The name has been in use for 51 years.
California proposes to expunge party affiliations within a little over a month, and then send out notices to registered voters that say “Dear Comrade, you are no longer registered with the American Independent Party, there is no American Independent Party, there has never been an American Independent Party.”
The proximate cause of any alleged confusion is due to the state’s confusing terminology and registration forms, where No Party Preference does not mean no party preference but no Party preference, and a preference for an other party is not treated as No Party Preference when the voter registers, but is if that candidate seeks office.
If a voter is confused by Alex Orwell Padilla’s registration form, there is minimal harm. Such a voter could not vote in the presidential primary of another party. But California permits a voter to change their affiliaion online and up to election day. In addition the Democratic Party may permit voters affiliated with specific other parties to vote in their primary.
“The AIP, while an affiliate of the Constitution Party, put Alan Keyes on the ballot in 2008,”
Incorrect, they ceased to be a CP affiliate first.
“…put Alan Keyes on the ballot in 2008,”
Alan’s Incontinent Party?
“The AIP then went on to disaffiliate with the national Constitution Party, which hurt the CP,”
Boo hoo. Perhaps the CP should wash its hands of Grundmann now that he has come out as a white nationalist?
@ScottKohlhaas- LOL! That was hilarious. The thought of voters looking at it thinking the state gov’t screwed it up is classic 🙂
Andy,
You are wrong with the statement “The AIP while an affiliate of the Constitution Party put Alan Keyes on the Ballot In 2008 instead of the officially CP nominated candidate of Chuck Baldwin”.
That is not what happened. First the AIP affiliated with the “America’s Independent Party” with its national headquarter in Michigan. At the time the AIP nominated
Alan Keyes the American Independent Party had no
affiliation with the Constitution Party. Therefore please
except this refutation from the then Vice Chairman of the American Independent Party of California.
Would the name “No Party” be legal under CA law? Might as well troll the legislature right back.
Fred C
The answer is maybe “NO” because former AIP elector Jacqueline Garza has been elected temporary chairperson of the “No Party Preference” Political Body on September 10, 2019 at.a caucus in Indio, CA.
I would think that “No Party” name is to close to the name of the political body named “No Party Preference”.
You however can register as “No Party Preference” and help that political body get the required amount of electors by E-154.
@FC,
The legislature protected “independent”, “no party preference”, and “decline to state”, but did not protect “unknown”, which California uses for voters who have not expressed a preference under automatic voter registration (California should treat any former AIP registrants as Unknown, rather than NPP).
So Unknown Party could be used.
If I were trolling, I’d use American Indian Pendant.
American Indomitable, American Indestructible, American Industry, American Indelible would permit AIP.
A less draconian solution would be to permit a political party to designate who may vote in their primary.
Designated Participants could include:
Members of the qualified political party;
Members of specified other qualified political parties;
No Party Preference voters; and
Some or all of other party preferences, including “Independent”
Jim Riley,
That is a great idea. Going back to the 1920’s on who could vote was not always US Citizens.
The question of Indians not taxed under the 14th Amendment and the status of United States Nationals
from American Samoa and Swains Island is an issue to consider to give a right on the central committee of the
AIP.
What would be on the no list would be children born to unwed illegal immigrant mothers in the United States as
The so-called birth right “anchor babies” after President Trump issues his executive order to enforce the 14th Amendment.
What happened to SB288 on September 13, 2019?
@MS,
SB 288 appears to have been referred back to committee. I don’t know whether it can still be active when the legislature reconvenes in January.
I think that a political party for purposes of statute consists of voters registered with the party. If California permitted non-citizen US Nationals to vote, then they could register with a party and participate in its governance.
This does mean that a party could not have auxilary groups, for those under 18, permanent residents, etc.
ALSO — ALIEN INVADERS PARTY ??? — BOTH FOREIGN AND OUTER SPACE
Demo Rep
It is far better name “Anti-alien Invaders Party”.
Going back to the SOS CC/ROV of July 31, 2019 listing as a qualified political party the entity NO PARTY PREFERRANCE, a good question is when did that entity
have a convention or caucus before July 31, 2019 and become a Political Body in the first place.
Do the CA RED Donkey Communists regard all opponents as *aliens* ???
ANTI-Incumbents Party ??? — at least until AIP folks are a majority of the incumbents ??? !!!
@MS,
That is confusing, misleading, or deceptive.
It would be simpler to record what the voter actually entered on their original affidavit of voter registration. Computers can tabulate that trivially.
Be sure when you get your injunction to keep the SOS and voter registrars from destroying any original records.
I thought they only keep original records for 22 month.
@MS,
See Elections Code $2202. The paper originals may be destroyed in a proper manner (presumably shredded or incinerated) after being microfilmed, recorded on optical disk (WORM), etc.
1. ALL sorts of UN-con stuff in 1 AMDT *content* SCOTUS ops –
see olde attempts to ban olde USA commies from ballot access.
2. New Age RED CASSOR commies repeating the evil rotted past – for other parties- starting with AIP.
3. Must sue for $$$ damages to get past next election(s).
While I would love to see the AIP join the Life and Liberty Party Coalition, they shouldn’t have to change their name because the state says so. In any event, I am looking forward to appearing on the AIP primary ballot in California in 2020. I will do what I can to uphold the AIP name there.