On the evening of October 9, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed SB 696, the bill to make it illegal for a party to have “independent” or “independence” as part of its name. Thanks to Mark Seidenberg for this news. See this Los Angeles Times news story. The Governor said the bill likely violates the First Amendment.
The story says that State Senator Tom Umberg, the bill’s author, says he will re-introduce the same bill next year.
UPDATE: here is the Veto Message. Thanks to Jim Riley for that link.
The article has a link to the veto message:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SB-696-Veto-Message-2019.pdf
Well good for Governor Newsom! I disagree with him on many things but he should be positively acknowledged when he gets it right.
SAVE DEMOCRACY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 10 AUG 2019 – BALLOT ACCESS PART
Sec. 3. (1) All elected officers shall be registered Electors [in the [state]] in addition to any other qualifications in this constitution.
(2) A person may hold only 1 elected or appointed office.
(3) All incumbents and all other candidates shall respectively file a declaration of candidacy and any filing fees in (4) by [5 P.M.][203] and [196] days before the election day.
(4) The names of all candidates shall be put on the general election ballots only by (a) nominating petition forms signed by Electors in the area involved equal to not more than [0.1] percent of the number of Electors who voted in the last regular election for [governor] in such area which shall be filed and verified respectively by [105] and [70] days before the election day, or (b) filing fees (signature number multiplied by a uniform money amount).
(5) Form- [9, 10 or 12] point type, [3.5 by 4.25 inches]
NOMINATING PETITION – [PARTISAN] (for legislative offices) [NONPARTISAN] (for executive/judicial offices)
I nominate (candidate’s name and address) (of the (one word party name – not more than [16] capital letters) Party) for (office) in (election area) at the (date) election.
Elector signature, printed name, address and date signed.
Return to- (address)
(6) No filing shall be withdrawn.
(7) Candidates shall have their party’s name in (5) or NONPARTISAN [and may by law have a symbol] next to their names on the ballots.
(8) A qualified person may be a legislative body candidate in 1 to [4] districts.
(9) All legislative body candidates shall file 1 or more rank order lists of persons to replace (temporary or permanent) the candidate during an election time.
(10) The qualified person who is highest on the list shall fill such vacancy.
(11) If (9-10) does not happen, then the other candidates of his/her party shall fill such vacancy with a qualified person of the same party.
The proximate cause of any voter confusion is California’s voter registration form. A voter who regards themselves as an independent has to select “No Party/None, I do not want to choose a political party preference”. California compounds this by giving a different meaning of “No Party Preference” in certain applications.
California should change the designation of such voters to “independent”, and reduce the qualification requirement to a reasonable minimum such as 100 voters. Instead of write-in of parties, California should require a new party to qualify by petition. The signers would indicate their consent to change their registration to the new party.
All parties would be required to demonstrate cognizable organization, such as bylaws, election of officers, finance compliance, and biennial state conventions.
Party elections would be by mail in odd years. Counties would collect the ballots, and turn them over to the parties for county. A party that preferred the use of conventions could send a notice instead.
Division 7 of the election code would be gutted, and replaced with general requirements.
Since no voter could be registered with a non-qualified party, there would no longer be confusion on the ballot for Top 2 offices. Registered independents could say Independent on the ballot.
Qualification for presidential elections would be reduced to 0.1% of the previous presidential vote (14,610). The primary would be the blanket primary used in 2000, but would also include independent candidates. Parties could nominate the candidate who receives the most votes in their primary, or qualify an alternate by petition.
NO PUBLIC PARTY REGISTRATIONS = PURGE LISTS.
NO PRIMARIES.
ANY USA punishment for mere *attempts* to subvert the USA Const by HACKS – legis/exec/judic ???
IE – mere bills ???
Extreme bill example-
A law for the Defense of RED Donkey communism in CA
The robot hack governor shall immediately kill/murder/exterminate/PURGE all NON-RED Donkey communists in this State – with the help of all RED communist Donkeys, private or public.
Any RED communist Donkey not obeying the HACK governor’s orders law shall also be immediately deemed to be a NON-RED Donkey communist and be immediately killed.
Newsom’s stupidity knows no bounds! Rather then get rid of the ONE political party in CA with THE MOST MIS-LEADING NAME EVER, he ENDORSES it’s presence! With any degree of sanity, this veto will be over-ridden, OR maybe it’s author (Senator Umberg) will introduce legislation to make it easier for a party like the “AIP” to CHANGE THEIR NAME! The “AIP” is nothing more then the California affiliate of the “Constitution Party”, a right-wing party that is so far to the right, Republicans look liberal by comparison! Let the AIP change it’s name (and the “Peace and Freedom” party too!). Political parties with MIS-LEADING NAMES have got to go!
47 states at one time or another have had parties on the ballot with “independent” or “independence” in their names. See the print edition of Ballot Access News, August 1, 2019 issue.
The AIP has not been the affiliate of the Constitution Party since 2008.
AY
What in the world do you have against the name of the Peace and Freedom Party?
AY-
How about that misleading *Democratic* name in CA —
actual/real super-leftwing RED communist TOTAL CONTROL party.
The Peace and Freedom Party are not “misleading,” so if that’s your point, I automatically disagree with you on the AI changing their name as well. Does that mean the Democratic Party, with the most corrupt presidential primaries, should also change their name there? Real question, please answer.
Newsom actually did something right for a change. Good for him.
“Does that mean the Democratic Party, with the most corrupt presidential primaries, should also change their name there? Real question, please answer.”
They should call themselves the Corporactic Party which would be more honest.
Since we are all piling on… not many “Republicans” really understand what a republic is and how it differs from a democracy. Perhaps THEY should change their name as well.
If California used the term “Unaffiliated” like a few states do for people who choose to not be a member of ANY political party, instead of Independent for the general term, and then enforce it on all press organizations this issue would probably go away over time.
Newsom got it right with this veto and also the veto concerning charging tourist and local’s to drive down the crooked Lombard Street in San Francisco. I still support the recall!