Former Congressman Tom Campbell, a founder of the Common Sense Party of California, here explains why his party would improve California government if only it could get on the ballot. His op-ed is carried in the pages of the Orange County Register, one of the state’s leading newspapers.
As Campbell says, his party’s federal ballot access lawsuit lost in U.S. District Court, and is pending in the Ninth Circuit. The Common Sense Party v Padilla, 20-16335. Here is the party’s opening brief.
If they had a modicum (or lick) of common sense, they would challenge the regulation that limits expression of political beliefs on the ballot to orthodox or popular viewpoints. The key finding of the Washington Top 2 litigation was that a candidate was expressing a personal political viewpoint, and was entitled to 1st Amendment protection.
Tom Campbell on his affidavit of voter registration stated that he prefers the Common Sense Party. His signature on the affidavit indicates that all information is truthful and correct. He could be tried for perjury if any information was knowingly false. He is entitle to an assumption that his political party preference is truthful.
Yet, if he were to run for partisan office, he would be denied the opportunity to express his sincere political beliefs on the ballot. While California may impose manner regulations, they may not impose them in a discriminatory manner.
While California might impose size limits to political billboards, they can not limit them to more popular parties. They could not say that the Common Sense Party has only a few 1000 affiliants, and therefore could not have a billboard, while more popular parties such as the Libertarian or Democratic parties may.
California could impose reasonable regulations on political parties such as requiring an actual organized structure, and a modest level of support (50 or 100 registered voters) throughout California. Then voters could know that a candidate prefered an actual party and not a convenient slogan. This is similar to California’s regulation of occupational or professional qualifications on the ballot. It has to be an actual occopation or profession.
ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander regimes in ALL 50 States —–
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged packed/cracked gerrymander areas = 1/4 or less CONTROL
— with MUCH, MUCH, MUCH worse primary extremist math – esp in top 2 primary regimes like CA.
One result — TYRANT lawless execs/judics – since legis bodies are totally corrupt / UN-representative.
—-
PR and NONPARTISAN AppV — pending Condorcet.
TOTSOP
Jim, I’m not really sure what your complaint is; unpopular candidates and parties that make the California ballot are voted against and removed from consideration. This is why right-wingers have plummeted in the Golden State, and the state has prospered as a result.
Brian, “right-wingers” have not plummeted in California. There are more California Republican congressional candidates in California who support Q-Anon than in any other state. I am only counting Republicans who qualified for the November ballot.
It will be interesting to see where the Common Sense Party goes from here. I will probably join their mailing list to see wat happens, though I tend to be far right in some areas and far left in others, rather than centrist.
Richard, you know there were 25 GOP Congressmen in California as recently as 2000, and now there are only 7. QAnon is a nasty bunch, but there’s little real difference between a QAnon freak and other Republicans in terms of voting behavior, and Californians have figured that out.
As for the Common Sense Party, their future is about as bright as The Birthday Party’s.
@BSJ,
If you are uncertain as to what my argument is, ask questions. Don’t pretend to debate it.
In California, voters may disclose their party preference on their affidavit of voter registration. Tom Campbell indicated that he preferred the Common Sense Party. Gavin Newsom indicated that he preferred the Democratic Party. They are equally legitimate expressions of political affiliation.
If they were to run for office they would pay the filing fee along with a petition. They would have their name appear on the ballot. They would have their occupation and profession listed. But Gavin Newsom would be listed as preferring the Democratic Party, because that is what his voter registration said. Tom Campbell would be listed as not having a party preference. That is not what his voter registration said.
What is the state of California’s rational for this distinction, this unequal treatment under the law?
Skylar, it seems that you are the Chair of the American Solidarity party. Why remain the Chair if you are contemplating seeking membership in other political parties? With regards to Common Sense Party what is their rational on having ballot access? Their are various other centrist parties throughout the US including the American Solidarity party. The Alliance Party has the most ballot access throughout the US in this Presidential election although not in California. Pardon the pun but it would be common sense try to ballot access through one of these existing political parties.
It’s not unethical to join a variety of mailing lists for local networking and electoral reform purposes. We have some people on our mailing list who don’t quite align with our party.
The Common Sense Party could definitely consider the strategy of affiliating with the Alliance Party.
I’m not entirely sure that these centrist parties have potential to do much better than the Greens and Libertarians, whether in top two primaries or regular general elections; but we’ll see. May depend on particulars of each district.
California is bankrupt under one party rule. People are leaving in droves, so much so that they may lose a Congressional seat.