On February 9, the California Secretary of State released new registration data. It shows that the Common Sense Party has 30,882 registrants. Although that is a big increase for the party since the last tally, it is not enough to qualify. The party had 17,322 registrants at the previous tally, which was as of August 31, 2021. The requirement appears to be 72,618, although the Common Sense Party believes the requirement is 55,601.
Here is a link to the Secretary’s Report of Registration.
Percentages for the qualified parties are: Democratic 46.70%; Republican 23.95%; American Independent 3.32%; Libertarian 1.00%; Peace & Freedom .51%; Green .41%. The percentage of voters in unqualified parties, unknown, and independent, combined, is 24.10%.
At the last tally, in August 2021, the percentages were: Democratic 46.54%; Republican 24.02%; American Independent 3.24%; Libertarian .97%; Peace & Freedom .50%; Green .40%; independent plus unknown and unqualified parties, 24.31%. The only categories that declined were Republican and independent-miscellaneous.
Why doesn’t the Common Sense Party challenge the law that prevents expression of a candidates actual party preference on the ballot?
They are not permitted to speak because of views not recognized as qualified state orthodoxy?
Maybe they will.
It’s a coin toss whether the California LP will have more registered voters than does the Green party nationally by election day.
I am not surprised that they failed. I am guessing that they will continue to try to make it for 2024.
They could also sue. In 2013 a US District Court struck down the January deadline for new parties to get on the ballot, as applied to presidential election years. There seems to be no state interest in a January deadline, because there are no partisan primaries in midterm years. So the only effect of having a new party on the ballot in a midterm year is that its members could have their party label on the ballot, and the candidate filing doesn’t begin until March.
They could also sue over the law that won’t let members of unqualified parties have their party listed on the ballot when they run for office. The Socialist Party virtually won that case, but the 9th circuit didn’t strike it down; it just sent it back to the US District Court. And then the plaintiff died, so the case didn’t proceed.
@RW,
Wasn’t the ACLU litigating the Soltysik case?
Since NO parties are qualified to make nominations in California, it does not make sense that a candidate running in the primary be affiliated with a so-called “qualified” party.
What are they qualified for? Bowen, Padilla, Weber: “um… um… stuff and like you know stuff, that’s it stuff”