On October 23, U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney held a hearing in Peace & Freedom Party v Weber, n.d., 3:24cv-8308. This is the case filed by several minor parties against the California top-two system and some of its characteristics. The state wanted the lawsuit dismissed. Judge Chesney did dismiss the part of the case that challenges the essence of the top-two system. But she kept the case alive on the issue of ballot labels for candidates who are registered into unqualified parties. Current law says they must have “party preference: none” on the primary ballot. Thus, when California candidates registered into such parties as the American Solidarity Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Constitution Party, and the Working Class Party run, they cannot have their party label on the ballot.
Now there will be a trial on the party label issue.
The larger issue in the case is the constitutionality of forcing minor party candidates to file in December of the year before the election. The Ninth Circuit had cast doubt on such an early deadline when it upheld the Washington state top-two system. The Ninth Circuit had said it is not a severe burden on minor parties to be excluded from the election itself because they can run in the late August primary, which is near enough in time to November as to be part of election season. Then the Ninth Circuit had said it would different if the Washington primary were in March. By coincidence, the California primary for congress and state offices is in March, in presidential years. Judge Chesney was reminded of this quote from the Ninth Circuit at the hearing, but it wasn’t enough to persuade her that the California system might be unconstitutional. Eventually that part of the case will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The U.S. Supreme Court has been consistent in all its ballot access precedents to say that the Constitution does not require all candidates to be treated alike. It has said the major parties and minor parties are dissimilar entities, and the states can treat them differently. Sometimes that means the state can discriminate in favor of the major parties. But sometimes the states must discriminate in favor of minor parties, and that is especially true for timing. Anderson v Celebrezze, the Supreme Court’s leading decision on deadlines, makes this clear. In that case, Ohio had argued that the state treated all presidential candidates alike: they all needed to file in March, whether they were running in a presidential primary, or whether they were independent candidates. But the Court rejected Ohio’s argument, and said states must give later deadlines to minor party and independent candidates. It said that history shows that sometimes the voters are dissatisfied with the major party nominees, and they must be given a chance to support the entry of new candidates, after the major parties have chosen their nominees. This point didn’t seem to have entered the thinking of the U.S. District Court Judge. She said orally that she saw nothing wrong with a system in which all candidates are subject to the same timeline.
None of these questions would be questions at all, much less court issues, under anything like my proposals.
What about your own discrimination between which news sources can and can’t be successfully linked in your blog comments?
If there is something interesting on “Not the Bee”, a commenter is free to say “today’s Not the Bee has an interesting article about such-and-such.” As I said before, to my knowledge Not the Bee never has any content concerning ballot access or minor parties. The websites that Thomas W. Jones is interested in do have such content.
If I am wrong, please let me know if “Not the Bee” has ever had any content about ballot access or minor parties or independent candidates.
Of course it has, at least as often as the sites AZ links.
And why would lots and lots of links to subjects that have nothing at all to do with ballot access and minor parties from CNN (XiNN), USA today (USSR YESTERDAY), and lots of other general “news” propaganda sites be justified because those same publications very occasionally report on minor parties and ballot access in completely different articles ?
That’s an extremely thin justification that I don’t think you can seriously believe or that anyone else could ever seriously believe.
Not The Bee
This poor lady sang the national anthem at the third-party candidate debate on C-SPAN, messed up, dropped two F-bombs, and asked to start over (it was live)
Harambe Harambe
Oct 26, 2024
NTB
Elon says he will form a new political party if the Big Beautiful Bill passes
Cardinal Pritchard
Jul 1, 2025
NTB
The Constitution Party candidate you’ve never heard of is staying in the race because he has a plan to help Trump win
Harris Rigby
Aug 28, 2024
Need more? If yes, how many?
We have also suggested NTB articles which touch on subjects you cover here other than minor parties or ballot access, although you never take up the suggestions.
For example earlier just today
NTB:
Trump demands Ilhan Omar be removed from Congress for being sworn in on a fake name
Edward Teach
Oct 23, 2026
THAT ONE COULD ACTUALLY BE A STORY TIP HERE IF RICHARD WINGER TREATED SOURCES IN AN UNBIASED WAY
If anyone who wants me to allow links to Not the Bee will telephone me and help me know what to do to allow Not the Bee links, I would appreciate it. My phone number is 415-922-9779. Currently I don’t have the technical knowledge to alter the system. I am in the Pacific time zone, so don’t phone later than 8:30 pm Pacific time.
I would think an illegitimate candidate running for Congress (Omar) qualifies as ballot access news.
I don’t know what links you should or shouldn’t allow, although I thought you generally allowed just about anything, or used to.
The last time I commented here I responded to a comment featuring a Not The Bee link that was subsequently deleted, along with my comment. I attempted to partially recreate my comment and don’t know whether that stayed up or not.
It might be that the Not The Bee links are not appearing due to that removal. If so, the technical fix if you want to allow them again is very easy.
In your admin dashboard there is a setting for what comments are allowed, banned, or held for moderation. You can enter IP of email addresses, words, urls (website addresses), names, other strings of text into any of those 3 categories.
If you can text message at all 205 534 1622.
Voice calls almost never work on my end for a variety of different reasons.
You can email very short emails to 2055341622@vtext.com but it cuts them off on my end after just a few words, but I can reply at any length and it goes to your email. Verizon stopped supporting this service but it still worked as of the last time I checked, maybe a couple of months ago.
I still have access to my gmail account if I ever want to, but I’ve only checked it once so far in 2026. If there’s no way to text message or use the other email effectively, just use the other email (vtext) to let me know if and when I need to check gmail.
I can walk you thru the technical end or do it for you if you prefer. It’s very easy and not technical at all.
Decisions on what to allow, ban, hold for moderation or delete are not mine and should not be mine.
The American Solidarity Party should get its own counsel. Their interest is disparate from the other parties, who seek their own primary which American Solidarity would probably not qualify for. Maybe the ACLU would assist since they were working on the Soltysik case.
When Proposition 14 was approved in 2014, the stated intent said it conformed to the Washington State Grange case and that there was an implementing statute SB6. In the Washington case, the Washington AG Rob McKenna successfully argued that the words that appeared next to a candidates name were personal political express and did not indicate party endorsement or “nomination”. He said the legislature, or in this case the People through the initiative process, could have chosen some other statement: such as a platform (if a candidate has a preference for a party, it can generally be seen as indicating support for the platform, rather than personal affinity for the party members). As such, Washington had created a limited 1st Amendment forum. The wise Justice Clarence Thomas said that the district court and 9th Circuit had been premature in issuing an injunction based on a facial challenge. They did not know how Washington would implement the law. Had the political parties not jumped the gun in their challenge, Washington might have gone ahead and simply put a (R), (D), (O), (SW), or even (L) on the ballot. Secretary of State Sam Reed implemented regulations where candidates could make a short (15 letters?) statement: (e.g., Prefers Salmon Yoga). Some Republicans personalized their message, such as saying they preferred the Grand Old Party or the GOP or MAGA Republican. The Washington argument was helped by the fact that they Washington did not have partisan registration. On remand, the district court determined that Washington voters were sophisticated enough to distinguish between a candidate’s political beliefs and party endorsement. Political parties and individuals are free to use their 1st Amendment rights to express support for candidates external to being embedded in the state government apparatus.
In California, voters party affiliation did not indicate a permanent allegiance, but rather simply an intent to affiliate with a party on the day of the primary election. 729 days of the biennium they were free of any encumbrance. Decline To State voters literally meant they were keeping their political beliefs confidential. If sufficient voters indicated their intent to affiliate with a party, a party primary would be held. We don’t know at this time whether there will be a Democratic presidential primary in 2028. Maybe voters will have abandoned the party. If someone wrote that they intended to affiliate with the Constitution Party, it did not mean that they declined to state.
Voters were always free to express an intent to affiliate with any party. The party could request that the SOS make a count of affiliating voters to determine if they could have a primary. American Solidarity Party has done so.
Under the California Constitution a candidate for a voter-nominated (i.e. Top 2) office may have their party preference appear on the ballot. If a voter prefers the American Solidarity Party on their voter registration, which they had signed and subject to perjury charges, then as a matter of fact and law, they prefer the American Solidarity Party. The implementing statute (SB 6) did not make a distinction for a “party preference for a party” and a “party preference for a non-party”. Secretary of State Debra Bowen did. She may have been assisted by unionized employees of the SOS who were attempting to sabotage the Top 2. She later convinced the legislature to implement her “interpretation” in statute.
On the application for candidacy for a voter-nominated office, a candidate is required to state their party preference (e.g. “American Solidarity”). On a separate line they are required to indicate that their “party preference” is No Party Preference. This in fact may be a perjury trap.
California could change the definition of “party preference” to be a preference for an actual party. They could not require that party to have over 100,000 registrants. The 1st Amendment is intended to protect minority or unpopular, or less popular beliefs. California could adopt regulations similar to those in Florida, where the requirement that a party have some cognizable structure, including bylaws, audited financial statement, $500 in annual contributions or expenditures, and a website. California might require some minimal number of registrants (e.g., 50). Write-ins of party preference would be eliminated. 50 (or more) voters could indicate that they were forming a political party. Once their application was accepted, their registration would be changed, and other voters could affiliate.
Richard Winger,
I’m not telephoning anyone for privacy reasons. There is zero technical knowledge required. If you can log into wp-admin poke around settings and see discussion, enter n0tthebee.c0m but with os instead of zeroes under always allowed and it’s that simple.
Fred,
I would think so too, but Mr. Winger has his own opinions, which I do not necessarily always understand. This is one of those times they don’t make sense to me.
All sorts of things get posted here and stay up, including literal bot spam from foreign spambots not posting as AZ with unrelated commercial links. See for example the most recent Redpath birthday post comments. Literally the only thing getting shadow banned or deleted are Not The Bee links.
Thomas W. Jones died when he stopped posting as Demo Rep. I think that was maybe 4 or 5 years ago on New Year’s.
AZ-666 IS NOT THOMAS W. JONES. it is a spambot programmed by a troll in Azerbaijan which for unknown reasons has his unique views as one of its inputs.
It is completely false that Yahoo News and the sites it aggregates have any more interest in ballot access or minor parties than not the bee.
@NTB,
That is clearly fake news, since it was on C-Span.
https://www.c-span.org/clip/campaign-2024/user-clip-an-unforgettable-rendition-of-the-national-anthem/5138592
At the time, October 24, 2024, Richard Winger posted a link to the Free and Equal Debate. There was even commentary on the performance of the national anthem. I prefer Christina Tobin’s gracious comments over those of a chimp who works for the NTB.
human candidates are elected and take office — NOT *parties*
Separate is NOT equal — 1954 brown v Bd of Ed — NOT brought up in 1968 Williams v Rhodes-
result — unequal ballot access laws — deadline dates / percents /etc /etc
model st const part- NOOOO TRUST IN INCUMBENT HACKS RE BALLOT ACCESS
Sec. 2. (1) All elected officers shall be registered Electors [in addition to any other qualifications in this constitution] and may hold 1 office.
(2) All incumbents and all other candidates shall respectively file a Declaration of Candidacy by [5] P.M. [203] and [196] days before an election day.
(3) Elector Form [12] point type, [4.25 by 5.5 inches]:
NOMINATING PETITION – PARTISAN (for legislative offices) / NONPARTISAN (for executive and 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. [Elector in area involved]
Return to- (address)
(4) The names of candidates shall be put on the ballots by
(A) Elector Forms equal to not more than [0.1] percent of the number of Electors at the last regular election for governor in the election area involved which shall be filed and verified respectively by [105] and [70] days before an election day or
(B) a fee equal to the signatures number in (A) times a uniform money amount filed by such [105] days before an election day.
(5) No filing shall be withdrawn.
(6) Legislative body candidates shall have their party’s name in (5) [and all candidates may by law have a [0.4 inch by 0.4 inch] symbol] next to their names on the ballots.
Fake news is usually based on real events. What makes it fake news is the relentless spin, not (at least most of the time) making up entire sets of events as actual fact bases for stories.
I don’t have any particular interest in that story. I only posted it as one of the first three search results for whatever I entered in their search box – third party or third parties, I think.
And that was only to disprove Richard Winger’s claim that they never cover minor parties or ballot access.
I could keep posting such links if there is any need but I think I proved the point sufficiently.
That was @ Jim Riley.
The AZ SPAMBOT generated output while I typed it.
“human candidates are elected and take office — NOT *parties*”
Yes, and that’s a big part of the problem. Parties should be elected, not individuals.
The postcard thing doesn’t work. Which is why it’s not done that way even where it can be.
If AZ was a human and not a spambot it would already know that since it’s been eXplained and proven in the comments on previous stories here countless times.
@NTB,
BAN posted a link to the full debate, and there was discussion about the performance of the national anthem here on BAN. Did some chimp working for the NTB really offer any insight?
I’m not aware of any chimps working at NTB. Their editors do regularly offer excellent insights on numerous topics. I don’t know about that story in particular which once again:
*I don’t have any particular interest in that story. I only posted it as one of the first three search results for whatever I entered in their search box – third party or third parties, I think.
And that was only to disprove Richard Winger’s claim that they never cover minor parties or ballot access.
I could keep posting such links if there is any need but I think I proved the point sufficiently.*
Was that somehow unclear?
Also, are you still unclear as to what I mean by fake news?
I’ve explained it many times. As have others.
Much like the editors of sites the AZZ=666 SPAMBOT links at the yahoo news aggregator, CNN, ussr yesterday, axios of evil, daily Satanist, revolutionary guardian, etc, etc, Not The Bee editors have a viewpoint, offer some insights, and sometimes but relatively rarely cover minor parties and ballot access.
The main differences are
1) They are up front about their viewpoint and don’t pretend to be objective unlike some of those sources
2) Their viewpoint is more frequently born out by subsequent events
3) it’s less familiar to those who limit their “news” diet to sources such as those that Richard Winger and the azbot usually cite
The question was which site’s links are allowed and disallowed here.
What “unique insights” do the subchimps that work at all the sites the AZ 666 keeps linking offer that Not The Bee editors don’t?
By way of reference see this discussion, 2 months or so after the fact to see what other links are not a problem for Richard Winger and Ballot Access News, especially towards the bottom thereof which is one of many such examples
https://ballot-access.org/2026/08/20/i-was-left-on-the-cutting-room-floor/#comments
Harambe Harambe does work at NTB. As far as I know that is actually a human, though.
“If you can log into wp-admin poke around settings and see discussion, enter n0tthebee.c0m but with os instead of zeroes under always allowed and it’s that simple.”
That is correct.
I also told Richard Winger my contact info and offered to occasionally zap bot spam such as on that cutting room floor thread in one of my other recent comments a few months ago and didn’t hear back so assuming he is not interested, but if he is and just missed the offer, it’s still open.
Yes, he knows who I am.