Irregular Times has this story, revealing that Americans Elect has begun its petition to qualify as a party in California. The petition requires 1,030,040 signatures. California has two methods to create a new party, either that it persuade a number of voters equal to 1% of the last gubernatorial vote to register into that group on voter registration forms, or to submit a petition signed by 10% of the last gubernatorial vote.
If the 10% petition were the only alternative, the law would have been declared unconstitutional long ago. The U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have struck down all petition requirements for minor and new parties, and independent candidates, that are in excess of 5% of the number of registered voters. Such lawsuits were won in Arkansas, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, and South Dakota. But the 10% California law has survived because it is not mandatory. The 1% registration method can always be used instead.
Each election is NEW and has ZERO to do with anything prior – except perhaps the number of voters at the prior election.
How many folks die or move such that registration stats are instantly obsolete ??? — just like census stats.
“The petition requires 1,030,040 signatures.”
Good Lord, I didn’t realize they were going for that many valid signatures. I thought that they were going for the signature requirement that is around 177,000 and something valid signatures. Is the 177,000 and something valid signature requirement just for statewide independent candidates?
This signature requirement is more signatures than it takes to qualify a statewide constitutional amendment ballot initiative for the ballot in California. That requirement is currently around 800,000 valid signatures.
Does this new political party petition in California only establish Americans Elect for one election cycle, or would this keep them on the ballot for more than one election? When is the last time that a political party used this process to obtain ballot status in California (I know that the Libertarian Party and some other minor parties got on in California through voter registrations)?
It would seem to me that “Americans Elect” would be too similar to “American Independent” to be allowed on the ballot.
PEACE
I would sign the petition and get others to sign as well. I believe the electors should get the maximum amount of parties on the ballot to make choices. I think that should be what the Constitution Party should
do. On the issue of using “American” in its name, that
could be a problem because the AIP also has “American”
in its name. I would not want to have the California
electors being upset by the use of a name that has the
name American in it. However, I would suggest the leaders of the so-called “American Elect” contact AIP,
over this name issue. If we can work it out within the AIP National Committee, that name could fly.
Have they started the registration drive under CA Election Code section 5001? Because the petitioner still have to met the registration numbers in addition
to the 1,030,040 signatures. How does one contact the
AE party?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Andy
It is not based on cycles. It is also my not to be forever. As to your question in post #2.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party.
Does this new political party petition in California only establish Americans Elect for one election cycle, or would this keep them on the ballot for more than one election?
It establishes them for one cycle. Richard Winger would probably know this: if they get 2% for President, does this keep them on for the next presidential election?
Is the 177,000 and something valid signature requirement just for statewide independent candidates?
As I understand it, yes. The Arnos must have really “sold” Ackerman and whoever big time if they are doing this instead of waiting until they have a candidate nominated and going for the 177k.
When is the last time that a political party used this process to obtain ballot status in California (I know that the Libertarian Party and some other minor parties got on in California through voter registrations)?
I don’t think it has ever been done before successfully. As far as I know it has always been done through registrations.
It would seem to me that “Americans Elect” would be too similar to “American Independent” to be allowed on the ballot.
I don’t know whether that has ever been an issue before in California.
I think that should be what the Constitution Party should do.
Unlike Americans Elect, they don’t have any billionaires or multimillionaires giving them massive amounts of money. They are much more likely to beat you in court than to have the money for something like this.
The notice from the Secretary of State’s office to the counties, doesn’t look any different than those for the other 14 political bodies attempting to qualify.
Elections Code 5100(c) says that petitions should be handled, “substantially as provided for initiative petitions”, which could imply a time limit for a collection of petitions.
I’ve posted a pdf copy of the Americans Elect letter to the CA SOS as an update here. The letter shows Americans Elect’s intent to qualify under Section 5100(c), and that Peter Ackerman and Kahlil Byrd have named themselves heads of the Americans Elect Party in California.
If AE is unable to get the +1M petition signatures for a political party will they be able to use the 177K petition for a nominated candidate as a fall back position to getting on a ballot?
If Americans Elect gets on the 2012 ballot, it doesn’t mean a thing if they get 2% for President or not. The vote test only applies in midterm years. Under precedents, though, when a new party qualifies in California in a presidential election year, it is automatically on the ballot in the following midterm year.
In 1896 the California Supreme Court ruled that the National Democratic Party could be on the ballot with that name, even though the Democratic Party was already on the ballot.
If AE is unable to get the +1M petition signatures for a political party will they be able to use the 177K petition for a nominated candidate as a fall back position to getting on a ballot?
I would think so, since it would be a presidential ticket without a party label that would then be attempting to qualify, with no official connection to Americans Elect, even though Americans Elect would be running that same ticket in other states. However, I don’t think that will be an issue, since they have a lot of money and if they have trouble getting signatures they’ll just raise the price.
Under precedents, though, when a new party qualifies in California in a presidential election year, it is automatically on the ballot in the following midterm year.
What would that mean with prop 14/88, other than being able to have their party name on the ballot for their candidates in the primary? Wouldn’t those candidates still have to get in the top two for them to have a chance at ballot retention?
“If AE is unable to get the +1M petition signatures for a political party will they be able to use the 177K petition for a nominated candidate as a fall back position to getting on a ballot?”
They could do this, but they’d have to start up a new petition to put their presidential ticket on the ballot as independents in California. So whatever signatures they collected on a petition to qualify Americans Elect as a new political party in California would be useless (that is if they fell short of the required number of signatures).
The only way that I see them failing on this petition is if they don’t come up with enough money. I know that the people behind Americans Elect are very wealthy so if they don’t come up with enough money it is NOT because they don’t have the money, so there’d have to be some other reason for them not making it.
They’ve got plenty of time to gather the signatures and there are plenty of expierenced petition circulators in California, so as long as they keep paying them for signatures they’ll make the ballot.
“What would that mean with prop 14/88, other than being able to have their party name on the ballot for their candidates in the primary? Wouldn’t those candidates still have to get in the top two for them to have a chance at ballot retention?”
Presidential candidates are exempted from Prop 14 (ie-top two). Americans Elect have stated that they don’t plan to run for any other offices beyond running a Presidential ticket.
“I think that should be what the Constitution Party should do.”
Oh come on, this is a very insincere statement. You know damn well that this petition requirement for party status in California is the most difficult petition of its kind in the nation. You know damn well that the Constitution Party is not going to come up with the money to do this. They’d have to have some mega-rich people backing them up with big bucks to have any shot at making this requirement. You are being disengenuous if you don’t acknowledge this.
Andy,
I am not disengenuous. There is no money requirements
exect for printing costs. Hovever, if the CP does this
petition process they have more time, viz., September 26, 2011. However they still have to comply with CA Election Code section 5001 and that requires additional
registration.
paulie,
In your question # 11, you think that the have a fall back to the 177 k. You are wrong there is no fall back!
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
#10 There are no offices contested statewide at the gubernatorial election where a candidate can be said to be the candidate of a political party. There haven’t been since 2010.
Richard Winger,
With all that effort and the ruling of Secrtary of State
Brown, the NDP only got 1,000 votes in that election you
cited in post # 10.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
“Andy,
I am not disengenuous. There is no money requirements
exect for printing costs.”
Oh come on, you know damn well that nobody is going to gather over 1 million signatures to gain ballot status in California without paying people to gather petition signatures. Yes, you are being disengenuous. Shame on you.
#11 The Secretary of State, in CCROV 10086, issued 3/9/2010, confirmed that voters who are affiliated with a non-qualified party had a right to vote in the Republican and Democratic, June 2010 primaries.
In California, there is absolutely no way that a voter may affiliate with a party, qualified or not, except with their affidavit of voter registration. And the California instructions on Federal Voter Registration make a clear distinction between voters who affiliate with a qualified party; affiliate with a non-qualified party; and those affiliate with no party (Decline To State).
In the transitional arrangements for voter registration in Elections Code 2151(d), voter registrations were divided into two classes (1) those who were affiliated with a party; and (2) those who had Declined To State a party affiliation. There is no logical way to read this as providing 3 classes of registrations.
The People of California in adopting Proposition 14 declared that it was their intent that existing registrations should be converted to Party Preferences. By implementing the conversion in the way that they did it is clear that “Party Preference” is what the voter declares on their Affidavit of Voter Registration.
The California Constitution (Article II, Section 5(b), says that for voter-nominated offices, a candidate has the right to have his Party Preference appear on the ballot in the manner provided by statute.
Elections Code 8002.5 specifically defines the Party Preference of a candidate, to be that which the voter disclosed on the Affidavit of Voter Registration. If the legislature intended for “Party Preference” to mean “Preference For Qualified Party” they would not have referred to the document where a voter may specify a non-qualified party.
Under terms of the California Constitution and California Statutes, a voter who has indicated a Party Preference on their Affidavit of Voter Registration may have that Party Preference appear on the ballot.
So a voter who registers with a Party Preference of Americans Elect, has a right to have that preference appear on the ballot, regardless of whether Americans Elect qualifies to have a presidential primary.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_t.htm
Correct or NOT ???
How many court cases in the WAR for ballot access in CA ???
I never normally comment about commenters, but I can’t resist. Jim Riley is an excellent researcher and fact-finder, but for someone so good at research, he has a blind spot…he constantly asserts (n comments) that California’s top-two law and its implementing legislation permit members of unqualified parties to list their party on the ballot. The problem is, the government of California disagrees with him, and so far the courts in California have disagreed with him as well. No one in a position of authority in California agrees with him. He should be sending those thoughtful ideas to the California Secretary of State, and maybe he has. Maybe he will tell us if he has tried to persuade the California Secretary of State that she is interpreting the law incorrectly. If so, it would also be interesting to hear if she has responded.
CA Const. Art. II, Sec. 5 part
(b) Except as otherwise provided by Section 6, a [[candidate]] for a congressional or state elective office [[may have his or her political party preference, or lack of political party preference]], indicated upon the ballot for the office [[in the manner provided by statute]].
[Standard loophole language for party hack statutory machinations]
See the pending court cases — sure to note the *in the manner provided by statute* — i.e. one more separate and UNEQUAL loophole — deliberately put in (b) at the 3 AM meetings.
ANY body find ANY mentions of percentages for ballot access in the nearly dead U.S.A. Const ???
What is that *equal* in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 doing these days for ballot access ???
“What would that mean with prop 14/88, other than being able to have their party name on the ballot for their candidates in the primary? Wouldn’t those candidates still have to get in the top two for them to have a chance at ballot retention?”
Presidential candidates are exempted from Prop 14 (ie-top two). Americans Elect have stated that they don’t plan to run for any other offices beyond running a Presidential ticket.
Andy, I was responding to “Under precedents, though, when a new party qualifies in California in a presidential election year, it is automatically on the ballot in the following midterm year.” There’s no presidential election in the midterm year. My question was what would it mean in practical terms for them to be “on the ballot” in 2014, assuming 14/88 is not overturned?
MS,
I am not disengenuous. There is no money requirements
exect for printing costs.
Of course you are being disingenuous. You know as well as we do that they are not going to get over a million signatures with volunteers, and that they don’t have nearly enough money to pay petitioners to do this for them.
In your question # 11, you think that the have a fall back to the 177 k. You are wrong there is no fall back!
They would not have their party name on the ballot, their presidential ticket would be on as independents. Yes, that would be the fallback, and I am not wrong.
“They would not have their party name on the ballot, their presidential ticket would be on as independents. Yes, that would be the fallback, and I am not wrong.”
I think that they’d have a really difficult time getting the 177,000 and something valid signatures to put their presidential ticket on the ballot as independents. I think that it would be so difficult that they are not likely to be able to pull it off.
We were talking about Americans Elect with that. It refers back to comment #11 which was about AE, not CP.
paulie,
If the Constitution Party can not complete a task of getting
the 1,030,040 signature by September 26, 2011, it is not the
problem of the American Independent Party. Again I am not disengenuous.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
“If the Constitution Party can not complete a task of getting
the 1,030,040 signature by September 26, 2011, it is not the
problem of the American Independent Party. Again I am not disengenuous.”
The American Independent Party in California WAS the Constitution Party in California until you and your cronies hijacked it.
Regaining ballot status is super difficult and you know it. Instead of hijacking the AIP why didn’t you just do a petition drive or voter registration drive for ballot access?
“We were talking about Americans Elect with that. It refers back to comment #11 which was about AE, not CP.”
Americans Elect is being backed by a few very wealthy individuals so getting ballot access shouldn’t be a problem for them.
Andy, you’ve mentioned twice now knowledge of Americans Elect being backed by a “few very wealthy individuals.” Since they converted to 501c4 status at the end of the 3rd quarter of 2010, they haven’t released disclosures, and before that Peter Ackerman was the sole (very wealthy) funder to the tune of $1.55 million.
Do you have information on other Americans Elect funders? If so, could you share that info and the source?
Jim Cook
Thank you for the information on the 501c4 status. I now understand what they are doing. First the issue
of names. The status of AMERICAS ELECT is it a corporation. It wants to become a qualified political
party on or before September 26, 2011. There plan has
a major problem, California Election Code section 5001.
If they get the 1,030,040 signatures they still need to
have a party registration as stated in California Election code section 5001 on or before September 5, 2011 to make the 2012 presidential ballot. The problem
is the name. I believe the name “AMERICAS” is to close
to “AMERICAN” to fly with the Secretary of State. I am
well aware that in 1896 the third party “NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY” got on the ballot in California via the courts, but the CA Election Code has more restrictions with its name use now than it did in 1896.
In the 1896 election all the National Democratic Party
received in California was one thousand votes total.
The main problem is getting into Division 7 of the Election Code with the name “AMERICAS” in its name.
If the AMERICAS ELECT get 1,030,040 signatures and
the electors as stated in CA Election Code section 5001,
a California elector could sue AMERICAS ELECT with
the Secretary of State and the State Printer in the
Superior Court in Sacramento County. Then it is up to
the court. My guess in the American Independent Party
would be a necessary party to that lawsuit.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party
MS
If the Constitution Party can not complete a task of getting the 1,030,040 signature by September 26, 2011, it is not the problem of the American Independent Party.
It will be a problem for you if and when they win back control of the AIP through the courts.
Again I am not disengenuous.
If you claim that it wouldn’t cost them anything except printing costs to get over a million signatures, yes, you’re being disingenuous. I believe you have told me in the comments here before that you yourself have never been able to get more than 32 signatures a day.Obviously, a drive that size would require them to hire people. Equally obvious, they don’t have that kind of mind.
Andy
“We were talking about Americans Elect with that. It refers back to comment #11 which was about AE, not CP.”
Americans Elect is being backed by a few very wealthy individuals so getting ballot access shouldn’t be a problem for them.
Yep, that was what I said earlier.
Jim
Do you have information on other Americans Elect funders? If so, could you share that info and the source?
Most of what I know about their funding comes from
1. You and
2. The rumor mill, which is that Mayor Bloomberg of NYC is behind it.
As far as I know, Andy’s information is from the same sources as mine.
You may want to also try talking to Carey Campbell of the Independent Green Party of VA, but he probably won’t tell you a whole lot. Not that it hurts to try.
Mark Seidenberg
You keep mentioning Election Code 5100.
I happened to run across it on Jim Cook’s page.
Notice it says “under any of the following conditions”
not “under a combination of all of the following conditions,” as it seems to me that you keep implying.
5100. A party is qualified to participate in any primary election
under any of the following conditions:
(a) If at the last preceding gubernatorial election there was
polled for any one of its candidates for any office voted on
throughout the state, at least 2 percent of the entire vote of the state.
(b) If on or before the 135th day before any primary election, it
appears to the Secretary of State, as a result of examining and
totaling the statement of voters and their political affiliations
transmitted to him or her by the county elections officials, that
voters equal in number to at least 1 percent of the entire vote of
the state at the last preceding gubernatorial election have declared
their intention to affiliate with that party.
(c) If on or before the 135th day before any primary election,
there is filed with the Secretary of State a petition signed by
voters, equal in number to at least 10 percent of the entire vote of
the state at the last preceding gubernatorial election, declaring
that they represent a proposed party, the name of which shall be
stated in the petition, which proposed party those voters desire to
have participate in that primary election. This petition shall be
circulated, signed, verified and the signatures of the voters on it
shall be certified to and transmitted to the Secretary of State by
the county elections officials substantially as provided for
initiative petitions. Each page of the petition shall bear a caption
in 18-point boldface type, which caption shall be the name of the
proposed party followed by the words “Petition to participate in the
primary election.”
10.Richard Winger Says:
March 25th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
If Americans Elect gets on the 2012 ballot, it doesn’t mean a thing if they get 2% for President or not. The vote test only applies in midterm years. Under precedents, though, when a new party qualifies in California in a presidential election year, it is automatically on the ballot in the following midterm year.
… [snip] …
Phil Sawyer responds:
If I am not mistaken, Richard, you have said previously on these pages that there no longer is a vote test for political parties since the implementation of the new “top-two” system. Are you now saying that there is still a vote test? This is an extremely important factor regarding whether or not most of the smaller parties will be able to continue to exist in the Golden State. (The Amererican Indpendent Party, due to its larger numbers of registrants, should have no problem.)
What I meant to write, of course, was “American Independent Party” – not “Amererican …”
How many of the old socialist parties had *socialist* in them [on the ballots at the same time] — now of course replaced by *democratic* as in *democratic party* ???
“30.Jim Cook Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 1:35 am
Andy, you’ve mentioned twice now knowledge of Americans Elect being backed by a “few very wealthy individuals.” Since they converted to 501c4 status at the end of the 3rd quarter of 2010, they haven’t released disclosures, and before that Peter Ackerman was the sole (very wealthy) funder to the tune of $1.55 million.
Do you have information on other Americans Elect funders? If so, could you share that info and the source?”
I’ve heard that Ackerman put up $2.5 million. But none the less, Ackerman’s net worth is supposed to be somewhere between $500 million and $1 billion, so he could finance the entire operation if he so desired.
Ackerman is supposed to have some rich buddies. Mayor Bloomberg is rumored to be connected with this. I don’t know if Bloomberg is going to actually end up running with Americans Elect or backing it financially or not.
One thing about people with a lot of money is that they know other people who have a lot of money. If Ackerman wants other funders besides himself I think that he’d have any easier time bringing in other wealthy donors than a regular person would.
@32 “Equally obvious, they don’t have that kind of mind.”
I meant money, not mind.
I’ve *heard* a lot of things, too, and many of them sound plausible. But I don’t trust rumor mills: they can grind out funny things.
Americans Elect’s Facebook Page (see here) refers to multiple funders, but we don’t seem to have any documentation as to their number or their wealth. That’s part of the problem with 501c4 status — no public information, no public accountability.
With the subject of rumors in mind, I need your help corroborating some documents, folks! Many of you seem to be in the loop on petition-gathering efforts. If you are, do YOU have your hands on an Americans Elect petition that EITHER includes the text
“is a separate entity that has no affiliation with the Tea Party movement”
OR includes the text
“If the new Party selects a candidate that has been affiliated with the Republican party, then”
??? If so, please contact me through retorts //AT// irregulartimes.com and ideally send me images of the docs you have as attachments.
I have one set of these scripts from one source, but I am having trouble establishing the scripts’ veracity… and Americans Elect refuses comment to me on that (or any other) matter. If I can get consistent documents from more than one source, I’ll have some confirmation. I’m willing to respect your confidentiality.
Thanks in advance.
#21 The courts of the State of California have never been asked to rule on the issue, though it is my understanding (from the intervenor brief in the federal district court case) that the California Court of Appeals has been asked to interpret the statute. If my interpretation is correct, then the Martin and Mackler and Chamness claims disappear. Agreed?
Then all you have left is the write-in claim. And no court is going to do anything more than sever a provision that requires inference of words to make any sense, and even then contradicts other provisions of California statute.
I would suggest that you point out to your lawyer, CCROV 10086; the California instructions on the federal voter registration card; and the recent report of voter registrations; as evidence that the State of California recognizes that Michael Chamness, registered voter, has a Party Preference for the Coffee Party as a matter of California law and practice. If you are going to make a legal case, I think an effort should be made to demonstrate the legal basis for Chamness’s affiliation with the Coffee Party.
It should be a slam dunk case for him to then show that the State of California is denying Michael Chamness the right to have his Party Preference appear on the ballot. Be sure to have him exclude the parts of Elections Code 8002.5 and 300.5 that tie a Party Preference to the voter registration affidavit.
BTW, do see any reason that candidates should be grouped by Party Preference on the Notice to Candidates, and the 10-Year Candidate Party Primary History, on the SOS web site. Is that not having regard for the Party Preference of the candidate, and likely to confuse voters into thinking that it is like the blanket primary that California used to use for special elections.
Is 5 candidates not affiliated with a qualified party a record for a special election (other than the 2003 gubernatorial recall)?
Does anybody have a clue why this group decided to collect just over a million petition signatures rather than just over 100,000 voter registration forms? Under current California law, registration into a political party only has to do with Presidential elections (and county central committee, which they can easily opt out of) anyway. So the reason can’t be because they don’t intend to run candidates for state office. (That’s for rank-and-file voters. If you want to run for office, registration into a political party has everything to do with what you can say about yourself on the ballot.)
Phil, you’re right, there is no more meaningful vote test. It is still in the law, however. But it means nothing.
# 42 Collect the sigs and names — for future petitions perhaps ???
They wouldn’t need to do future petitions if they did a voter registration drive. My guess, Arno Petitions is taking them to the cleaners.
To Richard Winger (#42): Thank you for the clarification. I am still trying to understand how things are going to work (or not work) under the “top-two” system, though.
To Bob Richard (#41): Another question could be about whether anyone has a clue why Americans Elect is doing anything at all. None of this makes much sense to me but I think that if Americans Elect does obtain ballot access in California, it will be a good thing. If the activists of A.E. abandon the new party after 2012, other people could come in and take over the empty shell, turn it into a real political party, and put it to some very good use.
“Bob Richard Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Does anybody have a clue why this group decided to collect just over a million petition signatures rather than just over 100,000 voter registration forms?”
This is a really good question as I’ve been wondering the same thing myself.
It seems to me that since they are only planning to turn a presidential ticket that the most logical thing to do would be to get their presidential ticket on the ballot as independents which takes 177,000 and something valid petition signatures. This is way less than the 1 million plus valid signatures needed to fulfill the full party status petition and it would be easier than getting 103,000 and something people to register to vote under the Americans Elect banner as well.
Given that the full party status signature requirement is so high in California (note that a statewide constitution amendment ballot initiative requires 800,000 and something valid signatures, so this full party status petition is more than that), it would be easier to get 103,000 and something voter registrations, even if they had to pay people $10 per card on the streets to gather the registration it would still be cheaper than what it will cost to gather 1 million plus valid petition signatures (note that they’ll probably turn in at least 500,000 more signatures on top of the 1 million just for padding, maybe even 600,000 or more extras). Also, getting on the ballot via voter registrations would mean that they’d be able to maintain ballot status for future elections, just so long as their voter registration number doesn’t slip below what the registration requirement for ballot access is, and even if it does that could always pay for more registrations in the future to bump that number back up to the requirement for ballot status.
I know that when Ross Perot wanted to get on the ballot in California in 1996 he financed a voter registration drive for the Reform Party there. I’m not sure how he got on the ballot in California in 1992, but I’d guess that he probably got on in ’92 through the indepedent candidate petition. The Reform Party maintained ballot status in California up until the early 2000s due to the number of voter registrations that they had. Their registration numbers ended up slipping below the legally required number and they lost ballot status after that, although I think that there are still some people left who are registered under the Reform Party banner in California to this day (the party just doesn’t have ballot status and they don’t have any candidates and they may not even have any party organization anymore).
It is more difficult to get people to fill out a voter registration under a particular party banner than it is to get them to sign a petition, however, given the huge number discrepency and given that the voter registrations give you more bang for your buck, it would seem that that’s the way to go.
It seems to me that Americans Elect is going for ballot access in California the most difficult way.
#44 For future ISSUE petitions — i.e. to change the CA Const and laws.
I doubt that such a list would be very useful for that.
paulie
You are now giving out disinformation in your post # 34.
At no time in posts 15 or 31 did I give reference to California Election Code section 5100. I gave reference
to California Election Code, Division 5, Chapter 2, Section 5101.
It states: “Whenever, the registration of any party that qualified in the previous direct primary election falls below one-fifteenth of 1 percent of the total state registration, that party shall be deemed to have
been abandoned by the voters. The Secretary of State shall immediatly remove the name of the party from any
list, notice, ballot, or other publication containing
the name of the parties qualified to participate in the
primary election.”
paulie please explan your disinformation.
At # 32 you talked about the Constitution Party “winning
back” control of the American Independent Party. The CP
has never controlled the AIP. Dr. Don Grundmann from
what I can see is losing control of the remaining 157 remainig electors in the Constitution Party of California.
Since the summer of 2008 until March 11, 2011, the AIP
has been in three lawsuits with Jim King. He lost all three lawsuits. On February 10, 2011, the registration
of the Constitution Party fell to 157 from its high of
167 on October 18, 2010.
Therefore explain how the courts can give control to Dr.
Don Grundmann of the AIP with a registration over 417,500 electors on February 10, 2011.
Bob Richards
You asked does anybody have a clue. Yes I do. Read the
post #49 and it should be very clear.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party
#41 Is it actually harder to get 1,000,000 signatures vs. 100,000 registration forms?
Of potential voters,
27% are non-registered
32% are Democrats
23% are Republicans
3% are other qualified parties
<1% are other non-qualified parties
14% are No Party Preference
The 27% non-registered is an estimate, and may include more non-citizens who might be willing to take part in the census, but won't admit to being a non-citizen. Another reason for non-registration is that they are generally less involved in the community in general. So fewer than 27% of the possible marks that solicitors encounter will be non-registered.
Over half of the public is a Democrat or Republican. Since solicitors are being paid for conversions, they aren't going to waste too much time trying to get a Democrat or Republican to switch. But if all they have to do is to sign a petition so that there are "more choices", Democrats and Republicans will be much more likely to do so.
And even among those who have no party preference, there would be some unwillingness to switch registration, even if told that they could switch back. But there might be a very high willingness to sign a petition.
It seems that a registration drive could be combined with a petition drive. There are lots of people who have changed their address. They will be grateful that you made it so easy to update their registration that they will go ahead and sign the petition. Paulie said that he would sometimes let voters who wouldn't convert have a voter registration form if he had extra. But if someone says they won't sign, and you quite graciously let them change their registration, it is going to attract other people.
I'd assume that they would win a legal case if there was an issue with voters simultaneously updating their registration and signing a petition.
Jim Riley,
In follow-up to my post # 49, does it seem to you that
the date of the direct primary is important under section 5101? If the direct primary goes together with the other primary under AB 80 and the Americas Elect has
no party registration or so small that it does not come
to the reqirement of 5101, how could it get on the General Election Ballot?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Jim Riley
My figures are far of from yours. Please explain how you found those figures.
Total as of February 10, 2010.
Total registration is at 17,186,531.
Dems 7,569,581 = 44.04 %
GOP 5,307,411 = 30.88 %
AIP 417,567 = 2.43 %
GREEN 113,118 = .66 %
LP 92,246 = .54 %
P&F 58,470 = .34 %
NP 3,507,119 = 20.41 %
Non Qualified Parties
Total 121,019 = .70 %
Non Qualified Parties on February 10, 2011 attempting to
qualify as of that date.
Reform Party 23,013 = .1339 %
Conservative 407 = .00236 %
No Like Women 203 = .00118 %
Constitution 157 = .00091 %
Whig Party 151 = .00087 %
Open Party 62 = .00036 %
Federalist 28 = .00016 %
TZ Vision 22 = .00012 %
New Revision 20 = .00011 %
The remaining three other paper have a total of 11 electors.
Don & Ida Grundmann needs to be more active in try to register voters in the Constitution Party or they might
fall below the level of the Whig Party soon.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Sorry the date above should be February 10, 2011
#51 My interpretation of Elections Code 5101 is that would only apply if a party was qualified based on the vote test, but had very small registration it would not qualify. 1/15 of 1% of registration is about 12,000. My guess is that Natural Law still has that many registrations.
“It seems that a registration drive could be combined with a petition drive.”
There’d be no reason for Americans Elect to do a petition drive and a voter registration drive at the same time (as in to pay for both at the same time).
Also, in California, it is common for petition signature gatherers to carry voter registration forms with them while they are gathering petition signatures. That’s because California is one of the states where a person can fill out a voter registration form and sign a petition the same day, and their signature will count so long as the registration form gets processed as valid. Petitions in california even have a place in the margin where one can fill in the unique voter registration number that is on each CA voter registration form.
So anytime that there’s a petition that’s being circulated in California there’s a voter registration drive going on at the same time. Most petitioners won’t push a person to register under any particular party banner unless they are getting paid to do that, but if a particular party is paying many petitioners still don’t bother trying to push people into registering a certain way. Some of them do if a certain party is paying, but others just leave it totally up to the person registering without coaxing them and then if they happen to register with a party that is paying the petition circulator turns it in for money.
There are plenty of people who are not registered to vote in California who are eligible to vote, and there are always people who move and need to update their registration. There are also some people who can be talked into switching their registration to a different party. So I think that if enough money was paid out per registration to entice people to work on it that a new party could qualify for the ballot via the voter registration method.
It seems to me, that the most sensible thing to do is to put the presidential ticket on the ballot as independents. That takes 177,000 and something valid petition signatures. That is much easier than getting the 1 million plus valid petition signatures on the new political party petition as well as the 103,000 and something voter registrations.
Since they don’t know who the ticket is going to be yet (at least officially), then they may have to wait to do the independent candidate petition until after it is decided as to who the candidates for President and VP are, unless California allows candidates substitution, which I don’t know if they do or not.
#52 The SOS estimates there are 23 million US citizens over 18, who are not felons, and are eligible to register and vote. About 17 million are registered to vote.
So if you encountered a random Californian, there is about a 27% chance that they are not registered. But it is probably less likely than 27% if you went up to someone at a shopping center or somewhere else where people gather.
But 1/2 the people you will encounter will be registered Republicans and Democrats. Most would decline to change their party registration. But they would they might be willing to sign a petition. You could help them register a change of address, since it saves them the busywork, and have them sign the petition.
Jim Riley
The number under section 5001 is 11,457 that would trigger off the ballot, liston, etc. on February 10, 2011.
Therefore the Americas Elect still needs near 11,458
electors plus 1,030,040 signatures on a petition to get on the ballot.
Sincerely,Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
If Ron Paul ran for President in 2012 as a Republican in
the February 7, 2012 primary and the State Central Committee of the Republican Party closed the Presidential primary to just registered Republics
would it be
#55 I’m not saying that they would be seeking registrants for the American Elects party, but simply encouraging registration period.
If their spiel is that this will be some sort of primary that will be open to all registered voters, then getting petitions signed and getting voters to register are complementary – especially since you have the added bonus that new and updated registrants can sign the petition.
If the solicitor is getting paid on a piece rate, then he will assess his marks, and if they won’t buy what he is selling, he may be wasting his time trying to convince them. Half the people will be Democrats or Republicans. They will be much harder to convince to change their affiliation, than to sign the qualifying petition. And if you can entice them to sign the petition while updating their address, they’ll be inclined to think of you as some sort of non-partisan good government group.
If some of the voters sign up with America Elects its a bonus, but it is not the goal. You’re assuming that it is simply a vehicle to qualify some individual for the general election. But it may actually be an effort to given an impression of the candidate being chosen in a contest. Invite some other candidates who have some credibility but no money, and stage some debates. Run commercials for the party reminding voters to demand an America Elects ballot (“It’s your right as an American to Elect your President”). If you want to go negative run some black and white clips from 1950s conventions showing people dressed up in various costumes (“It’s not about parties or partying, its about Americas Electing a President”) showing 2012-era voters filling out an American Elects ballot.
In Alaska, the Supreme Court interpreted the state constitution as allowing parties to invite registrants of selective parties to vote in their primary. It is conceivable that a similar decision could be made in California. Then America Elects could open their primary to everybody. The more voters, the more real appearing the selection process is.
“But 1/2 the people you will encounter will be registered Republicans and Democrats. Most would decline to change their party registration. But they would they might be willing to sign a petition. You could help them register a change of address, since it saves them the busywork, and have them sign the petition.”
Other parties have qualified for the ballot in California in the past by paying people to gather voter registrations. I know that the Libertarian Party did this in the late ’70s and early ’80s. The Natural Law Party, the Reform Party, and the Peace and Freedom Party have also done this. I’m not sure about the other parties, but I know that the Republican Party has been paying people to supplement their registrations for over 10 years in California.
This petition drive to establish a new political party in California is pretty damn difficult since it requires 1,030,040 and valid signatures. Apparently it is so difficult that nobody have ever done it. It looks like Americans Elect could be the first party to ever achieve this milestone. It seems to me that this signature requirement is unreasonably high.
California and its laws are a big mess
# 58 X percent of the folks in ALL States are functional illiterates — can NOT read or write — regardless of the rotted to the core public skooooools.
Jim Riley
What was the Alaska case you were citing in post 60?
I do not think that could happen in California, because
that would be beyond SB 28. Also what about the 1959 anti-fusion law in California.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
P.S. at post # 55 you stated that the Natural Law party
as a guess is at near 12,000 electors. 1. What about the event on January 2, 2007? 2. On October 23, 2006
the registration of the Natural Law party waa 22,231
electors.
Jim Riley
On October 23, 2006, the Natural Law Party had a California registration of 22,231 elector. At that
time the Natural Law Party had 58 electors in El Dorado County. On February 28, 2011 that county had a Natural
Law party registration of 35. That is 60.34482 % of
22,231 or 13,416.in one could guess what would be a total on the same date.
Wow, trying to collect over 1 million valid signatures looks like a very tall mountain to climb, especially without a high-profile, well known person leading the effort. That doesn’t mean it can’t be done, just that it is really hard.
I wonder why they didn’t go with the “easier” method, although I suppose they have a larger time frame for the first option.
Juan Jose Nolla
What ia a name? I do not understand why they want to call the party Americas Elect? Yet I do not understand
Don and Ida Grundmann either. They want a state affiliate they can control for the National Constitution
Party. Jim Riley raised a good point, viz., The Natural
Law party is dead, but not legally dead. We know that
on October 23, 2006 it had California Registration of
22,231 electors. We know that on February 28, 2011 35 of the 58 electors in El Dorado County were still registered Natural Law Party. Back in 2008, several
electors registered in the Natural Law party were given
AIP presidential ballots to vote for either Grundmann,
Mad Max, Templin, or Larson for President of the United
States in Los Angeles County as part of there screw up
in the Presidential Election. Therefore, Grundmann may
have a folllowing also in the Natural Law party. We also know that there was in California on February 10,
2011, a total 97,125 electors that were in non-qualified
parties that were not making an attempt to be a qualified political party and the remaining electors in
the Natural Law Party falls in that number. Therefore Grundmann has no clue as how to get on the ballot in 2012.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
I suspect that one reason they don’t go the independent candidate (177,000 signatures) route is that they would have to know who their candidate is before their on-line convention is supposed to take place. As a ballot qualified party, they would be (I think) required to conduct a semi-closed primary, but allowed to ignore the result if they want.
The Natural Law Party lost its ballot qualified status after the 2006 gubernatorial election, when it failed to get 2% for a statewide candidate (it didn’t have any statewide candidates) and also failed to have registration equal to 1% of the turnout in that election. The 1/15 of 1% rule is a completely separate test, which you have to pass on an ongoing basis. See this document.
#67 “required to conduct a semi-closed primary” is a mistake. Actually, parties can choose between close and semi-closed.
Bob Richard
Thank you for the CCROV post with # 68. The is issue on # 69 deals with SB 28. As to the status of the National Law Party as a political body its electors
still fall in that area covered by the group of 97,125 electors of February 10, 2011.
As a petitioner, I am reluctant to solicit signatures on this one, even for $1.25 per. The form does not include any statements describing what Americans Elect IS. No statements of any kind, in fact. The form will appear suspiciously to prospective signers like a simple mailing list – a means of obtaining their names and addresses, and nothing more. I’ve helped qualify measures for the California ballot for six years now, and I know how people react. For the most part, they won’t like this, no matter how much I attempt to convince them of its attractiveness. Truth is, there isn’t much to tell them. And perhaps more importantly to me, I don’t want to potentially destroy the positive relationship I have built up with many signers of previous measures who will question my sanity in wanting them to affix their names and addresses on a blank form. As one who has witnessed the process from down in the trenches: This will not fly.
Tony Scott
P.S. Here in California, most people will misinterpret this as an attempt to do an end run around the new Top Two law. And when a petitioner only has a few seconds to convince someone coming out of a store or supermarket to sign, no amount of cajoling and friendly counterarguments will do the job, in most cases.
Tony
“Anthony Scott Says:
March 28th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
As a petitioner, I am reluctant to solicit signatures on this one, even for $1.25 per. The form does not include any statements describing what Americans Elect IS. No statements of any kind, in fact.”
Most petitions to put parties or candidates on the ballot do not have anything on them that says who the party or candidate is. This is normal. The only state that I’ve seen that prints a statement from the party about what the party is on the petition is North Dakota. I’ve collected petition signatures in a bunch of states so I know this as a fact.
“I’ve helped qualify measures for the California ballot for six years now, and I know how people react.”
This is not a ballot measure petition. This is a petition to qualify a new political party for the ballot. It is a different type of petition.
“For the most part, they won’t like this, no matter how much I attempt to convince them of its attractiveness. Truth is, there isn’t much to tell them. And perhaps more importantly to me, I don’t want to potentially destroy the positive relationship I have built up with many signers of previous measures who will question my sanity in wanting them to affix their names and addresses on a blank form. As one who has witnessed the process from down in the trenches: This will not fly.”
I’ve gathered signatures for many ballot intiatives, referenda, recalls, parties, and candidates, and I’ve done this in many states for over 10 years. I find that people are generally more open to sign a petition to put a minor party or “3rd party” or independent candidate on the ballot than they are to sign for an initiative or referendum or recall (of course it depends on what the issue is).
#65 State v. The Green Party of Alaska (08/12/2005)
Basically, the Supreme Court ruled that the Alaska Constitution provides greater protection of political association rights than the 1st Amendment does.
In California Democratic Party v Jones, the US Supreme Court ruled that California could not force the a political party to have voters registered with other parties participate in the nominating activities of the first party.
At the time, Alaska and Washington also had blanket primaries. Alaska change its law similar to that in California (2002-2010) where a party could choose to let unaffiliated voters vote in its primary.
The Green and the Moderate Republican parties sued, to let them decided who participated in their primary. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that it was a burden on the Green and Moderate Republican parties to not let them choose who they politically associated with.
It is a voluntary association by both the party who says “it is OK if the following groups of voters vote in our primary”, and the voters who would make a voluntary decision to vote.
California Supreme Court in the past has ruled that the California Constitution provides greater protection than the 1st Amendment.
Pingback: Ballot Access News: ‘Americans Elect’ Starts Petition to Qualify as Party in California | Independent Political Report
#62 Those other parties, Libertarian, Natural Law, Peace & Freedom, Reform had a platform so there would be some persons interested in joining, and a whole lot who would not. And there was more a cost in changing one’s party affiliation, since it could mean that you were barred from voting in a meaningful primary.
It appears that American Elects is not attempting to “establish a party” but rather to create a process for electing a presidential candidate. Voters would be more reluctant to switch their affiliation on that basis. So it could be harder to qualify them than the other parties.
But their is no barrier to signing a petition, because there is no commitment. How many ordinary decent citizens are going to calculate that another candidate would be harmful to their party’s interest?
Jim Riley,
Let say the 1,030,040 electors sign the petition Why can’t Dr. Don Grundmann claim that the Americas Elect
Party is a branch of the Constitution Party, and notice
Secretary of State that he is the elected Chairman?
#79 The law is vague about when voters registered with a political party can take control from the temporary officers. I suppose their could be a dispute among various groups, and it would be up for the courts to decided (for example as happened with the American Independent party).
One could ask why Gautam Dutta couldn’t file lawsuits with 5 different courts. There is obviously no reason why he couldn’t. The more interesting question is why would he, when the simple straightforward reading of the statute would lead to a different conclusion than the one he is pursuing.
Jim Riley
I believe you are correct, and I have the same question and others of Mr. Dutta. I am relieved with the outcome
of the court. I was about to enter into
this lawsuit, because I believe it is a violation of law
that would list someone not register in a party to state
they are in that party.
I was asked by an Americans Elect signature gatherer to sign. I asked what it was about, the gentleman was rather snotty in responses to my questions. When I declined to sign he yelled in annoyance that I’d wasted his time and that he didn’t have time to bother with white trash.
After looking up this organization I find Peter Ackerman of Tufts has provided nearly the entire bankroll.