On March 30, U.S. District Court Judge Otis Wright denied injunctive relief to Michael Chamness, a candidate for U.S. House in the May 2011 special election, 36th district. His 19-page order is here. He said that there is not enough evidence that Chamness is injured by the state’s failure to let him have his party on the ballot, and also not enough evidence that Chamness is injured by not being allowed “Independent” either.
No precedent supports the idea that “independent” can be banned for candidates who seek that label. The 6th circuit, and the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts and Minnesota, have all ruled in the past that “independent” cannot be banned from the ballot. The case is Chamness v Bowen, U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, 2:11-cv-1479. Chamness will appeal to the 9th circuit.
The court here did the correct thing. The word “Independent” is part of the name of the “American Independent Party”. By placing the statement “My Preference is the Independent Party”, it would mislead the
California electors in thinking that Mr. Chamless was in
The “American Independent Party”.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party.
It now looks like Dr. Don Grundmann will not be allowed to
state in his planned run for the U.S. in 2012, as “My Party
Preference is the Constitution Party”, unless he get the rest of the 103,004 electors in the CP.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
California has had independent candidates on the ballot with that word “independent” in 1972, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, 2000, 2006, 2008, 2010. The American Independent Party was on the California ballot in all those years also and the AIP never claimed that “independent” should be banned for independent candidates. Furthermore, “independent” is still permitted for presidential candidates.
When the Minnesota Republican Party changed its name to “Independent Republican Party”, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that, nevertheless, the state must still let people on the ballot as “independent.”
The voters are electing human candidates – NOT any ballot label – party, independent, nonpartisan or no label.
The New Age labels mean about ZERO.
How often do the Donkey/Elephant party hack candidates even list their party hack labels on their advertising any more ???
Waiting for the CA top 2 primary and the new gerrymander districts in 2012 — MAJOR pressure on many incumbent party hack robots.
P.R. and App.V.
Richard Winger
I believe that calling a quailified political party “Independent Party” will make a voter think it is
the “American Independent Party”.
I have gone over the issue with the Chairman of the American Independent Party. We agreed that the SCC
needs to protect the name of the party or any part of that
name. The Judge understands the issue, even without our
imput.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party.
When Chamness files in the 9th circuit his appeal, please
post the case number. It is unclear if it will be in Los
Angeles or San Francisco. If in San Francisco, my plan
is to hire a different attorney than the one I would use
if the case is in Los Angeles.
How many top 2 primary cases are still pending in the courts in ALL States ???
Only the BAN super computer database can know for sure these days having nonstop court cases about ALL stuff connected with elections.
#2 Anyone in California is eligible to run for Congress in any district. A write-in candidate for a voter-nominated office may indicate his Party Preference as disclosed on their most recent affidavit of registration (see Elections Code 8002.5, 8041, 8602).
Don Grundmann could file as a write-in candidate for Congressional District 36, and have his party preference of Constitution Party appear on all official documents for the election, including the certified list of write-in candidates, the 10-year history of voter affiliation on the SOS web site, and if he finishes in the Top 2, appear on the general election ballot.
Footnote 4 is in error. The State of California recognizes the right of a voter to designate a political party affiliation (or preference) on his voter registration affidavit. That political party need not be a qualified political party, or even a political party that is attempting to qualify (ie a political body). There is no need for a party to be recognized by the state, for it to be recognized by the individual voter. A voter is required to sign his affidavit of voter registration to certify that the contents are truthful and correct.
It is the political parties that voters specify on their affidavit of voter registration that are not qualified parties that form the class of non-qualified parties. See CC/ROV Memorandum 10086 3/9/2010. Voters who Declined To State a party affiliation are the only persons who are not affiliated with a party, or have no party preference.
Moreover, the State of California has recognized that voter Michael Chamness does not have “No Party Preference”. As part of the transition from the partisan primary system to the Top 2 Open Primary, California recast voter political party affiliation to a political party preference. The procedure is specified in Elections Code 2151(d), where the distinction is made between Declined To State voters and all other voters. It is only Declined To State voters who are given the status of No Party Preference. California recently issued its first Statement of Registration under the new law. Just as one would expect, the relative shares of voters whose Party Preference is for one of the 6 qualified parties, those whose preference was for some other (non-qualified) party, and those who Declined To State, and who are now regarded as having No Party Preference are about the same. How did Dean Logan classify the voter registration of Michael Chamness? As No Party Preference? Or as Other Party?
Moreover it was the explicit legislative intent of the People of California in adopting Proposition 14 that SB 6 define the procedure for converting existing party affiliations to party preference. Where the Constitution of California says that voters may participate in all elections for voter-nominated offices regardless of party preference, it simply means that voters may participate regardless what they stated for their Party Preference on their affidavit of voter registration.
The Secretary of State appears to be treating the affidavit of voter registration as some sort of literacy test that she is administering, and not something an ordinary decent citizen is capable of completing truthfully and accurately.
In Elections Code 300.5 and 8002.5, California ties a candidate’s Party Preference to that indicated or disclosed on their party registration. California also reports on the 10-year voter registration of all candidates. The clear intent is that California wants these to be consistent. This is similar to how California handles occupational/office/profession designation for candidates. The State’s main interest is that it be correct. A Political Preference is more personal, and would be incredibly difficult to prove was incorrect. Instead, California presumes that it is truthful and correct based on the signed affidavit of voter registration.
While California could regulate party affiliation of voters, it has chosen instead to use a simple system of disclosure. A more regulatory approach was proposed in 2004, but that initiative was rejected by voters.
It is simply bizarre to think because Debra Bowen who has a Party Preference for the Democratic Party is seeking to be elected to Congress, that the Democratic Party is “participating” in any meaningful sense in the special primary, beyond possibly making endorsements. And those endorsements need not even be for candidates who prefer the Democratic Party.
When the office of US representative was a partisan office, as opposed to a voter-nominated offices as it is now, primaries were restricted to voters affiliated with the party, who would choose the nominee of the party, who had to be affiliated with party (if they appeared on the primary ballot). Qualifying petition signatures for qualified party candidates had to be be by voters registered with the qualified party. If Dean Logan checked whether the signatures on Debra Bowen’s petition were by Democratic-preferring voters, he was not following the law. Candidates who were not affiliated with a qualified party did not appear on the primary ballot, and if they had recently been affiliated with a qualified party could not even appear on the general election ballot.
If four months ago, the question was asked, “what does it mean for a qualified party to “participate” in a primary?”, the answer would be the above activities. Proposition 14 and SB 6 eliminated the participation of qualified parties in elections for voter-nominated offices, beyond making endorsements on the sample ballots that are distributed to voters.
Judge Wright is misconstruing Elections Code 8002.5.
It states:
“A candidate for a voter-nominated office may indicate his or her party preference, or lack of party preference, as disclosed upon the candidate’s most recent statement of registration”.
What does this say?
(1) A candidate’s party preference, or lack of party preference is that which the candidate disclosed on his most recent affidavit of registration (though the statute says “statement”, later in the same paragraph “affidavit” is used.)
(2) The candidate has the option to indicate that preference, or lack thereof, on his declaration of candidacy.
This is quite similar to the approach that California uses for the occupational/professional/office designation. California may not compel a candidate to provide such a designation. But it may require the designation to be accurate.
One could imagine a lawyer who would not want that designation to appear on the ballot. He may choose not to supply a designation on his declaration of candidacy. California doesn’t interpret this as “Unemployed”, but simply leaves a blank space. And the lawyer may not claim to be something else such as Doctor.
Even if a voter has disclosed a Party Preference on his affidavit of registration, he may choose to not have it appear on the ballot. But this does not mean that he has “No Party Preference”, it means that he doesn’t want his party preference to appear on the ballot.
The reason that Michael Chamness should not be permitted to have “Independent” appear on the ballot is because he does have a party preference. California reserves the words “Independent” to describe a candidate for partisan office whose nomination is independent of any qualified political party. Michael Chamness is not a nominee of an massive independent body of petition signers.
Michael Chamness is not the candidate of the Coffee Party, or even a candidate seeking the nomination of the Coffee Party. He is a candidate whose Party Preference is the Coffee Party. Court decisions such as Jenness v. Fortson are simply inapplicable. Chamness has met the modicum of support level set by California law (40 signatures). Chamness is no more the candidate of the Coffee Party than Bowen is the candidate of the Democratic Party.
Chamness and Bowen are both at least 25 years old, have been US Citizens for 7 years, and will on election day be residents of California. Both paid the required filing fee (or gathered in lieu of signatures) and secured 40 signatures of voters in Congressional District 36, without regard to the party preference of the voters.
There is no constitutional basis for the State of California to make a distinction between these two candidacies. To do so would be to have regard for their party preferences, which is the same as California having regard for the party preferences of voters, since some voters would be prevented by state action from identifying candidates who shared their political beliefs.
That is to say, if Bowen’s misinterpretation of SB 6 were correct, then it be in violation of the very constitutional provisions of Proposition 14 that it was intended to implement. Happily, there is a straightforward reading of SB 6 which does not violate the California Constitution, which Bowen and election officials have adopted with regard to the conversion and classification of voter party preferences. While Bowen claims that if legislators had meant for the party preferences of candidates to be only for qualified parties, she ignores the explicit language of Elections Code 300.5 and 8002.5 that says a candidate’s party preference (or lack thereof) is identical to that expressed on the affidavit of voter registration.
The rational state interests asserted by Bowen are bogus when applied to a voter-nominated office.
The distinction between qualified-party nominations and nominations made independently of any party that were at issue in Libertarian Party v Eu simply does not apply when there are NO nominations.
Jenness v Fortson does not apply. Neither Bowen or Chamness are candidates of a political party, and both have met the modicum of support level set by California. Just because 40 signatures is so much less than that required by Georgia, does not mean that Bowen can figure out another way to handicap her political opponents.
Norman v Reed certainly does not apply. Candidate Chamness indicated on his affidavit of voter registration (pre-2011) that he intended to affiliate with the Coffee Party at the next primary (the Presidential Primary in February 2012). If the Coffee Party qualifies for that primary, Chamness would be limited to voting in that primary. Chamness signed his affidavit to certify that it was truthful and correct, subject to perjury charges. If Debra Bowen or Dean Logan believe that Michael Chamness perjured himself, then they have a duty to refer his case to the Attorney General or Los Angeles County District Attorney.
How many folks in the *Coffee Party* — ONE or less ???
#10 Why does it matter?