On August 5, Julius Galacki asked the 9th circuit to let him intervene in the lawsuit called Chamness v Bowen, which challenges two particular aspects of California’s top-two system. Galacki tried to file as a declared write-in candidate in last month’s run-off election for Congress in California’s 36th district, but his write-in declaration was rejected because California election law says that write-ins can’t be counted in the second round of Congressional elections.
The U.S. District Court then refused to let Galacki intervene, even though if he were allowed to intervene, he would be the only person in that lawsuit who has run, or attempted to run, for Congress as a write-in candidate. He is also the only person associated with the case who has declared an intent to run in 2012. Here is Galacki’s filing. Here is a very short procedural filing that was filed a few hours later.
How much was spent in 2010 to count write-in votes ???
Enough to stimulate the economy in the regimes involved ???
See 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 in the nearly dead U.S.A. Const.
Is there any reason that Gautam Dutta says that Michael Chamness and Julius Galacki “changed their affiliation” when what he really means is that they executed a new voter registration affidavit?
Is it because he has had Elections Code 300.5 and 8002.5 pointed out to him?
300.5. “Affiliated with a political party” as used in reference to a voter or to a candidate for a voter-nominated office means the party preference that the voter or candidate has disclosed on his or her affidavit of registration.
8002.5.(a) 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, upon his or her declaration of candidacy. If a candidate indicates his or her party preference on his or her declaration of candidacy, it shall appear on the primary and general election ballot in conjunction with his or her name. The candidate’s designated party preference on the ballot shall not be changed between the primary and general election. A candidate for voter-nominated office may also choose not to have the party preference disclosed upon the candidate’s most recent affidavit if registration indicated upon the ballot.
Doesn’t the Secretary of State in County Clerk/Registrar of Voters (CC/ROV) Memorandum # 10086 issued March 9, 2010 prior to the June 2010 primary clearly state that voters who are not Decline To State voters nor affiliated with a qualified party, are affiliated with a non-qualified party?
Does anyone question that voter Michael Chamness was affiliated with the Coffee Party? Then how can candidate Michael Chamness have a different affiliation, when they derive from the identical source, the voter registration affidavit? The voter registration affidavit is signed by the voter to certify that it is truthful and correct, subject to perjury charges.
#2 A fraud being committed on the court by a lawyer ???
Shocking ??? – like a lightning bolt from Hell.
#2: The overwhelming majority of California voters who, according to the legal gobbledygook of SB 6, “express a party preference” actually did affiliate with a political party when they registered to vote. The language of SB 6 turned their affiliations made prior to the passage of Prop 14 and to the effective date of SB 6 into “party preferences”, even if a voter affiliated with a party they did not really prefer in order to vote in its primary.
Only voters who have recently changed their registration on a newly printed voter registration form are required to express a “party preference”, as I found out when I went to change my registration after moving recently. The library and post office didn’t have any voter registration forms out, so I went to City Hall and there weren’t any out there either, but the receptionist told me that they had recently all been pulled and went to get a stack of the new ones from a storage area. The new forms have the language specified in SB 6 that changes references to “affiliation” to “preference” and that make “no party preference” more prominent than preference for parties.
Any pdf of the latest and greatest CA registration forms on the internet ???
Is the MORON regime capable of having a separate list of parties for a voter to look at when registering ???
How many ZILLION sentences in the CA election code — slammed together by the robot party hacks — to cause lots of confusion for voters, candidates, bureaucrats and even the courts ???
Pingback: Candidate Asks Appeals Court to Let Him Join Top Two Primary Case « Business & Election Law | Gautam Dutta
#4 SB 6 did not make substantive changes to the voter registration system in California. It recast a “declaration of intent to affiliate with a party at the next primary” to a “disclosure of party preference”.
The express legislative intent of the People in passing Proposition 14 was that existing party affiliations be converted party preferences. Elections Code 5100(c) provides that conversion. Note the deliberate reference to “decline to state” in that section.
A voter who had declared their intent to affiliate with a party, qualified or not, at the next primary (ie so that they could vote in its primary) were converted to a party preferences.
From a legal standpoint there is no distinction. It does not matter whether some cynical voters, who in their heart of hearts most sincere did not “prefer” the party whose primary they voted in.
There was a minor change in the language of the voter registration card, that made the requirement for a No Party Preference check box. I was under the impression that was a codification of existing practice, because voters were accidentally with a party whose name has “Independent” in it.
Elections Code 2151(b)(2) says that the No Party Preference option should be at the head of the list of parties. Other than being first, there is no requirement that it be given greater prominence.
The following chart shows that the SOS regards voters with non-qualified parties have a party affiliation/preference.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/ror-odd-year-11/hist-reg-stats.pdf
The 4.7% with Other parties is comprised of 4.0% affiliated with the 4 smaller qualified parties and the 0.7% affiliated with non-qualified parties.
How soon before ALL the party hack robot stuff is wiped out of the CA Const and CA Election Code ???