On September 7, the California Court of Appeals in San Francisco heard arguments in Field v Bowen. The issue is two particular aspects of the California top-two system (Proposition 14), and whether the Superior Court should have granted injunctive relief in a special election earlier this year. The lawsuit challenges (1) the discriminatory law on ballot labels, in which some candidates may put their party on the ballot and others may not; (2) the complete ban on a candidate appearing on the ballot as “independent”; (3) the law that says write-in space should be on the ballot, but write-ins can never be counted.
Almost simultaneous with the hearing, the California State Senate Elections Committee released an analysis of AB 1413, a bill that would change various details of the California top-two system. The analysis says this about the current write-in law: “One of the provisions of SB 6 prohibited write-in votes from being counted at a general election for a voter-nominated office. Other provisions of law that require that write-in spaces appear on the ballot, however, were unaffected. This could create confusion, and could mislead voters into thinking that write-in votes for candidates for voter-nominated office at a general election will be counted.” This analysis is correct. Current California law on write-ins, which will remain unchanged at least for the remainder of 2011, sets a trap for voters. The ballot shows write-in space, and nothing on the ballot, or in the voter pamphlet, or in any notice posted at the polls, tells voters that write-ins for Congress or state office will not be counted.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
NO moron and now super dangerous primaries are needed or wanted.
In NY we have something similar with write-ins. If you want to vote for a candidate but not on any party line, you can write it in. But NY does not count them.
New York does count write-ins in the general election. In 2008, for President, Chuck Baldwin got 634, Alan Keyes got 35, Jerome S. White (Socialist Equality) got 18, Brian Moore (Socialist Party) got 10.
As I stated in #2.
If you write in the name of a person whose name already appears at least once on the list for that race, you’re write-in vote will not count for that person. The logic of this is that if the voter didn’t vote for the person already listed, then that voter must be voting for somebody else who just happens to have the same name.
The write-in total count will be shown in the results but will not be part of the candidates total.
I have an idea. Listen to this. Why not separate the election cycle?
First round, third party/independent primary. All candidates can run, for either one or more parties. The top 2 qualify for the final round.
Second round, major party primary. All candidates can run. The top 2 qualify for the final round.
Final round, general election. The 4 winning candidates face off.
Richard Winger,
About the 35 votes that went to Alan Keyes in New York, who did those 35 vote for as to the Office of Vice President?
I do not think it is a good idea to allow persons to place after their names the word “independent” or Independent Party”. because that would confuse the voters of California. Reason, the American Independent
Party is a qualified party in California and that could
cause confusion to the average voter in California.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party
# 5 How about nonstop top 2 runoffs each day ???
P.R. and App.V. — ONE election day per year.
Demo Rep,
You mean you like my proposal? Well, as long as there are 4 candidates that qualify for the final election, with 2 major party and 2 third party candidates on the ballot, I’ll go with it.
# 8 ALL candidates on ONE ballot at ONE election per year — at least for legislative bodies and executive officers.
P.R. and App.V.
i.e. get rid of the super-moron party hacks the quicker the better.
i.e. what if there had been annual Prez elections in 2001-2011 ???
Prior to Proposition 14 and the Top 2 Open Primary, “Independent” was reserved for candidates whose nomination was made by collection of vast numbers of signatures on petitions. “Independent” meant independent of a nomination made by a party primary. Many of the nominators might have been affiliated with political parties that had made nominations. This is still the meaning of “Independent” with respect to presidential elections. See Libertarian Party v Eu.
Under the Top 2 Open Primary no candidates are nominated in a sense that is recognized by California law, though, of course, private individuals and groups and even political parties have a 1st Amendment right to endorse candidates. It would be confusing to voters to have someone run for senator as an “Independent” after collecting 65 signatures appear on the same ballot as a presidential candidate who had secured the signatures of bazillions of voters.
This is especially true since the constitution and implementing statutes provide that a candidate may have their party affiliation or preference appear on the ballot; that the implementing statutes explicitly state that a candidate’s party affiliation is as he stated on his voter registration affidavit (signed to certify, subject to perjury charges, that it is truthful and correct).
The two potential candidates in your San Francisco case are not “independent” candidates since it is their stated intent to run as Reform and Social Action party candidates. How in the world would anyone know that they were Reform or Social Action candidates if the ballot said “Independent”. No wonder the intervening lawyers were confused when Gautam Dutta started talking about the “Independent” label during the hearing before the superior court in San Francisco.
The write-in provisions of SB 6 are clearly severable. The party label issues disappear with a reasonable interpretation of SB 6. Remember it was the clear intent that SB 6 implement Proposition 14, not frustrate it, and that the California Constitution provides that no distinction be made with regard to party affiliation.
In 2004, California voters rejected a proposal for a Top 2 Open Primary that would have restricted candidates to affiliation with qualified parties. Now those who are opposed to the very concept of the open primary are trying to impose that requirement by stealth.
Jim Riley,
At the “Double Bubble” Hearing in Los Angeles following
the 2008 Presidential Primary, I had a talk with Debra Bowan on the Imperial County Election Practice dealing with write in party affiliations on the HAVA generated
voter registration. Imperial County practice was when
an elector hand wrote the word “independent” under party
an election official would contact the elector with the
following question: “By using the word “independent”,
did you mean the “American Independent Party”? Every
answer that came back was in the affirmative.
This issue is why I suggested two labels. First is the candidates choice and the second would show the party’s selected candidate.
#12 In California, political parties may make endorsements which will appear on the sample ballot which is distributed to all voters. Roughly half of voters now are permanent by mail voters, and the numbers are rapidly increasing. So they would receive both the endorsements and ballot at the same time.
#13, no endorsements will be on any sample ballot. You are conflating the sample ballot with the Voters Pamphlet. The State Voters Pamphlet does not have the sample ballot in it. The state mails Voters Pamphlets to each voter. The individual counties mail the sample ballots.
How soon before the CA courts bring down a HAMMER on the MORONS ??? — as in Bush v. Gore 2000 in FL.
The FL regime had NO definition of a *legal* vote in the MORON system — esp with the now infamous punch card ballots.
Result – the 2000 SCOTUS HAMMER on the entire Fl regime — legislative, executive and judicial.
Result – the Fed HAVA law requiring MORON States to have such definitions of LEGAL votes for Fed elections – whatever election system is being used.
Why has election *law* gone more and more INSANE since the 1920s — just a part of the STATIST power madness in the world ???
Electors-Registration
Candidates/Issues on Ballots
Make ballots
Vote ballots
Count ballots – recounts
Election results
add ***LEGAL*** to each step.
SOOOOOOOO New Age difficult ??? — in this New Age of more and more MORONS — esp. in SCOTUS.
Gee – can the AIP in CA survive WITHOUT the I ???
i.e. PROHIBIT ALL parties from having the word *independent* in the party name.
Spare me any whining about having ANY 1st Amdt party name whatever — and all other pre-school juvenile stuff.
Elections are SERIOUS business — i.e. LIFE or Death — just in case anybody has been in a cave or in outer space since 1776.
#14 Elections Code 13302(b).
Or see item 2 in the calendar for the general special election for CD-36
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/Special/cd36/general-calendar.pdf
The county election officials for the special elections earlier this year certainly did include party endorsements on the sample ballot (at least the on-line facsimile). Mark Seidenberg can confirm whether or not Dean Logan complied with the law in the print version.
The fact that 13302(b) explicitly identifies the parties who may make endorsements on sample ballots as “qualified parties”; while 8002.5 identifies party as that stated on a specific legal document, clearly demonstrate that the legislature intended for two different definitions of “party” are to be used with respect to elections for voter-nominated office.
California’s party qualification scheme is unworkable without voters being able to indicate a party affiliation with a non-qualified party. Their tabulation differentiates between voters who have Declined To State an affiliation with any political party, and those who have stated an affiliation with a party, qualified or not. Just because election officials make a specific tabulation for qualified parties, and general tabulation for non-qualified parties does not mean that the party affiliation of a voter is not what they wrote when they completed their voter registration affidavit.
AIP registration is up since February 10, 2011. On February 10, 2011 the AIP registration in El Dorado County, CA was 3,634. On August 8, 2011 it was up to
3,715 in El Dorado County for the AIP.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Chairman, American Independent Party