On February 24, the California Secretary of State announced that the Republican Party’s referendum has qualified for the November 2012 ballot. The referendum asks voters if they wish to reject the State Senate district boundaries drawn up last year by the new Redistricting Commission.
Unfortunately for the proponents of this referendum, the California Supreme Court ruled last month that because no one could know if the measure would qualify, the Commission’s districts will be in force in this year’s election, even though normally when a referendum petition is filed against a new law, the new law can’t take effect until after the voters express their opinion of it.
Richard, I know this post is not about the California AIP State Convention, but I’m still waiting for any official of the California AIP to answer my original question of will the AIP allow Jack Fellure to speak to the AIP Convention there in West Sacramento on June 9th and ask the delegates for the AIP presidential nomination?
He had asked earlier to be placed on the AIP Presidential Primary ballot, but for some reason he was not added.
So again, the question is, will you officials of the California AIP allow him to appear at the Convention and seek your presidential nomination?
That is not accurate. Because the referendum has qualified, the plan is stayed. But the Supreme Court has authority to provide an interim map for the 2012 elections, and it chose the plan passed by the commission as the interim map as the least disruptive.
The referendum provisions in the California Constitution are practically ineffective against redistricting plans because an election has to be held with new district lines before the map can be voted on. And even then, that may not prevent the same map from being enacted again.
Back in 1971, Governor Reagan vetoed the redistricting maps, and the legislature was unable to override the veto. At that time, the California Supreme Court ruled that the legislative congressional map should be used as an interim map because it had the right number of districts. But it ordered the old legislative maps be used, because even though they were malapportioned, they were the only maps that had been lawfully enacted.
In 1981, referendums petitions were filed against all 3 maps, causing them to be stayed. The California Supreme Court again agreed to use the congressional map since it had the correct number of districts. It was sharply divided on a partisan basis on the legislative districts, and in 4-3 decision authored by Rose Bird ordered that the enacted, but stayed maps be used because they were equal in population, and US Supreme Court rulings during the decade had required more equality. The dissent said that the court was taking sides by approving use of the legislative approved maps.
In 1982, the voters vetoed all 3 maps; but elected a Democratic legislature using the maps they had opposed, along with Governor Jerry Brown. The legislature re-enacted the vetoed maps with an urgency clause, which meant they were not subject to referendum.
The referendum provisions of the redistricting amendment use the term “likely to qualify” when determining when a court should intervene. Originally, the court had been asked to stay the referendum plan when the proponent had a ballot title from the AG and high hopes. By the time the court was considering it again, the petitions had been given to the county election officials, but the first few counties were coming in low during the sample check.
Under California law, an initiative or referendum is not considered to have been “filed” with the Secretary of State until it has been verified as having enough signature. So the Supreme Court was having to determine what “likely to qualify” meant with regard to a petition that might or might not qualify (the “likely to qualify” language is unique to redistricting referendums). They came to a conclusion that it was likely enough to qualify, that they could decide (last month) what should happen if it did qualify.
Since collection of in lieu of signatures was already in process, and if the referendum did not qualify, the commission map would be used; they concluded that the map was also good enough to be used on an interim basis. The alternatives suggested by the proponent (1) use the current map; (2) use the commission assembly map with nested senate district; (3) use a map drawn by the proponent; or (4) appoint a special master, were not seen as being clearly preferable.
If the referendum succeeds, the 2014 senate map would be drawn by special masters, who might be deferential to the map drawn by the commission. So the referendum process is particularly ineffective with regard to redistricting.
If there were to be real participation by the People in the redistricting process, it would have to involve some sort of choice between alternative plans. Since it may not be practical to have a full plebiscite on different maps; a large sample of the population should be used to choose among alternative maps.
The senate map should be overturned on equal protection grounds since it will leave 10% of Californian unrepresented in the Senate for the next 2 years (alternatively California should be stripped of 6 representatives under terms of the 14th Amendment). It is bizarre that a court would be worried about some voter having 10% too much or too little influence, when some voters have 0% influence and others have 200% influence.
One more added reason to have —
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
— to END the ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymanders.
The CA revised state gerrymander commission is USELESS.
The CA top 2 primary is USELESS.
The *likely to qualify* language should have been declared UN-constitutional as being vague.
The election law reform groups are brain dead ignorant about what they have done.
Like having pre-school kids build and operate a political nuclear reactor — see Chernobyl 1986.
#1, do you have any evidence that Jack Fellure wants to come to Sacramento, California and speak to the AIP convention?
Richard: Yes. Jack Fellure understands that he is not restricted to just accepting the Prohibition nomination. Jack Fellure is more political astute than many seasoned 3rd partisans who hold this nonsense of “you can only run under our party label and none other.”
So again, yes, if he can get to California, he is more than willing to speak to the AIP State Convention and seek their nomination. And let me take the liberty of saying that he is willing to speak to other 3rd party conventions (that are not totally opposed to his philosophy). Still, it is baffling that no California AIP officers have yet responded to these posts of mine. Are they afraid that Jack Fellure might resonate with their voters once he informs them of where he stands?
To: Richard Winger and Alabama Independent.
First, June 9, 2012 should be the AIP Convention Date. It still a long shot if the American Independent Party
of California will hold the Convention in West Sacramento, Yolo County.
I am aware that the California Legislature is considering legislation to allow the expanded location
of places to hold the conventions of the party.
Under current law, the convention needs to be in Sacramento [County] and in the same one of the 25
Sacramento County communities that the organizational
meeting of the State Central Committee is located in.
If the proposed law passes the legislature the location of the Convention and State Central (organizational) Meeting of the American Independent Party of Califoria
does not have to be in the same Sacramento County community, viz., it just have to be in the same county.
Reason for the change. It was suggested that we at AIP
hold a meeting (non-organizational)in a past year in Marysville, California. However, I could not find a hall in Marysville that was available for a two day weekend.
I did find a church that would let the AIP meet there on
a Saturday and a synogogue that would let AIP meet on a
Sunday. It followed that the idea could be used for
the State Convention and State Organizational meeting.
However, they are currently restricted by the California
Election Code to the same community (one of 25 communities in Sacramento County) in Sacramento [County].
I could not see why the State of California is restricting the American Independent Party to a location
in Sacramento County. I am aware of many locations
to conduct conventions and meetings in West Sacramento.
However, West Sacramento is not in Sacramento County.
It is in Yolo County, but just on the West Bank of the
Sacramento River.
Therefore, when I was asked if the location was to be
expanded by legislation, I jumped at the idea. However,
my talks with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of Sacramento County AIP State Central Committee was the
meetings should be in Sacramento County only, viz.,
not in the City of West Sacramento, Yolo County.
One additional thing the law change will do it will
allow the convention and state central [organizational]
meeting of the American Independent Party of California
to just be in same Sacramento County and not restricted
by the same community requirement.
However, the idea of meeting in West Sacramento for 2012
is not supported by the Chair or Vice Chair of the Sacramento County AIP Central Committee.
In 2010 the AIP Convention and organizational meeting was in the community of South Sacramento. In 2008
they were located in the community of Downtown Sacramento. In 2006 they were located in the community
(and city) of Rancho Cordova (County of Sacramento).
It should be noted that in 2008, Jim King sued over the
location of the 2006 meeting, because Ed Noonan was elected as AIP Chairman in Rancho Cordova in Sacramento
County. Jim King asseverated that the California Election Code retricted the organizational meeting
to a location within the city limits of Sacramento.
Jim King lost on that legal point and the whole lawsuit.
He also claimed that it was OK for a convention and
state central committee to meet in the City and County
of Los Angeles in 2008, because the State Convention and
organizational meeting in 2006 was located outside the
city limits of Sacramento. He lost on that legal point
also.
It was Wm Shearer plan that the delegates and members
on the Friday before and the Monday after lobby on lagislative issues. Shearer wanted the activists in AIP
to get training as lobbists. That was why the restriction were put in place to Sacramento County.
I understand the law passed in 1959. I would like to hear the views on its status, in light of the election code. I recall that Jsck Fellure’s Califoria party was
on the ballot qualified until 1962. What was the date
that the SoS by a CCROV declared that the Prohabition
Party abandoned qualified political party status in California?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California
Seidenberg, you should be doing what you can to reach out to the opposing faction and put this fighting to rest.
Cody Quirk
Thank you for your comment, however I do not understand
it.
I am not in an opposing faction of Jack Fellure. The issue with Jim King is that he was the chairperson credential committee at Rancho Cordova in 2006. He sues
Ed Noonan because his September 3, 2006 election took
place in Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California.
He then goes to Court in the summer of 2008 and claims
that Ed Noonan was not elected in Sacramento [taking
an asseverative view that Rancho Cordova is not in Sacramento (namely the city limits) when the law was clear that Rancho Cordova was both a city and community
in Sacramento County.
If the California Legislature passes the bill the American Independent Party will have greater freedom
to pick the locations of its convention sights.
Cody, do you have a problem with maybe having a AIP
convention in the City of West Sacramento in Yolo County, since it is on the West bank of the Sacramento
River?
Jim King was the only person I know that objected to Rancho Cordova community and city for a convention of the AIP. Did you have any problem with the 2006 convention location of the convention in Rancho Cordova
in Sacramento County?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California
One reason for the addition of West Sacramento to locations for an AIP convention is the Ziggurat Building. It has a 195 seat auditorium and a 45 seat
executive dinning room. It is located at 707 Third Street, West Sacramento, CA.
I have never seen this building. If the legislature
approves the location addition the AIP could meet there.
The Ziggurat Building is a State Building that could
be used in the future. I would like comments of that
building location for future AIP conventions and meetings.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party