During this week, Florida election officials have behaved unethically and violated due process, by eliminating three minor party presidential candidates from the November ballot.
The Party for Socialism and Liberation, and America’s Party, were already ballot-qualified parties in Florida, yet their presidential filings have been rejected because they are not recognized by the Federal Election Commission as national committees. But on September 1, 2011, the General Counsel to the Florida Secretary of State ruled that Florida cannot enforce the law that says only national committees may be on for president without submitting 119,316 valid signatures. First, the Secretary of State has no official knowledge of which parties are recognized by the FEC. Second, the law, if enforced, would be discriminatory because the FEC will not grant national committee status to new parties; only parties that have gone through a presidential and a congressional election can obtain it. Third, the FEC itself is not certain which parties are recognized as national committees. I talked to an FEC attorney about this on April 26, 2010. He said it is an “open question” as to whether the Natural Law Party, for example, is still a national committee.
The Socialist Party is recognized by the FEC as a national committee. But Florida won’t print its presidential candidate on the November ballot either. The Secretary of State said on September 6 that the party’s application for party status, filed on August 29, does not meet the requirements of the law. But the letter from the Secretary of State did not explain why. The Socialist Party had submitted the exact same documents in 2016 that it had filed in 2012. Thanks to Darcy Richardson for the news about the Florida Secretary of State’s flip-flop on national committee status.
UPDATE: two Florida officials kindly telephoned me on Thursday, September 8, and gave me reasons why the Socialist Party’s filing was rejected. The first reason is that the Socialist Party’s bylaws provide for dues for members. The state believes that it has the power to tell parties that they must not be organizations with requirements for members to pay dues. However, the First Amendment protects any political party’s right to establish itself as a dues-paying organization, and parties of the left in the United States and around the world have a very long tradition of requiring members to pay dues. The Socialist Party is not saying that persons cannot register into the party if they don’t pay dues. But it is saying that its dues-paying members are the only persons eligible to help choose party officers.
I tried contacting the Florida Division of Elections by e-mail to advocate for the American Solidarity and Socialist parties — and any other minor parties hoping to be recognized by the state of Florida — but they never responded to my inquiry. I also left a couple of messages for Adam Tanenbaum, the current general counsel for the Department of State, more than a week ago, but he never returned my calls.
On his LinkedIn page, Tanenbaum claims to be a “creative team leader, tireless advocate, persistent problem solver, and service-oriented counselor,” but apparently that description only applies to his role in propping up and protecting the corrupt duopoly.
CONSTITUTION
OF THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
AS REVISED IN 1968 AND SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED
ARTICLE VI
SUFFRAGE AND ELECTIONS
“SECTION 1. Regulation of elections.—All elections by the people shall be by direct and secret vote. General elections shall be determined by a plurality of votes cast. Registration and elections shall, and political party functions may, be regulated by law; however, the requirements for a candidate with no party affiliation or for a candidate of a minor party for placement of the candidate’s name on the ballot shall be no greater than the requirements for a candidate of the party having the largest number of registered voters.
History.—Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission, Revision No. 11, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998.”
The above Amendment was adopted after the statute requiring the petition signatures. The statute is now unconstitutional and/or superseded by the Constitutional Amendment. This has never been challenged, but in my opinion a court could enter an immediate preliminary injunction requiring ballot placement as long as the excluded parties or independent candidates complied with the remaining provisions of the law applicable to the party having the largest number of registered voters. * This is not legal advice. Just my opinion.
“The Secretary of State said on September 6 that the party’s application for party status, filed on August 29, does not meet the requirements of the law. But the letter from the Secretary of State did not explain why.” — Richard Winger
That’s a good point, Richard. That letter of rejection, probably written by one of Tanenbaum’s half-witted associates, should have included a detailed checklist indicating precisely why the Socialist Party’s bylaws were not being approved.
Gov. Rick Scott should be embarrassed that his administration is being so hostile to America’s smaller parties, especially considering the fact that he was something of an “outsider” himself when first elected in 2010.
Shame on him, and shame on Florida.
Thanks for sharing that Michael — and you’re exactly right. A preliminary injunction is certainly in order.
The Prohibition Party in their quarterly newsletter hinted that they were being treated unfairly by Florida back in June. I know the Veterans Party also said they faced “road blocks” in trying to qualify. I wonder why the sudden change in attitude. Hopefully there’s some litigation that can be done. This could be why Evan McMullin’s campaign had trouble also.
It is my understanding that there are some similarities at the FEC level between the first two parties (Socialism and Liberation Party and America’s Party) affected by this situation and the Green Party. While even using the FEC status of party is arbitrary and creates a catch-22 situation, it could demonstrate an additional layer of arbitrary action by the Sec State if he has disqualified some parties and not another with either identical or at least similar standing with the FEC.
1. FEC stuff — blatant subversion of the 10th Amdt also.
2. See the 1989 Eu case — party hack stuff totally separate from PUBLIC office nomination stuff.
Hmm. Is the dues stuff a violation of the 24th Amdt —]
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
i.e. dues = tax — only SCOTUS knows for sure ??? —
i.e. BAD drafting of CONSTITUTIONAL language by the hacks who wrote such 24th Amdt ??? Duh.
Government imposing taxes as a condition to vote is a little different from government saying parties can’t require payment of dues as a condition for being eligible to vote on party officials.
If the government were *requiring* dues, the situation would be a closer parallel. Likewise if the party officials were being selected in primaries or other processes paid for with public funds.
Here’s the main point:
Nothing of any substance has changed in the last four years since I appeared on the America’s Party of Florida presidential ballot line. The Florida Code is unchanged. FEC rules are unchanged. America’s Party is unchanged. Our nominee – me – is unchanged. Even the identity of the Florida Secretary of State is unchanged. The only thing that has changed since 2012 is the personnel in their General Counsel’s office. Nothing else.
Thanks for the incisive coverage, Richard. It is a shameful thing to see the people being disenfranchised.
“In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.”
— John Adams
103.095(2) Each elector registered to vote in the minor political party in which he or she has so designated has a fundamental right to fully and meaningfully participate in the business and affairs of the minor political party without any monetary encumbrance. The constitution, bylaws, rules, regulations, or other equivalent documents must reflect this fundamental right …”
In 2012, the Socialist Party submitted two sets of bylaws, the second with the apparent intent to comply with this law. Were the party bylaws submitted in 2016 identical to the first set from 2012 or the second set from 2012?
The state has no business recognizing any political party that does not represent registered voters.
The submitted Socialist Party of Florida bylaws make no mention of dues, and directly incorporate the Florida statutory requirement regarding no “monetary encumbrance.” The Florida DOS’s determination is based on a provision of the Socialist Party USA’s national constitution. Hence, the Florida DOS is now taking the position that national political parties must formulate their constitutions to conform to a peculiarity of Florida state law.
Jim, that is not correct regarding the Socialist Party in 2012. The Socialist Party submitted only one set of bylaws. Upon the first submission, the state wanted a provision added to separate the election of state executive committee members from that of state party officers. That was the only issue the state raised and the only modification made by the party. The party constitution was also submitted in accompaniment with the bylaws in both years as the law requires.
The database of the Florida SOS has submissions of bylaws on 8/21, 8/28, and 8/31; though the last two may be duplicates. The cover letter for the 8/28 submission indicates a change had been made based on conversation between the party and the SOS office.
The third paragraph of the letter of the General Counsel of September 1, 2011 is particularly significant (and the first indicating that the current statute is in view) in regard to the Secretary’s lack of “authority or duty to look beyond the filing documents to determine if a candidate is eligible.” He cites a case from about 90 years ago, of which the summary from a subsequent case in 1980: “Holding that the Secretary of State has no power or authority to inquire into the eligibility of a candidate for public office.” The conclusion of the third paragraph of the September 2011 letter: “Therefore, if a minor political party registered in Florida files the required certificate which is complete on its face, under Section 103.021(4)(a), Florida Statutes, the Secretary ‘shall order the names of the candidates nominated by the minor political party to be included on the ballot and shall permit the required number of persons to be certified as electors in the same manner as other party candidates.'” This is the way the matter was handled in 2012. It does not preclude another party suing. The current General Counsel of the the Florida Department of State, Adam Tanenbaum, disagrees with the former General Counsel law that the prior case law applies in this matter.
That’s a great comment by Gregory Poulos.
I’m assuming that Richard has strongly encouraged the PSL and America’s Party to sue the state of Florida based on the 2011 letter from Daniel B. Nordby, the Department of State’s previous general counsel.
I’m also assuming that he’s strongly advising the Socialist Party to file a lawsuit based on First Amendment, if not also Fourteenth Amendment, grounds.
I’m just wondering if Richard’s COFOE — the Coalition for Free and Open Elections — will be of assistance in said lawsuits.
Regarding the Socialist Party and the relatively new American Solidarity Party, the latter of which made a concerted “good faith” attempt to be recognized as a minor party in the state of Florida, it is now crystal clear — and can probably be proven in a court of law — that Adam Tanenbaum’s staff had no desire to qualify any new parties or to re-qualify any previously qualified minor parties, such as the Socialist Party USA, which had fielded a presidential ticket in the Sunshine State in every presidential election dating back to the year 2000, and had the ability to run write-in candidates long before that.
Similarly, Floridians hoping to cast a ballot for the Party for Socialism and Liberation’s Gloria La Riva, Tom Hoefling of America’s Party also have been effectively disenfranchised by the General Counsel’s arbitrary actions.
Due to the state’s early filing deadline for write-in candidates, supporters of Gloria La Rive, Tom Hoefling, Mimi Soltysik and the American Solidarity Party’s Mike Maturen — the latter representing the first nationally-organized European-style Christian Democratic party in American history — have no way of supporting their respective party’s nominees.
This is a travesty and should be challenged in the courts.
There have been several reports that Broward County Election Director Brenda Snipes has met with Hillary Clinton behind closed doors. How can this be legal? The Immediate removal of this person needs to be done, and the voting process needs a review.