Here is the list of California Republican Party candidates for president elector. It includes Arun Bhumitra of Rolling Hills. He is a member of the Industry Trade Advisory Committee, which is part of the International Trade Administration within the U.S. Department of Commerce. He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate for that position.
Article II, section one, says no one who “holds an office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.” Professor Bhumitra, when informed of this part of the U.S. Constitution, said he had not been aware of that part of the Constitution. Thanks to Mark Seidenberg for this news. Seidenberg is the person who first noticed this.
Appointment of electors is considered to happen on election day, even if the result is not ascertained until some later date.
Do any of the printed ballots in California include the instructions in 13205(b)?
No, the California presidential ballot in November just says, “Party-nominated offices. Federal. President and Vice President.” Then it lists the 5 candidates.
Before 1976, the California November presidential ballot said, “Vote for presidential electors” and listed the presidential candidates, but not the electors. That wording is better because it reflects the truth.
Richard Winger & Jim Riley,
Have you read the case SEARCY v. GROW 15 California
118? It is important to note the when & why the GOP placed a known unqualified person on the transmitted list
to the CA SOS days late. GOP by-laws required at 4.01
a transmittal by October 1st. Yet the flawed list did not get filed until October 3rd.
First, while page 118 is important, I should have said
SEARCY v. GROW, 15 Cal. 117, 118 (1860). Please
note that Mr. Justice Clifford before the Electoral Commission in 1877 stated “that no person is eligible as
an elector, or can be lawfully appointed aa such, who holds an office of trust or profit under the United States at the time of the election or appointment”. [Remarks of Justice Clifford in the consultation of the Electoral Commission respecting the electoral votes of the State of
Florida, Washngton: Joseph L. Pearson Prnter 1877].
The question should be asked of the GOP is why this was not fact check before the bogus appointment!?
Moot. Trump can never win in CA.
Richard,
Doesn’t the ballot say “Vote For One Party”? I found a sample ballot in San Francisco that shows that language.
The SOS says that the layout in 13105(c) should be followed, but also says that the text in 13210(b) should be included, but does not mention the text in 13205(b).
The instructions contradict the ballot language. Also it is clear that the elector candidates are associated with the party, rather than presidential candidates.
I have yet to find anything in statute that states how electors are appointed in California. At best we can infer the procedure from the instructions to voters, but the ballot layout prevents some voters from complying with the instructions.
Shouldn’t the whole California presidential results be thrown out?
The advisory also includes this gem:
“How will Presidential and Vice Presidential electors be selected when more than one political party nominates the same candidate?”
“The Elections Code does not address the manner in which electors for President and Vice President of the United States are selected in situations where more than one party nominates the same candidate. We will address this issue if/when appropriate.”
Jim Riley,
Only some persons running for the Offices of Presidential Elector are appointed in California. Some are selected differently then by appointment.
Please also note in California the Office of Presidential
Elector is an office of profit of the State of California, so
not everyone can run. We have here an apointment by
Jim Brilte of a man who hold an office of both trust and profit of the United States and wants this concern to go
away, because his office only “advises” (which is a bogus claim).
All electors area appointed. See Article II of the US Constitution.
Each state legislature provides for the manner of appointment, except California has failed to do so.
The top robot party HACKS do NOT get informed by each State/DC top robot election chief hack about the Art. II, Sec. 1 restriction ???
One more reason to ABOLISH the super time bomb Electoral College.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Jim Riley ,
First, CA Elections Code section 6909 makes CA offices
of Presidential Electors an office of profit of the State of
California. The laws are different than Texas as to who is allowed to serve as presidential electors. Under CA Elections Code 7300, Meg Whitman is a member of the
candidate under the GOP label because of her 2010 run
for Governor of California.
Jim Riley & Richard Winger,
Noting the meaning of “appointment” in your view does
all covered Presidential Electors covered under CA Election Code section 7300 an appointment? I note that
Meg Whitman is covered because she was the 2010 Republican Nominee for the Office of Governor. That
came about because she won a Republican Primary.
Does any reader know the date Professor Aron K. Bhumitra was appointed by CA GOP Chairman Jim
Brulte? I know that the term of office on Aaron K.
Bhumitra as a Office of Trust of the United States ends
on February 14, 2018. I am informed that Chuck Bell
does not see Aron Bhumitra becoming a Presidental Elector as a problem. However the Van Ness case is
clear to me. Mr. Bhumitra should drop out and not cause
the Trump/Pence ticket a problem.
Mark Seidenberg,
See
Code of Alabama Section 17-14-32
Alaska Statutes Section 15.30.050
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 16-507.B
Arkansas Code Section 7-8-302(4)
California – nothing to see here
Colorado Revised Statutes 1-5-403
General Statutes of Connecticut Section 9-175
Jim Riley,
How many other states in addition to California list all its
Presidential Electors on the Electoral College as offices
of profit of those states as statewide offices?
See, CA Elections Code section 6909 and 2 CCR section
20822(b). Please also post the laws and regulations of those additional states on this subject.
I note in CA one does not have to be an elector of the state to be a “presidental elector”, while in Texas being
an elector of Texas is a requirement to being on the
Texas Electoral College.
Mark Seidenberg,
Delaware Code Title 15 (Elections) Section 4944
Florida Statutes Section 103.011
Georgia Code Section 21-2-379.5(e)
Hawai’i Revised Statutes Section 11-113
Idaho – I can’t find the manner in which presidential electors are elected in Idaho. There is one provision that says that the Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees are not “candidates”.
4.02 section of the bylaws of May 1, 2016 of the CA GOP
state: “Not withstanding section 4.01, no United States Senator or Representive from California nor any person holding an office of trust or profit of the United States, may serve as a presidential elector.
Yet Jim Brulte (Chairman of the CA GOP) appointed Professor Arun K. Bhumitra as a nominee for the November 8, 2016 election for the CA statewide office of Presidental Elector (an office of profit of the State of California). This is while Bhumitra is in an office of trust of the United States until July 14, 2018. Other real members of the Electoral College should reject Professor
Bhumitra and elect a replacement for him at the December 19, 2016 meeting so Congress will not reject
the votes of any member of the California Electoral College.
By the same e-mail of October 3, 2016 of Jim Brulte to the Secretary of State of California that showed the appointment of Bhumitra is an appointment of the Hon.
Diane Harkey as a presidential elector nominee. Yet the
other Republican on the Board of Equalization was not
nominated by Jim Brulte for the statewide office of profit of California of Presidential Elector, viz., George Runner,
Jr. Runner is the Vice Chairman of that Board and he is
Republican longer than Harkey, plus being on the board
for an addition term. Is the appointment of Harkey because she is a “senior citizen” and Mr. Runner is younger and not a senior citizen yet!? The bylaws state senior Republican member of the Board of Equization
not the doyenne of that board.
George Runner and Diane Harkey were backing Ted Cruz and not Donald Trump. The first question to ask why Jim Brulte is appointing Harkey when she was not
Backing Trump/Pence? The second question is why Brulte did not transmit the address of Runner to the CA
SOS when he is the Senior Republican on the Board of
Equalization?
CA Election Code section 6901 states in part that the CA
“Secretary of State shall notify each candidate for elector of his or her nomination by the party”. It has not happened yet for the AIP. Has any other party nominees
for the CA statewide office (of profit) of Presidential Elector to the Electoral College been given notice by the CA SOS? If so please post her the details.
Here is a list of a few of the Republican nominees for
Public statewide office who are to “act” as Presidential Electors in California that were not listed on the transmittal of October 3, 2016 by Jim Brulte to the CA SOS and no alternate electors were selected for them.
Margaret Cushing “Meg” Whitman
Able Maldonado
Damon Dunn
Tony Strickland
Steve Cooley
Carly Florina
Mike Villines
George Runner
Jim Brulte did not submit address for any of the above list
as required by the CA GOP bylaws of May 1, 2016.
To the above list we need to add Chad Mayes, who is the
Republican leader of the California Assembly. Brulte did not proved his address to the SOS either as required by the May 1, CA GOP bylaws.
CA Elections Code section 6901 requires the CA Secretary of State to give notice, viz., “The Secretary of State shall notify each candidate of his or her nomination of the party.”
In CA there are several qualified parties, viz., Democratic, Peace and Freedom, Libertarian, Green, Republican, & American Independent. Yet. as of yesterday the CA SOS has not given that notice and
they will not state when or if ever they will give such notice.
George Runner the Senior Republican member of the
California Board of Equalization, address was not transmitted to the Secretary of State by Jim Brulte in his October 3, 2016 e-mail even though 4.01 on the May 1, 2016 bylaws of the CA GOP require said transmittal because Mr. George Runner is to “act” as a presidential
elector under the terms of 4.01 of that parties bylaws.
Brulte failed to transmit the name Alternate Nominee
Presidential Elector for Mr. Runner, who was a Ted Cruz
supporter.
Professor Bhumitra needs to follow Musella and resign as a nominee Presidential Elector to help ended this constutuonal problem by holding an Office of Trust of the
United States until July 14, 2018.
Under the May 1, 2016 bylaws at 4.01 of the California
Republican Party & section 7300 of the California Elections Code, John Musella was to “act” as a Presidential Elector for Donald Trump/Mike Pence Ticket
on December 19, 2016. That however ended on October 18, 2016 with the resignation of John Musella
as Chairperson of the Log Cabin Republican Club.
It should be noted in the e-mail of October 3, 2016 of Jim
Brulte to the CA SOS he did not list apointments of Alternate Nominees for the persons that will “act” as Presidential Electors for the CA GOP. That e-mail was
filed two days late, but the CA Department of State excepted it was filed. Now Trump/Pence ticket has one
less person running for that California statewide office of
profit of the Office of Presidential Elector.
See the press release “Musella Steps Down as Chairman of Log Cabin Republican Club” in Business Wire of October 18, 2016.
The other issue is what will happen after the November 8, 2016 election “when the right to vote” at the November
8, 2016 election “for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States … is denied to any of the male inhabitants of” California, “being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or
in any way abridged,” … “The basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens twenty-one of age in” California.
The last time the vote for Presidential Electors was denied in the United States was in the State
of Colorado in the Tildon/Hayes race of 1876. However,
there was only one member from Colorado at large and
there did not need a reduction below one.
This means that California 53 member in the House of Representatives will go to zero. This was caused by California Secretary of State not letting Trump/Pence
voters pick between two slates of Presidential Electors &
the Chairman of the CA GOP not agreeing to a joint list
of Electors to be submitted by him on September 30, 2016 to the CA SOS.
Looking at Colorado in the 1876 election as a guide when the voters will not get to vote for the Presidential Electors in California on November 8, 2016. What could
take place is a joint resolution of the California legislature
that followed the practice on November 7, 1876.
See: Colorado Constitition of 1876 Schedule section 19.
I expect that the names of Herman Beckurts, William Hadly, & Otto Means will be raised in the lawsuit over
The non-selection of the California electorate of the 55 nominees on the six list of Presidential Electors filed between September 30, 2016 through October 3, 2016
With the CA SOS. It should be noted that Chairman Jim
Brulte filed late his GOP presidential electors slate list, but the CA SOS accepted the list even though it was filed
late.
Since this year will be the first election since 1876 that a state slate of electors were not selected by a direct vote of the state’s electorate, I expect the CA legislature will turn to the practice used in the State of Colorado on November 7, 1876 for a practice to handle the failure to
elect a slate of California Presidential Electors on November 8, 2016.
Jim Riley,
What I see now is California is inviolation of both Article II, Section 1(2) & Article XIV, Section 2 or will be by November 8, 2016 if the California legislature does not
come back into session on a call of Governor Brown and
pass a joint resolution for the votes to select the 55 Presidential Electors form the 108 filed on October 3, 2016 plus the several acting electors not listed in
Jim Brulte!s late filing on that date, but included in
California Elections Code section 7300 and 4.01 of the
May 1, 2016 bylaws of the CA GOP.
Article II, Section 1(2) of the constitution states: “Each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which
the state may be entitled in Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States shall be appointed an elector.
Mark,
The Colorado Constitution was drafted in Spring of 1876, with a ratification referendum on July 1, 1876. As you know the People of a State are sovereign, and the process of becoming a State is for them to draft a constitution, and then for Congress to decide whether to accept the State in the Union. Colorado became a State on August 1, 1876.
The first election for a governor and legislature was on October 3, 1876, five weeks before the general election. It would have been difficult for the legislature to meet and draft legislation for the election of presidential electors. Since the legislators would also be electing Colorado’s two US Senators, it would not be so odd for them to choose three electors as well.
Colorado also elected its lone US Representative on October 3. The senators and representative would be able to participate in the counting of electoral votes, and if necessary choose a President and Vice President.
An oddity that should make Richard Winger happy, is that the congressional election in October was intended to be both for the lame duck session of the 44th Congress, and also for the full 45th session, which would begin on March 3, 1877 (two separate offices were on the ballot). But there apparently was a second election on November 7, 1876.
The 45th Congress accepted the result of the second election.
Mark,
California has NO statutes for selecting any electors, whether they were nominated by the Libertarian, Democratic, Green, or Peace & Freedom parties.
Jim Riley,
Thank you for the reply. There was no second election on November 7, 1876. That was the date the legislature
appointed the three Presidential Electors under the terms
of Schedule section 19 for the Colorado Constitution of 1876. That created a question if the selection met the terms of Article II, Section 1(2). We have the same issue
now in California. This November 8, 2016 the legislature
will no allow a dermination as to how to select the 55
Presidential Electors for the Trump/Pence ticket. Therefore a slate of electors will not be elected on November 8, 2016 and the legislature could appoint after
their return on Decenber 5, 2016.
Jim Riley,
California does however have CA Elections Code 7300 which does have several nominees for public office that
are GOP to “act” as Presidential Electors. While the events in the Oregon 1876 election for Presidential Electors repeat itself in California in 2016, because Brulte appointed as an elector for nominee Presidenial
Elector who holds an Office of Trust of the United States
until July 14, 2018.
Jim Riley,
Why would you think Richard Winger would view the fact there was a second election on November 7, 1876 in Colorado as something that would make him “happy”?
Again there was no election on November 7. 1876 in Colorado. It was on that date that the Colorado State
Legislature without determining the manor of how to pick these Presidential Electors selected the electors (all
for Hayes), which earned him the nickname in Colorado
as “Rutherfraud” Hayes. Therefore Article XIV, Section
2 would get triggered. But unlike California there was only one at large congressman from Colorado at that time. California has 53 Congressmen now and we are
About to lose them all. The direct cause was the Chairman of the CA GOP would not agree to a join list
of nominee electors from his appointments and the acting electors covered under CA Elections Code section
7300 & 4.01 of the bylaws of May 1, 2016 of the CA GOP.
Richard Winger,
I’ll
I note on the CA SOS website at the heading HOW DOES CALIFORNIA SELECT ITS ELECTORS? It starts the following: “On or before October 1 of the presidential election year, each Party’s nominee must file a list containing the names, addresses,
and telephone numbers of 55 electors pledged to him/her. Each party determines its own method for selecting electors.”
First Jim Brulte, Chairman filed late the GOP list. He filed
after the AIP filed a list for Donald Trump and Mike Pence. Alex Padilla accepted the late list from Jim Brulte
with the nominee of this posting who holds an Office of Trust of the United States until July 14, 2018.
Like Jim Riley, I can not find in the CA Election Code how
the 55 persons entitled to be Presidential Electors get selected to these 55 statewide Offices of Profit of the State of California. Please explain how the lists of 108
can get reduced down to 55 by November 8, 2016?
Mark,
See Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States, page 660.
https://books.google.com/books?id=JIhPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA661&lpg=PA661&dq=ellsworth+cases+Patterson+Belford+Colorado&source=bl&ots=NzXET0IXtd&sig=3mm1ha5Jm2qKXaSzd5lkJVyZebU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx8MuC1PTPAhUCwYMKHb4lAZEQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
See also Dubin, United States Congressional Elections 1788-1997
for the 44th Congress (special elections) and for the 45th Congress.