On December 22, March Fong Eu died. She was California Secretary of State from 1974 to 1994. She pioneered the idea of letting individuals register to vote using a postcard form that did not need to be signed by anyone but the applicant. Previously, in all states, no one could register to vote without appearing in front of an election official and having the election official fill out the form. Thanks to several people for the news. Here is an obituary.
NO *proof* of being a QUALIFIED Electer-Voter ???
Thus – how many illegal invaders, armed or unarmed, in CA — claiming to be CA Electors-Voters ???
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/489/214/
Eu v. S.F. Cty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989)
public vs internal clubby stuff of the HACK parties
The poll is a plurality poll which sets a policy of pluralism.
Now there is a better way, it is called pure proportional representation; ranked choice voting in multiple winner districts.
The United Coalition has been developing this and Libertarian Party candidate for CA Governor Mark Herd likes it and wants pure proportional representation in the whole of LA.
Not eleven single winner districts like SF, but unite the whole city of Los Angeles under pure proportional representation.
We accept votes now using pure proportional representation, the Unity Platform;
http://international-parliament.org/eballot-13-marked.html
APS Co. BoD Starchild by email;
On Dec 23, 2017 5:52 PM, “Starchild” wrote:
It occurred to me that this would be a good opportunity to use the Yahoogroups poll feature and perhaps get some additional input, so I went ahead and created a poll for people to indicate where they’d prefer to attend LPSF meetings:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/lpsf-discuss/polls/poll/7858405
The poll will be open through December 31. Of course we are not bound by the results, but I thought it might be helpful to solicit the input of folks on the LPSF-discuss list and in the LPSF Meetup group (both copied on this email).
(snip, snip)
Eu v. S.F. Cty. Democratic Cent. Comm.,
489 U.S. 214 (1989), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/489/214/case.html
also 3 california supreme court cases had her name as the official respondent.
Various county central committees of the Democratic and Republican Parties, the state central committee of the Libertarian Party, members of various state and county central committees, and other groups and individuals active in partisan politics in California brought this action in federal court against state officials responsible for enforcing the Code (State or California).
So this was a Libertarian Party win in the Supreme Court, although it was not the named plaintiff.
This is similar to the case in Texas for cases such as ‘American Party of Texas v White’ and ‘Bullock v Carter’, where Mark White and Bob Bullock were Secretary of State at the time. In Texas, SOS is an appointed position, and changes quite often (the recent Democratic lawsuit, used the name of the current SOS, Rolando Pablos, and the name of the prior SOS Carlos Cascos in others). White and Bullock later became governor and lieutenant governor respectively.
It seems now more politically expedient to make the governor the named respondent, the last three decades of Texas redistricting cases have been with Bush, Perry, and Abbott as the named defendant for the State, though the 1990 and 2010 case started out with Richards and Perry as the named defendant.
The executive/judicial HACKS who *directly* enforce the HACK election law(s) involved are the persons to be sued.
The SCOTUS morons have screwed up the point about also suing the legislative hacks who enact any UN-constitutional laws involved in Fed cases.