On February 15, the Independent Party asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Independent Party v Padilla. The California election law says when a group wishes to qualify as a political party, it must notify the Secretary of State, who in turn will notify each county elections office to tally the number of registered voters in that group. If the group persuades at least 60,000 or so voters to join it (on voter registration forms) then it becomes qualified.
The Independent Party asked the Secretary of State for such a tally, but he refused, saying the name of the Independent Party is too similar to the name of the already-qualified American Independent Party. Ever since 1891, California has banned two parties from having names that are too similar. However, the law has never before been interpreted to ban two parties from having the same word in their names. California permitted both the Democratic Party and the National Democratic Party to be on the ballot in 1896. Also, in 1900, it allowed both the Democratic Party and the Social Democratic Party to be on the ballot (later the Social Democratic Party changed its name to the Socialist Party). And in 1912, it allowed both the Socialist Party and the Socialist Labor Party to be on the ballot, in one Assembly district.
The Ninth Circuit opinion was only four pages, and virtually ignored the issue of when two party names are too similar to each other. Instead, the Ninth Circuit expressed the opinion that for a group to call itself the Independent Party was fraudulent. The Ninth Circuit ignored the record, which showed that ballot-qualified parties named Independent Party exist now in Oregon, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, and Louisiana, and were ballot-qualified in eight other states in the recent past (Arkansas, Hawaii, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, and Vermont).
At one time or another, 47 of the 50 states have had two parties on the ballot simultaneously that shared a common word in their names. If it had not been possible for parties to share a word in their names, the various socialist parties, such as the Socialist Party, the Socialist Labor Party, the Socialist Workers Party, Workers World, could not have existed.
*too similar* = more VOID for VAGUENESS
Padilla is the same bozo who certified two slates of electors for Trump.
I can see the American Independent party being up-in-arms over this. If they succeed then the new “Independent” party will probably get the majority of misinformed voters thinking they are registering “independent” (i.e. no party preference) instead of the Am. Independent party.
John Smith Party
John A. Smith Party
John B. Smith Party
Etc.
*too similar* ???
Brandon, the American Independent Party would be far better off if the Independent Party were on the ballot. No one takes the AIP seriously because of what you said, but that would remove that problem for them.
Laws that say two parties can have names so similar as to confuse the voters are intended to cope with what happened in New York in 1970. The Conservative Party was on the ballot and the Conservation Party submitted a petition. The state courts disallowed “Conservation” because it is too similar to “Conservative.” I agree with that decision.
But no one ought to be confused by two parties having the same word in their name. In the grocery stores, one sees cereal from General Mills and General Foods. No one seems to think that is confusing.
Keep those logos for illiterate moron voters ???
ANY regimes still have literacy tests to be an Elector-Voter ???
How do such MORON folks manage to fill out a Elector-Voter registration form — or any other form —
due to the New Age rotted to the core publik skoooools ???
— which advance all sorts of morons to graduate from publik hiii skooools —
[NO discrimination against dummies allowed] ???
Personally I am against any use of the word “independent” in any party name because of the proven confusion of most voters “choosing” those parties.
Even if some people might be confused by the word “Independent” for a party’s name or in a party’s name, that does not outweigh the legitimate and reasonable right for the party or parties involved to utilize those names.
Chris Powell: How did you manage to insert your actual photo?
@Phil Sawyer,
What does “independent” mean? If it means one is not dependent on a party for support (nomination, etc.), how can one be dependent on the Independent Party.
Jim Riley: The precise meaning of “independent” varies according to the context in which it is being used, naturally. A political party called the “Independent Party” would probably consider itself to be a party composed of very independent thinking people. It might also consider itself to be rather different from other parties on various levels. It is a perfectly legitimate and valid name for a political party.
By the way, how did you insert your photo? I would really like to do that.
@Phil Sawyer,
What if a state uses “Independent” to describe a nomination made outside or independent of party nomination. The problem in California is that the state permitted voters to register with non-existent groups. Many persons who scribbled “Independent” on their voter registration form likely were not wanting to affiliate with the “Independent Party”. Moreover, the process in California lets anyone to come forward and say they are the officers of a party. We don’t know whether those who scribbled “Independent” were supporters of Don Grundman.
California should greatly reduce the number of registered voters required to affiliate with a party in order for it to be qualified, to say 50 or 100 persons. It should then require voters to specify a qualified party or None. If a voter wrote “Donald Duck” on his registration form, and there was no Donald Duck Party, the registrar would inform the voter that he would be registered as None, unless voter provided the name of a qualified party.
A new party could be organized by at least the minimum number of voters, who would have their registration changed when the party was recognized. A party would have to maintain some minimal level of activity (bylaws, executive offices chosen by party registrants, annual registration fee ($100?), biennial state convention). A party which failed to do so would be considered dormant. There would be a process to reactivate such a party. Thus the Reform, Natural Law, Prohibition, etc. would be considered dormant party assuming they still have 100 registrants.
This would leave a group of “Independent” voters. They could either activate under a different name, or have their registration changed to None. It would become invalid to form a “Independent”, “None”, “Decline To State” or “No Party Preference” party.
I’m not exactly sure. Go to gravatar.com. There should be a way to log in. I can’t remember how I did it, and now it appears that I’m always logged in. I don’t think I ever established a wordpress/gravatar account, but may have simply by posting here.
You will have a profile, which you can change the avatar for. Hint: use a small image (I think mine is 150×150 or so).
Jim Riley: It does not matter. People should be able to register as “independent” or into the “Independent Party.” Either way should be legitimate and valid. It is a very personal, existential, decision.
Wow, I have never heard of gravatar.com or wordpress/gravatar. If it is that complicated, I may not bother. Thank you very much, though, for the assistance.
Jim Riley: If there is any confusion, the Registrar of Voters can call the voter and ask if he or she intended to register into the Independent Party or intended to be an independent. Sure, it does create a little more work for the Registrar of Voters but it also preserves the rights of the voters.
The California voter registration form first asks applicants if they wish to register into a party. If they answer “no”, they are told to skip the next question. If they answer “yes”, they go into the question about which party they want to join. So people who don’t want to be a member of any party are not likely to join any party. I believe there are many people who want to be part of a party of independents.
@Richard Winger,
The online version asks if a person wants to affiliate with a party.
o Yes [Pull Down List of Hexopoly] Other ________________
o No
To register as wanting to affiliate with the “Independent Party” they would have to click on Yes and then enter the name “Independent”.
I am dubious that many would think they wanted that other party the Independent Party. Many of the “Independents” likely registered on old paper forms where the qualified parties were listed and there was a fill in the blank. They wrote “Independent” to indicate they weren’t a Democrat or Republican. Or they might have been in a county like Santa Cruz where the registrar gave instructions that suggested “Independent” had some meaning other than Decline To State – but also not Independent Party. Many suggestible college students likely took the bait.
You remember when Gavin Newsom’s wife (then his girlfriend) registered with the American Independent Party. Do you think she really meant some other Independent Party? Or do you think she was just thinking it would look strange that the wife of ambitious politician was so indifferent to politics that she was not registered to vote (which is a lot more legitimate than believing that there is a party of independents).
Do you think those who wanted to be part of the party of independents, were wanting to be part of the Don Grundmann led movement?
@Phil Sawyer,
Just as well. I can’t figure out a way to undo it.
@Jim Riley: Richard Winger is correct, I think, that “there are many people who want to be part of a party of independents.” I believe that many people who register into the American Independent Party do so mainly because they like the name of the Party and like the idea of belonging to it. I am certain that we would see many people register into the Independent Party if they had the actual opportunity to do so.
Thank you for your assistance with, and comments about, the photo question that I had. I very much appreciate it.