The most obscure partisan office in California is member of the Board of Equalization. California is divided into four districts, each one of which elects a member to that Board, which deals with taxation. In the Fourth District, attorney Mike Schaefer has a narrow lead for second place. He is a Democrat, although he has often run for office in the past as a Republican.
Schaefer is the attorney who won a landmark decision in the California Supreme Court in 1985, that said both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution require write-in space on the ballot for all office. That case was Canaan v Abdelnour.
Unfortunately, in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the U.S. Constitution does not require write-in space on ballots. That case was Burdick v Takushi, and it upheld Hawaii’s ban on write-ins.
Then, in 1999, San Francisco held a mayoral runoff, and refused to allow write-in space on the ballot in the runoff. A write-in candidate sued, and the State Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the voter, based on the Canaan precedent. But in 2002 the State Supreme Court reversed, and said that write-ins are no longer protected in California, because of the Burdick decision. Edelstein v City and County of San Francisco, 56 P. 3d 1069. Schaefer was the attorney in that case also. Because of the Edelstein ruling, it was legally possible for the proponents of the California top-two system to eliminate write-in space on the November ballot for congress and partisan state office.
Schaefer won another interesting election law case (not involving write-ins) in 2000. He was a registered voter in Nevada, but he filed to run in a special U.S. House election in the adjoining part of California. California election officials refused to put him on the ballot, but on appeal, the Ninth Circuit said he should have been permitted to run, because the U.S. Constitution does not allow states to add to the qualifications to run for Congress, and forcing him to be a registered voter in California would be an impermissible qualification. Schaefer v Townsend, 215 F.3d 1031. California tried to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse Schaefer’s win, but the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. 532 U.S. 904 (2001).
Here are the election returns for Board of Equalization, 4th district. Schaefer is in second place, but all the votes haven’t been counted yet, and John F. Kelly is in third place and is only 7,000 votes behind Schaefer. Assuming Schaefer remains in second place, he will appear on the November ballot as the only opponent to State Senator Joel Anderson, a Republican. The Fourth District, based on Orange and San Diego Counties, leans Republican.
RE- WRITE-INS
14 AMDT, SEC. 2 — STILL A PART OF THE NEARLY DEAD USA CONST.
— REGARDLESS OF ALL MORON LAWYERS AND JUDGES.
RE- SCHAEFER 2000
1-2-2
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of
twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who
shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be
chosen.
—
WAS HE GOING TO MOVE TO CA ON 2000 ELECTION DAY ???
I’ve often wondered about the effects of Demo Rep’s second comment. It would seem that living in a state on election day is a legitimate requirement, so the state should have the ability to void votes for a candidate that doesn’t meet that eligibility requirement
No one can predict whether a candidate will move to another state by election day, at the time when ballots must be printed, which is typically six or seven weeks before the election. That is why there are effectively no residency requirements for congressional elections in the U.S.
Obvious remedy —
be Elector/resident in State X days (continuous) before Election Day.
See also 14-1 — State citizen definition.
@Nick,
The US Constitution says that a representative or senator has to be a resident on election day. It doesn’t say anything about the day or weeks before the election. If Schaefer were required to be registered in California, then he would have been forced to move to California in order to become registered. This in effect adding a qualification. Even if he had resided in California prior to election day, he could not have been required to be registered in order to run. You don’t have to be eligible to voter for yourself. Representatives are not required to live in their district. But it is conceivable that a person might not be eligible to vote (hadn’t paid a poll tax, hadn’t been a resident long enough, was female prior to female suffrage, etc.).
The precedent for this interpretation of the Constitution is interesting. Phillip Barton Key, who was the uncle of Francis Scott Key, author of the words to the national anthem, as 18 year old was in the British army during the American Revolution. He was captured by the Spanish army while serving in Florida. He was paroled (at one time, rather than maintain prisoners of war, they were permitted to become non-combatants). After the war he studied law in London and later returned to Maryland. He later moved to the Georgetown, Maryland area prior to the establishment of the the District of Columbia.
When he ran for Congress, he was living in Georgetown, which was by then part of the District of Columbia, but was building a house in Montgomery County, Maryland, but did not want his family exposed to the drying plaster. He was also intending to practice law in Maryland. His election was not contested until well into his term, and he kept his seat, in part because of a partisan vote. After the vote, he made a personal privilege speech, where he said the challenge had nothing to do with his residence, but was because of British military service 30 years earlier as a young man. It is unclear whether he lived in the Maryland house full time, or whether it was a summer residence. He was chair of the House Committee on the District of Columbia, and died in, and is buried in the district.
Technically, what a court would be ruling in an election case is that a State should not interfere with House determining the qualifications of its member. If Schaefer had been permitted to run in California and had been elected, the House would have determined whether he resided in California on election day. The decision might well have been a partisan vote.
In 2006, Tom Delay decided not to seek re-election after winning the primary. In Texas, a party may only replace a nominee for cause (1) death; (2) disqualification; or (3) taking another office. If a legislative nominee wants to withdraw, he “moves” out of his district. He updates his drivers license address, registers to vote, and informs the party chairman. The party chairman determines the candidate is disqualified and triggers the process to nominate a replacement candidate. The former nominee, who may have been spending nights at his wife’s residence (she never moved), can now move back to his old home. This works because Texas legislators must live in their district for one year prior to election.
In 2006, Delay “moved” to Virginia, registered to vote, got a driver’s license, and even a fishing license. The Republican party declared him disqualified, and tried to replace him. But the Democrats sued, because it was impossible to determine, even for Delay, whether he would be living in Texas in November. The Republican replacement nominee had to run as a write-in candidate, but lost because no one could spell her name.
I don’t think that write-ins in general elections are precluded by the Top 2 provisions in the state constitution. The write-in provisions in SB 6 were such gobbledygook, that they might have been accidentally scribbled in.
The constitution says that the Top 2 compete in the general election. That does not mean that other candidates could not also compete, particularly if there was a sore loser provision (like in Washington). California might require a 40% threshold to be elected in the general election, with a runoff if necessary.
JR
— get a CA voter to write-in a name in Nov and go to court !!!
@DR, Where are they going to write it?
Modify –
get a CA voter who wants to write-in 1 or more names in Nov and go to court !!!
IE demand write-in spaces for each office.
Again – from top —
14-2 is still around — regardless of all the moron judges and anti-write-in hacks and their hack State consts and laws.
@DR,
That already failed. Richard Winger said that he wanted to cast a write-in vote, and lost.
Did RW bring up 14-2 ???
@DR,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQrl6Wh8bG0
They didn’t argue 14-2.
How would you apply 14-2 to California. How would you determine the percentage of male citizens over the age of 21 who are disenfranchised?
JR —
14-2 applies in ALL States — 1866 universal adult male right to vote.
The top 1861-1865 Confed killers/enslavers had used white males (many NON-qualified voters in slave States) as cannon fodder.
Have the defendants pay for a Census — to bankrupt them even more.
The 2020 Census is scheduled to have the age-male-citizen question
— with the standard communist Donkey court cases pending.
14-2 also happened after some Elephant math genius noted that the effect of the 13 Amdt would repeal the original slave = 3/5 person in Art I, Sec 2 —
ie a HIGHER percentage of the USA H Reps in the ex-slave States — MAJOR SHOCK.
Apparently NO instant court case after the 13 Amdt took effect in Dec 1865 — NOT that the ex-Confeds could win any thing war related in the Elephant SCOTUS.
14-2 was worked on for many hours in Dec 1865-June 1866 — multiple variants.
14-2 H Reps passed text (applying to ALL offices) was amended in the Senate to the limited named offices.
Females would have to wait until World War I and the 19 Amdt.
NO enforcement of 14-2 — to the GOP’s forever disgrace
— circa 400,000 plus DEAD Union Army/Navy — dying to save Democracy in 1861-1865 —
plus multi-thousands maimed for life – NO eyes, hands, etc.
@DR,
You failed to answer my question.
Have the defendants pay for a Census — to bankrupt them even more.
–part of 2nd above
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99567
one of the Donkey communist cases — to count foreign invaders in the 2020 Census.
Not sure what court would do re fractional math to LOSE (repeat LOSE) a USA Rep seat AND a Prez Electoral College Vote
regarding write-ins —
CA 53 USA Reps
100/53 [1.00] = 1.887 pct
or 100/106 [0.50] = 0.943 pct
@DR,
Why do you think that 14-2 could be applied by a court, rather than Congress?
How would a court (or Congress) determine whether the inability to cast a write-in vote is an abridgement of the right to vote?
The Congress enacted 2 USC Sec 6 – a dubious statutory version of 14-2
§6. Reduction of representation
Should any State deny or abridge the right of any of the male inhabitants thereof, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, to vote at any election named in the amendment to the Constitution, article 14, section 2, except for participation in the rebellion or other crime, the number of Representatives apportioned to such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall have to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
(R.S. §22.)
Codification
R.S. §22 derived from act Feb. 2, 1872, ch. 11, §6, 17 Stat. 29.
——–
How many write-in votes in 1866 ???
NOT being able to write-in a vote for the specified 14-2 offices is a BLATANT denial/abridgement of the right to vote
— which even the SCOTUS morons should be able to detect.
14-2 was deemed more important than 14-1 in the two main debates in 1866.
Again- the USA regime failure to enforce 14-2 is one of THE all time disasters.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/428/case.html
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992)
—
NONE of the SCOTUS MORONS noted 14-2 — partly since the plaintiff had a MORON lawyer who failed to bring up 14-2.
****
Kennedy dissent part — noted at least —- [1888 — AFTER 1866] —
As a starting point, it is useful to remember that until the late 1800’s, all ballots cast in this country were write-in ballots. The system of state-prepared ballots, also known as the Australian ballot system, was introduced in this country in 1888. See L. E. Fredman, The Australian Ballot: The Story of an American Reform ix (1968). Prior to this, voters prepared their own ballots or used preprinted tickets offered by political parties. Since there were no state-imposed restrictions on whose name could appear on a ballot, individuals could always vote for the candidates of their choice.
State-prepared ballots were considered to be a progressive reform to reduce fraudulent election practices. The preprinted ballots offered by political parties had often been in distinctive colors so that the party could determine whether one who had sold his vote had used the right ballot. Id., at 22. The disadvantage of the new ballot system was that it could operate to constrict voter choice. In recognition of this problem, several early state courts recognized a right to cast write-in votes. See, e. g., Sanner v. Patton, 155 Ill. 553, 562-564, 40 N. E. 290, 292-293 (1895) (“[I]f the construction contended for by appellee [prohibiting write-in voting] be the correct one, the voter is deprived of the constitutional right of suffrage; he is deprived of the right of exercising his own choice; and where this right is taken away there is nothing left worthy of the name of the right of suffrage-the boasted free ballot becomes a delusion”); Patterson v. Hanley, 136 Cal. 265, 270, 68 P. 821, 823 (1902) (“Under every form of ballot of which we have had any experience the voter has been allowed-and it seems to be agreed that he must be allowed-the privilege of casting his vote for any person for
447
any office by writing his name in the proper place”); and Oughton v. Black, 212 Pa. 1, 6-7, 61 A. 346, 348 (1905) (“Unless there was such provision to enable the voter, not satisfied to vote any ticket on the ballot, or for any names appearing on it, to make up an entire ticket of his own choice, the election as to him would not be equal, for he would not be able to express his own individual will in his own way”).
As these courts recognized, some voters cannot vote for the candidate of their choice without a write-in option. In effect, a write-in ban, in conjunction with other restrictions, can deprive the voter of the opportunity to cast a meaningful ballot. As a consequence, write-in prohibitions can impose a significant burden on voting rights. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964) (“The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government”). For those who are affected by write-in bans, the infringement on their right to vote for the candidate of their choice is total. The fact that write in candidates are long shots more often than not makes no difference; the right to vote for one’s preferred candidate exists regardless of the likelihood that the candidate will be successful. Socialist Labor Party v. Rhodes, 290 F. Supp. 983, 987 (SD Ohio) (“A write-in ballot permits a voter to effectively exercise his individual constitutionally protected franchise. The use of write-in ballots does not and should not be dependent on the candidate’s chance of success”), aff’d in part, modified in part sub nom. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23 (1968).
———–
How about a PURGE of ALL law skoooools that produce the M-O-R-O-N-S who make the cases that get to SCOTUS — and that produce SCOTUS MORONS ???