The most obscure California partisan elected office is Board of Equalization. The state is divided into four districts, each of which elects a member to the State Board of Equalization, which deals with taxes.
As of Monday morning, November 12, Mike Schaefer, a Democrat, has 49.8% of the votes against his Republican opponent, State Senator Joel Anderson. California still has millions of uncounted ballots, and there is a strong tendency for the late-counted ballots to be more Democratic than Republican. It is quite likely that when all the ballots are counted, Schaefer will have won the election.
Schaefer has been a champion of write-in voting. In 1986 he was the attorney who won a decision from the California Supreme Court, Canaan v Abdelnour, that both the U.S. Constitution and the California constitution protect the right of voters to cast a write-in vote. He had sued San Diego, which did not permit write-ins in city run-off elections, and he won the case 6-1.
But, that win for voting rights was wiped out by the California Supreme Court in 2002, in another case Schaefer handled, Edelstein v Nishioka. San Francisco, in its last Mayoral election before switching to ranked choice voting, barred write-ins in its December 1999 Mayoral runoff. A write-in candidate sued and won in the State Court of Appeals in 2001, but the next year the California Supreme Court reversed, and wiped out the Canaan precedent. That is why California has been able to ban write-ins for Congress and partisan state office in general elections.
Schaefer also won a landmark qualifications case, when he represented himself in Schaefer v Townsend. In that case, the 9th circuit ruled in June 2000 that Article One of the U.S. Constitution does not permit states to require congressional candidates to be registered voters. Schaefer at the time wanted to run in a special congressional election in California, but he was barred from the ballot because he was not a registered California voter. He couldn’t register in California because he was a resident of Las Vegas at the time. California asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Schaefer’s win, but the Supreme Court declined to hear the state’s appeal.
Schaefer’s likely win in this month’s election has received little press attention so far. He is 80 years old, has run for other elected office dozens of times over the last few decades in Maryland, Nevada, and California, and had not come close to winning. He had been elected to the San Diego city council when he was in his 20’s, but had not won an election since then.
The conclusion of a California court about the US Constitution was wrong. The San Diego runoff was eight months after the election. That was really stupid.
If you keep hitting your thumb with a hammer, the solution is not to change the color of your finger-nail polish. Similarly, if the problem is an eight-month gap between the election and the runoff, the solution is not to permit write-ins.
“there is a strong tendency for the late-counted ballots to be more Democratic than Republican.”
That’s because they “find” them in all sorts of places. That’s how Democrats win.
NO write-ins — BLATANT violation of 14-2.
Too many MORON so-called lawyers and esp judges to count.
—
Find Donkey ballots on the Moon, on Mars, in the Titanic, in graveyards, in abandoned bank vaults, etc. ???
How many STOLEN FELONY so-called *elections* — esp. with alleged Donkey winners ???
See 1960 Chicago, IL for USA Prez.
How about TOTAL MOBILIZATION to count ALL ballots – the second after polls close ???
ALL able-bodied folks to the count ballots front line — COB FRONT
— to at least personally watch all the counting machinations (with videos).
Related matter – ALL ballots — DEADLINE — Election Day.
NO after Election Day ballots — even from Mars or another universe.
Each ballot now = a matter of National Security
— like WAR codes and orders — regardless of ALL whiners / morons.
A week after the election “California still has millions of uncounted ballots…”
Does anyone see a problem with this???
Mail-in voting a disaster for honest elections, and for the public’s trust in “the system”. Mail-in voting should be outlawed. And early voting, without cause, should also be done away with.
Absentee balloting should be a 3 step process –
1. The voter requests an absentee ballot at least three weeks before election day attesting to the legally acceptable reason for requesting the absentee ballot.
2. Absentee ballots must be received before election day (mail, UPS, drop-off, whatever). A web query system can provide voters with assurance that their should be ballot is received.
3. Absentee ballots would be tabulated at the polling place of the voter, overseen by election judges of the voter’s precinct. Tabulation would be during the regular vote counting, not separately.
Additionally, elections would use the same paper ballot for both absentee and in-person voting. Paper ballots would be marked with a #2 pencil or black pen or magic marker. The mechanics of the scanning technology would never touch the paper. A human would put the paper on the scan table, wait for the successful scan indicator to flash green, then put the next one on the scan table. As ballots are numbered, there would be no chance of scanning the same ballot twice. Note that the ballot is one piece of paper. This insures ballot integrity. If it is 5 feet long, so be it – the scan table would be 5 feet long.
I realize that the federal government doesn’t have the authority over state elections, so the federal law would have to apply only to congressional and presidential races. However, all states would quickly adopt this for local elections.
Such common-sense changes might make the citizenry trust the system more, although at this point in the decline of our republic, I’m not sure it matters.
Don Wills- you make entirely too much sense!
I do not understand what Jim Riley is talking about. He should read Schaefer v. Townsend, 215 F3d 1031 if that case is his concern. I think there are few problems in the counting; and if we did not have accommoations for many who cannot conveniently get to the polls, we would have many fewer voters. Just as America wanted a change, and elected Trump, California wants some changes are created the blue wave. All the candidates are able. We need to re-visit how we do business. That requires some new faces. My opponent is already running for a 2020 county supervisor seat, 24 months hence, when I am focused on this year 4 year vacant term. Whomever wins can do the job. The pay is 50% too high, as the responsibilities have been cut more than 50%. I will seek to fix that if given the opportunity.
Oregon survives — ALL snail mail paper ballots.
Is the Oregon regime any more/less rotted than other State regimes ???
THE REAL problems —
minority rule gerrymanders
party hack exec/judic officers
lack of TOTAL Separation of Powers
All 3 with election connections.
—
PR, AppV, Total SOP
DW wrote —
I realize that the federal government doesn’t have the authority over state elections.
—
SEE the RFG in 4-4 and EPC in 14-1 along with 15, 19, 26 Amdts
Amendments 15, 19, 26 have nothing whatsoever to do with my suggestions with respect to administration of elections. I have no idea what an RFG or an EPC is.
My sentence should have been:
“With certain exceptions regarding *who* can vote, the federal government doesn’t have the authority over state elections.”
@Mike Schaefer,
I was referring to Canaan v Abdelnour. The SCOTUS in Burdick v Takushi essentially determined that your and the California court’s interpretation of the 1st Amendment was wrong.
Voting itself is not expression. Some would argue that if they draw pictures on their ballot, that their “speech” is abridged if those pictures are not reproduced.
DW — What would Feds do if a State says that each Donkey has 10 (10) votes and all non-Donkeys have 1 (1) vote ???
How about look at 4-4 and 14-1 ???
Add 14-2 and 24 Amdt to the list.
—
Supp to JR –
1 Amdt – speech, press = AIN’T *election mechanics* — ballot access and voting.
Limiting const. language is generally due to some rotted actions by rotted past regimes
– esp the DARK AGE Brit regime.
Again – see the book (now on internet) —
Sources of Our Liberties ed. by Richard L. Perry (ABA 1959)
— legal history of USA Const Amdts 1-8.
Bit more —
NO special marking of ballots — to reduce bribes/threats.
IE — NO drawings of Donkeys / Elephants / green trees / Statue of Liberty / etc. on ballots —
or even text of DOI or 1st Amdt.
Single Transferable Vote please! A candidate would need only almost 21% of the vote to get a seat. More representative than single member district vote.
Exact PR with 5 member districts and Condorcet —
estimated 10-12 percent for the lowest winner.
See current primary results – esp if no incumbent
— also CA top 2 primary results.
Larger factions would split over some issue — esp. who gets govt $$$.
The US Supreme Court in Burdick v Takushi said write-ins can be forbidden if ballot access is easy. Then the Court determined that Hawaii had easy ballot access, so it was OK for Hawaii to ban write-ins. That logic does not mean all write-in bans are constitutional. The US Supreme Court has never said flatly that voting is not protected by the free speech provision of the US Constitution, and most winning constitutional ballot access cases are based on the First Amendment.
The SCOTUS HACKS write all sorts of JUNK stuff —
that later gets OVER-RULED.
See Const Anno — the Appendix of OVER-RULED ops
— prime example – the 1938 Erie RR case
— over-ruling a mere 96 years of JUNK MORON ops about alleged *federal common law*.
IE — New Age SCOTUS ops are about as good as weather forecasts a year in the future plus/minus 5,000 miles.
—
Again – write-ins — 14-2.
How many write-ins in 1860-1866 ???
Too difficult for the SCOTUS MORONS or what ???
Golly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What?????????????????????????
See how annoying all that is Demo Rep? Complete sentences are nice. Complete thoughts are even nicer.
How juvenile MORON stupid is CL ???
Answer — well qualified to write SCOTUS juvenile MORON stupid ops
— 300 page opinions full of JUNK MORON complete sentences
— esp. in election LAW cases.
@Richard Winger,
Any decisions based on the 1st Amendment are based on political association rights, and not on any purported right to have votes for Donald Duck reported.
SCOTUS HACKS have perverted the 1st Amdt like the perversions of the general welfare and inter-State commerce cls in 1-8 and DP cl in 14-1.
— IE — being a super-legislature
— with total contempt for the USA Const, the limited powers of the USA Congress and all States.
See the recent Kav. hearings – with the ravings of all the RED communist usual suspects.