On May 31, California State Senator Tom Umberg amended his SB 505, the bill setting up details on how presidential candidates get on a presidential primary bill. The amendments make the requirements easier, compared to the original bill. Here is the text.
Existing law is very vague and gives the Secretary of State a great deal of discretion over who gets on the presidential primary ballots.
discretion = arbitrary = LAWLESS = tyranny
— esp in all election LAW stuff.
@DR,
Has it ever been a problem in the previous 11 elections?
It was a problem in 2016, when Secretary of State Alex Padilla refused to list about half of the American Independent Party’s listed candidates, and also he refused to list Jill Stein for the Peace & Freedom primary, even though PFP wanted her listed. Until 2016, California Secretaries of State simply followed the wishes of the minor parties as to which candidates to list.
ALL election stuff must be YES or NO in a flowchart – to NOT have MAJOR problems – about legality — aka being *legitimate* vs rigged.
Elector
Candidate/issue on ballots
legal votes
legal vote counts
Such election *mechanics* AIN’T subjective stuff – like movie/play reviews, art contests, sports *style* stuff, etc.
Generally it is an improvement over previous versions, which was basically looking at it from a Democratic perspective. Presumabely it was the intent to limit the field to those who qualified for the Democratic debate.
Qualification for another primary can be based on New Hampshire, which requires a filing fee of $1000. In 2016,there were 30 Republican candidates, and 28 Democratic candidates.
Minor party candidates might have to have cooperation from their parties, either by sponsoring a debate, or a request from the state party to have their name be placed on the ballot.
It is not clear what “on the candidate’s behalf” means. May a party act on a candidate’s behalf without the consent? If the primary is for the benefit of the voters, then it should not matter whether or not the candidate assents. The word ‘candidate’ does not necessarily imply that the person is seeking nomination or selection. California statute says that the SOS should recognize candidates that are generally advocated for. Presumably, the P&F leaders were aware that members were advocating for Stein’s nomination by the party.
In any case, the new law requires a filing by the candidate. The candidate simply needs to provide to the SOS that the party requested the candidate be placed on the party primary ballot, along with a website, which may be hosted by the party.
Proposition 4 (June 1972) was predicated based on the 1968 in which neither Nixon or Humphrey were on the California primary ballot. By 1972, and certainly by 1976, it was quite unlikely that a Democratic or Republican would skip California.
If the constitutional requirement were eliminated, California could still conduct a presidential preference primary. Perhaps they could go back to the blanket primary used in 2000, where votes from party registrants were tabulated separately. Candidates could file conventionally. It could be made somewhat a direct primary, by requiring a modest level of support from party voters. A candidate who wished to be on the general election ballot in California would have to participate in the primary.
Nominating petitions or filing fees.
Too difficult for Govt HACKS to understand ???
Donkey HACK morons esp love the cult/popularity NON-sense.