The California Secretary of State’s application for candidates to appear on a presidential primary ballot is here. It is due November 26, 2019.
The California Secretary of State’s application for candidates to appear on a presidential primary ballot is here. It is due November 26, 2019.
The instructions say that candidates should include their tax fortms.
Does Padilla realize he is enjoined from doing so? Is this contempt of court?
Will any minor party candidates be able to qualify except for the 5th item:
(a) website AND
(b) written request from party on behalf of candidate.
Are any minor parties in California actively assisting candidates?
NOOO mention of CA Const Art II, Sec 5 on the now infamous form —
(c) The Legislature shall provide for partisan elections for presidential candidates, and political party and party central committees,
including an open presidential primary whereby
the candidates on the ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States,
and those whose names are placed on the ballot by petition,
but excluding any candidate who has withdrawn by filing an affidavit of noncandidacy.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&division=&title=&part=&chapter=&article=II
[part]
——–
***recognized*** = void for vagueness
NO power in any STATE legislature to define the meaning of words in a State Const UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED TO.
MOST SANE STATE CONST. HAVE THE MAGIC WORDS *** A LAW *** or *** BY LAW *** FOR ENFORCING SPECIFIC SUBJECT SECTIONS.
@DR,
See Article IV, Section 1.
Also under Article II, Section 5(c) who is it that PROVIDES for a presidential preference primary?
How does the legislature make provision? By passing implementing laws and funding the activity?
whereby the candidates on the ballot are
[AAA] those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States,
and [BBB] those whose names are placed on the ballot by petition,
but [CCC] excluding any candidate who has withdrawn by filing an affidavit of noncandidacy.
—-
AAA – recognized — void for vagueness– leaving BBB and CCC.
BAAAADE drafting due to pop culture Con Law MORONS.
@DR,
You missed the part about “the Legislature shall provide …”
You appear to believe that “placed on the ballot by petition” is not vague, even though it does not specify who, what, where, when, or why about the petitions. Please try to be consistent.
whereby the candidates on the ballot are
[AAA] those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States,
—
[AAA] does NOT REQUIRE any Legis action — void for vagueness.
[BBB] and [CCC] do REQUIRE Legis action.
@DR,
What is your legal test for vagueness? Proclamation from a crank in Michigan? IIUC, the legal test applied in criminal cases has been that the alleged criminal could not have known that he was committing an offense.
The recognized criteria has been used for the last 11 elections in California, and nary a peep from you.
JR –
See the SCOTUS cases about void for vagueness in the Const Annotated.
Lots of stuff goes on and on and on — BUT is later declared UNCON –
prime example — the UNCON SCOTUS stuff about so-called *federal common law* —
ended in 1938 Erie RR case — after being around since 1842 – mere 96 years.
In general see ConAnno Appendix — SCOTUS ops declaring USA/State laws uncon — such as the 1964 gerrymander cases –
uncon gerrymander stuff in State const back to 1868.
@DR,
Find me an application of the vagueness doctrine to a non-criminal case (or where a civil penalty was at stake).
If you were to sue the State of California, what would be your argument as to why the California Constitution is vague? What would you seek as a remedy?