The California legislature seems likely to pass SB 696, which makes it illegal for party to have “Independent” or “Independence” in its name. In the history of government-printed ballots, 47 states have at one time had a party on the ballot that used one of those words.

In 1908, William Randolph Hearst supported a party called the Independence Party, which ran Congressman Thomas Hisgen for president. It was on the ballot in almost all states.

In 1967-68, George Wallace formed a new party in most states, and in many states it was called the American Independent Party.

There have been ballot-qualified parties named Independence Party, or Independent Party, in recent decades in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, and Vermont.

Parties in which the word “Independent” or “Independence” is, or was, part of a two-word party name have been: Alabama Independent Democratic Party (which placed Hubert Humphrey on the 1968 ballot); the Alaskan Independence Party; the Independent American Party in Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah; the Independent Democratic Party of Georgia; the Independent Republican Party of Illinois; the Green Independent Party of Maine; the Independent Voters Party of Massachusetts; the People’s Independent Party of Nebraska; and the Virginia Independent Party.

Bonnie Kristian, contributing editor to The Week, writes here that she believes Justin Amash could be re-elected to the U.S. House in 2020 as an independent. Her column does not mention the straight-ticket device, nor the fact that no independent has ever been elected to congress from Michigan, nor to either house of the Michigan legislature. However, that is partly because the Michigan election law did not allow for independent candidates until 1976.

On July 5, a state trial court in Arizona ruled that the Green Party is ballot-qualified within the city of Tucson for the 2019 election. Arizona law says that a party that wins qualified status keeps that status for two elections. Yet Tucson election officials had said they did not think the Green Party was ballot-qualified for 2019, even though the party had earned status in the 2017 city election.

The judge wrote, “The City of Tucson and its clerk abused their discretion and acted arbitrarily and capriciously by not including the Green Party as a political party qualified for the August 27, 2019 primary election ballot.”