On September 12, the California Republican Party and its state chair filed this brief in Patterson v Padilla, the case over whether the State Constitution bars the legislature from requiring presidential primary candidates to reveal their income tax returns.

The brief depends on the repeated attempts of former State Senator Al Alquist to reform California’s presidential primary so that all recognized candidates would automatically appear. Alquist started this mission in 1967, but he was repeatedly frustrated when Governor Ronald Reagan vetoed his bills on the presidential primary. Finally he resorted to a state constitutional amendment, which could not be vetoed. The brief points out that when the bill putting the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot was passed by the legislature in 1971, the analysis of the bill said the amendment, if enacted, meant “The Secretary of State would be required to place all publicly recognized candidates for President on the primary ballots.” The ballot pamphlet for question 4 made similar statements.

The Cranston Herald, a daily newspaper in Rhode Island, has this interview with former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee. Chafee seems to say he will seek the Libertarian Party presidential nomination.

On September 12, the California Senate Elections Committee passed SB 696, the bill to make it illegal for any party to have “Independent” or “Independence” in its party name. The bill says that the American Independent Party must choose a new name by October 29, or all its registrations will be converted to independent voters. The vote was 4-1, with the “no” vote being cast by Senator Jim Nielsen, the only Republican on the committee.

The acting chair of the committee, Senator Connie Leyva, imposed a two-minute limit on witnesses. I was one of the two witnesses opposing the bill, but in two minutes it was not possible to explain that the bill violates due process. There are a dozen precedents that when an election law restricts political opportunity for minor parties or independent candidates, it cannot take effect in time for an upcoming election, if that election is fairly close in time. One of the best precedents is the January 7, 2014 decision of a U.S. District Court in Ohio, Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, s.d. The Westlaw cite is WL 11515569. In September 2013, the Ohio legislature passed a bill that removed all four of the state’s qualified minor parties from the ballot and said they could not be on in 2014 unless they submitted a petition of 1% of the last vote cast. The due date for that petition was July 2014. The U.S. District Court upheld the constitutionality of the new restriction, but said it could not be imposed for the 2014 election.

SB 696 will probably be signed into law in the third week of September, and it will take effect immediately upon being signed by the Governor. That leaves the American Independent Party with little more than a month to choose a new name. The party has no state convention planned for te remainder of the year.

The chair’s decision to impose a two-minute limit on all testimony was arbitrary and unnecessary, because the committee was only hearing two bills on September 12, and the other bill attracted few witnesses.