Independent Party Files Reply Brief in California Ballot Access Case

Posted on by April 26, 2016
7

On April 26, the Independent Party filed this reply brief in Independent Party v Padilla. The case challenges the Secretary of State’s refusal to ask the counties to tally how many registered members the party has. In California, parties get on the ballot by persuading approximately 60,000 voters to join the party via voter registration forms. The Secretary of State bases on his refusal on two grounds: (1) recognizing a political body named “Independent Party” would cause voter confusion with independent candidates; (2) the law says two parties can’t have names so similar as to cause confusion, and “American Independent Party” is already on the ballot. California has no law saying a party can’t be called the “Independent Party”, and ballot-qualified parties named “Independent Party” exist or have recently existed in eleven other states.

Of course, California no longer allows independent candidates to use the word “independent” on the ballot, except that independent presidential candidates may still use that word. California hasn’t had an independent on the ballot for president since 1992.

The case has a hearing in Sacramento on May 2, Monday, at 1:30 p.m. Mark Seidenberg will be allowed to address the court, to represent the interests of the American Independent Party.

Vermont Equalizes Timing for All Qualified Parties to Notify State of Presidential & Vice-Presidential Nominee

Posted on by April 26, 2016
Reply

Vermont election law recognizes qualified major parties (which nominate by primary) and qualified minor parties (which nominate by convention). The Vermont election law says that major parties don’t need to tell the state whom the party’s presidential and vice-presidential candidates are until September 14, 2016. That law, section 2716, sets their deadline as 55 days before the general election.

But the law also seems to say that qualified minor parties must tell the state whom their presidential and vice-presidential candidates are by May 26.

On April 26, the Vermont Secretary of State ruled that although qualified minor parties must indeed certify the names of their presidential and vice-presidential candidates by May 27, they may use stand-ins for both offices. So, if the party hasn’t chosen its actual national ticket by that date, when the actual choice is made, the stand-ins can withdraw and the state will accept replacements.

The Secretary of State also will ask the legislature to amend the election law so that both types of qualified parties in the future will have the same late deadline. Thanks to Oliver Hall for this news.

Colorado Bill for a Presidential Primary

Posted on by April 25, 2016
3

On April 25, a bill to establish a Colorado presidential primary was introduced by Representative Dominick Moreno (D-Commerce City) and Tim Dore (R-Elizabeth). Under current law, Colorado uses caucuses. Here is the text of HB 1454.

The bill would let the Governor choose any Tuesday in March for the presidential primary date. Only parties that polled at least 20% for President in the last election could have a presidential primary. Candidates would need 1,500 signatures of party members; and in addition they would need to have raised enough campaign funds to theoretically qualify for primary season matching funds ($5,000 in each of 20 states). It is not clear how the Secretary of State of Colorado would know whether that qualification has been met.

Independent voters could vote in a presidential primary. By asking for a presidential primary ballot, they would be deemed to be members of that party, but their party membership would automatically expire a few weeks after the primary.