The Washington Post has this article about General James Norman Mattis, who is being urged to run by anti-Trump Republicans as an independent.
Here is the wikipedia article about Mattis. Mattis is age 65. This recent article quotes Mattis as saying that he has not even thought about running for President.
On April 26, Donald Trump tweeted that Bernie Sanders has been treated badly by the Democratic Party and that Sanders ought to run as an independent. See this story.
James Nevius, writing in The Guardian, imagines what the 2016 U.S. presidential race would be like if all states used Instant Runoff Voting in presidential elections. Thanks to Jack Dean for the link.
According to this article, it is likely that the only two candidates on the November 2016 ballot in California’s 46th district will be Democrats. In the primary, there are four Republicans running, and three Democrats. It is probable that with four Republicans in the race, no Republican will manage to place first or second. The 46th district is in Orange County, California’s third-most populous county. No incumbent is running, because the incumbent, Loretta Sanchez, is running for U.S. Senate.
California has used top-two in two elections so far, 2012 and 2014. Although there have been some November U.S. House races in those years between two Democrats in Los Angeles County, so far there have been no Democrat-versus-Democrat general election races in any of the U.S. House races to the south and east of Los Angeles County. Those counties include Orange, San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, all very populous.
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.
