Another California Bill to Alter Top-Two System

Posted on by March 31, 2013
Reply

On March 21, California State Senator Joel Anderson (R-San Diego) introduced SCA 14, which says that in California legislative races, if anyone gets at least 50% of the vote in the primary, he or she is deemed elected and that legislative office will not appear on the November ballot. He also amended one of his election law bills, SB 148, so that it implements that change if SCA 14 is approved by the voters in 2014.

If this proposal had been in effect in 2012, sixteen of the twenty State Senate races, and 39 of the 80 Assembly races, would have been settled in June instead of November. Furthermore, if this proposal had been in effect in 2012, Republicans would have been elected in four races (State Senate 27, State Senate 31, Assembly 49, and Assembly 65) in June, yet in reality, those same four Republicans were defeated in November 2012. In other words, there are four races in which someone got over 50% in June and yet lost in November. Thanks to Dave Kadlecek for news of these bills.

Opening Brief Filed in California Case Over Whether Plaintiffs Who Challenged Two Details of Proposition 14 Should Pay Attorneys Fees to Prop. 14 Supporters

Posted on by March 30, 2013
Reply

On March 29, this brief was filed in the California Court of Appeals, in Field v Bowen. At this point, the only issue remaining in this case is whether the individuals who sued to overturn two undemocratic aspects of California’s top-two law should be required to pay $243,279 in attorneys fees to the Proposition 14 supporters who intervened in the lawsuit. The linked brief is the opening brief, so it was filed by the opponents of the existing system, asking that the award for attorneys fees be overturned. The intervenors will file a brief in a month. UPDATE: here is the transcript in a parallel case, Chamness v Bowen, from the February 2013 Ninth Circuit hearing. Plaintiffs are asking the California Court of Appeals to take judicial notice of that transcript.

Ninth Circuit Will Consider Peace & Freedom Party Case over Presidential Primary Ballot Access

Posted on by March 30, 2013
Reply

On March 27, the Ninth Circuit determined that the lawsuit Peace & Freedom Party v Bowen is not a case that can be mediated. Therefore, the case will be heard by a panel of judges in the future. The case was filed on April 3, 2012, when the California Secretary of State refused to print all four of the party’s presidential primary candidates on the party’s own presidential primary ballot. Specifically, she refused to print Peta Lindsay’s name on that ballot, on the grounds that she had determined that Lindsay does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be President; she is under age 35.

The party argues that it has a right to determine which names should be listed on its presidential primary ballot. Alternatively, it argues that the Secretary of State is inconsistent, because she does not block other constitutionally ineligible candidates from appearing on California ballots. Even though the California Constitution says that legislative candidates must have lived in the district for at least a year before running, she does not enforce that constitutional provision. Also, when individuals who believe that President Obama does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be President and that she should check his qualifications before printing his name on ballots, she takes the position that she doesn’t have the authority to investigate. The Peace & Freedom Party’s lawsuit lost in U.S. District Court on December 11, 2012; the decision does not discuss the inconsistency in the Secretary of State’s position.

Mark Solomon Suggest Merger of Four U.S. Socialist Groups

Posted on by March 29, 2013
Reply

Mark Solomon is a retired history professor who has also been active as a socialist. He has written this article in Political Affairs, suggesting that these four socialist groups should talk about merging: (1) the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism; (2) the Communist Party USA; (3) Democratic Socialists of America; (4) Freedom Road Socialist Organization.

None of these four groups has run candidates for public office under their own name in several decades, if ever. The Committees of Correspondence was formed in 1991 by Communist Party members who left the Communist Party that year. Democratic Socialists of America was formed half a century ago by former Socialist Party members who had decided to work within the Democratic Party (although in its first decade it was called the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee). The Communist Party last ran its own presidential nominee in 1984. Thanks to Jack Ross for the link.