California Secretary of State Approves Political Body Status for Americans Elect

Posted on by April 1, 2011
10

On March 24, the California Secretary of State determined that Americans Elect may qualify as a political body in California. A “political body” in California is a group that has identified its officers, and which says that it is trying to qualify as a political party.

By contrast, in 1995, a former California Secretary of State had ruled that the Independence Party could not qualify as a political body in California. The law says that a new party’s name “shall not be so similar to the name of an existing party so as to mislead the voters, and shall not conflict with that of any existing party or political body that has previously filed notice.” The American Independent Party has been qualified in California since 1968.

The Secretary of State had also, earlier this year, approved political body status for American Third Position. Back in 1896, the California Supreme Court had ruled that the National Democratic Party was permitted to use that name, despite the fact that the Democratic Party was on the ballot.

Americans Elect is now trying to qualify as a political party in California with the petition procedure, which is so difficult that it has not been used since 1947-1948. It requires a number of signers equal to 10% of the last gubernatorial vote.

U.S. District Court Strikes Down New Mexico Law that Limits Whom Parties May Nominate

Posted on by April 1, 2011
4

On March 31, U.S. District Court Judge Judith Herrera ruled that New Mexico cannot tell political parties that they can only nominate people who are registered members of that party. Woodruff v Herrera, 1:09-cv-449. The case was brought by Alan Woodruff, a registered member of the Green Party, but the decision applies to all political parties, major and minor alike. Here is the 31-page decision. The part about whom parties may nominate starts on page 24.

The basis for the decision is the language in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut, a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision that said, “Were the state to provide that only Party members might be selected as the Party’s chosen nominees for public office, such a prohibition of potential association with nonmembers would clearly infringe upon the rights of the Party’s members under the First Amendment to organize with like-minded citizens in support of common political goals.”

This is only the second lawsuit to have struck down a state law that told parties they may not nominate a non-member, since the U.S. Supreme Court issued that opinion. The first such lawsuit was in Colorado state court in 1988, and that was won by the Democratic Party. Many years later, that outcome was useful when, in 2010, the Constitution Party was permitted to choose Tom Tancredo as its candidate for Governor. Although Tancredo had registered with the Constitution Party shortly before the party nominated him, Colorado had previously had a duration of membership requirement that would have blocked the party from choosing him if it had not been for the 1988 court decision and the changes to the statute that were made as a result.

Michael Chamness Appeals to 9th Circuit; Court asks for Response from State by Noon on April 1

Posted on by March 31, 2011
22

At 4:40 p.m. on March 31, Michael Chamness appealed to the 9th circuit, in his lawsuit to force elections officials to allow him to be listed on the ballot as either “independent” or “My party preference is the Coffee Party.” The 9th circuit quickly asked the Secretary of State’s attorneys to file a response by noon, April 1. The case is Chamness v Bowen. If Chamness gets no relief, his ballot label will be “No party preference”. The U.S. District Court Judge in this case had denied relief to Chamness on March 30.

The election is set for May 17, to fill the vacant U.S. House seat, 36th district, in Los Angeles County. The seat is empty because Congresswoman Jane Harman resigned. The overseas absentee ballots are about to be printed, so this case is moving very fast.

Asheville, North Carolina City Councilmember will Try to Qualify as an Independent for U.S. House in 2012

Posted on by March 31, 2011
1

Cecil Bothwell says he will attempt to get on the ballot in North Carolina’s 11th district in 2012, as an independent candidate. No independent candidate has ever appeared on a government-printed ballot in North Carolina for either house of Congress. The current law requires a petition signed by 4% of the registered voters. However, bills are pending in each house of the legislature to ease the requirements.

Bothwell is a member of the Asheville city council. He is upset with the incumbent Democrat in this district. See this story. Thanks to ThirdPartyDaily for the link.