C. T. Weber, a veteran activist in the Peace & Freedom Party and a former state chair of that party, has this commentary on the California measure known as the “top-two open primary”. Weber’s commentary appears on the Peace & Freedom Party’s blog.
C. T. Weber, a veteran activist in the Peace & Freedom Party and a former state chair of that party, has this commentary on the California measure known as the “top-two open primary”. Weber’s commentary appears on the Peace & Freedom Party’s blog.
The Alabama House Constitution and Elections Committee will hear HB 142 on January 27. This bill lowers the number of signatures for an independent candidate (for office other than president) from 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, to 1.5% of the last gubernatorial vote. For 2010, the number for a statewide office would drop from 37,513 signatures, to 18,757 signatures. The bill’s author is Representative Cam Ward (R-Alabaster). Thanks to Don Webb for this news. UPDATE: the hearing is at 9 a.m., in Room 603 of the State House Building, 11 S. Union St., Montgomery.
Two members of the California legislature are pondering whether or not to introduce a bill to ease the ballot access petition requirements for statewide independent candidates. They have at least gone to the trouble of asking the Legislative Counsel to draft language for such a proposed bill.
Californians for Electoral Reform is working for this goal. The existing California law requires statewide independent candidates to obtain 173,041 valid signatures for 2010. In the entire history of the U.S., no candidate has ever overcome a petition requirement greater than 134,781 signatures. That was done by Ross Perot in California in 1992. A “candidate petition” means a petition that names a candidate.
In 1973, the legislature appointed an independent commission to suggest changes in the Election Code. The commission, headed by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters and the president of the League of Women Voters of California, recommended that the statewide independent petition be set at 10,000 signatures. The commission also recommended 3,000 signatures for independent candidates for U.S. House and State Senate, and 1,500 signatures for Assembly candidates. The legislature did not act on that recommendation, although it did pass some of the other suggestions of the commission.
On January 19, the South Florida Tea Party, Inc., a non-profit organization seeking 501(c)(4) status, filed a lawsuit in federal court against the ballot-qualified Tea Party. The lawsuit asks the court to order the qualified minor political party to change its name. The case is South Florida Tea Party, Inc., v Tea Party, sou. dist, 10-80062-cv. UPDATE: on February 17, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which makes the same demand that the party change its name. The new complaint has many more Tea Party groups listed as co-plaintiffs, including some from states other than Florida.
The Complaint seems internally contradictory. Near the beginning it says, “The Defendants organization of a political party that utilizes the phrase ‘Tea Party’ is not in and of itself objectionable or unlawful.” But toward the end, when it summarizes what relief it is asking for, it asks for a court order that the ballot-qualified minor party “be required to amend their filings with the appropriate office of the State of Florida such that their registered political party currently registered as ‘Tea Party’ must include other terms in order to avoid public confusion that the Florida ‘Tea Party’ is somehow endorsed or approved by the Plaintiffs and other persons or entities that are similarly situated.”
The group that filed the lawsuit says that the tea party movement “are working toward reform within the Republican Party and view third party candidacies as counterproductive.”
The ballot-qualified Tea Party gained recognition as a political party in Florida in August 2009. Florida is the only state in which there is a ballot-qualified political party called “Tea Party” (the Boston Tea Party is no longer a ballot-qualified party in Florida and was never a qualified party in any other state).
In 1997, the 2nd circuit ruled in United We Stand America, Inc., v United We Stand, America New York, 128 F 3d 86, that the federal law on trademarks does cover political organizations. However, the recent Florida complaint does not allege that the Tea Party movement has trademarked its name. The complaint points out that the ballot-qualified party has not trademarked its name. Thanks to John Wayne Smith for this news. To read the complaint, go to this story at TPMMuckraker, which has a link to the Complaint.
