The California legislature resumes its session on Monday, August 17. Among the bills that will probably move ahead are those to establish the Indirect Initiative, to tell independent voters that they may vote in either the Democratic, Republican, or American Independent primary, to outlaw paying circulators on a per-signature basis, to let a few non-charter cities or counties use Instant Runoff Voting for their own elections, and to deregulate the Democratic Party.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
“to outlaw paying circulators on a per-signature basis,”???
I don’t think that could survive a constitutional challenge, but Isn’t that similar to what ACORN does by paying people to gather and register democrat voters, while wearing Obama buttons?
What is the difference?
how are they going to deregulate the democratic party? please explain
I am the Vice Chairman of the American Independent
Party. On January 10, 2006 the then Chairperson of
the American Independent Party wrote the California
Secretary of State and gave disinformation that the
State Central Committee of the American Independent
Party held a meeting during the circa January 1, 2006 to January 10, 2006 and voted to except the
terms of S. B 28 and open up the 2006 primary election to register voters that declined to state
a political party affiliation at the time of their
registration.
Fact there was no meeting of the State Central Committee of the American Independent Party during the date range of January 1, 2006 and Januuary 10,
2006.
I have been an officer of the American Independent
Party since 2004. If called on I can state these facts.
If any member of the State Ce
This should be considered by the Caliifornia Legiislature
If the state forces parties to let independents vote in their primaries, the parties will have an excellent chance of having that reversed through litigation. To my knowledge, only Arizona and Nebraska have such laws, and Nebraska’s only applies to congressional primaries.
In 2007, a federal court ruled that Arizona’s Libertarians did not have to let independents into their primaries, but neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have brought suit against the law.
The US Supreme Court’s 1986 Tashjian decision, of course, gave parties the right to invite independents into their primaries.
Also, it’s my understanding that there’s been at least one court ruling upholding paying petition circulators on a per-signature basis.
De-regulating the Democratic Party in California means the election code would no longer contain laws on how the party should run its own affairs and organize itself. Instead the party would create its own rules, and publish them on the internet.
Is it constitutional to enact a law that only applies to one political party?
yes. Already California has different rules for different political party internal organization.
Primary elections were established by the two major parties about 1910 to stop the Populist movement, Republicans because they did not want anything like Populism getting started in their party and Democrats because they were tired of populist candidate William Jennings Bryan being defeated every election for President. Primary elections insured that no other candidates could challenge the candidates of their two corrupt parties, all paid for by the taxpayers. Since I am a taxpayer, I do not want to be paying for elections that take away my rights and that I cannot vote in. Let political parties pay for their own primary elections.
Independent voters need to start registering as candidates according to whatever un-Constitutional state laws exist at state level for independent candidates, especially for state and local offices. The expectation of these candidates cannot be immediate electon to office. It is not going to happen. Candidates for office can register voters.
Independent voters now outnumber Democrats for the first time since 1800. Register as a candidate and then register some voters. We need to put some distance between the largest political party and independent voters in terms of numbers. In Arizona and California both major parties have been decreasing in numbers for a couple of years.
Arizona passed an open primary initiative in 1998. Party legislators then moved the Presidential Primary from September to February and obtained an opinion from State Attorney General Janet Napolitano that since the open primary legislation did not mention the Presidential Primary by name, independent voters would not be allowed to vote in the Presidential Primary. Then the Libertarian Party obtained a judgement in federal court that independent voters could not vote in their primary. In effect, the open primary initiative has been totally nullified in Arizona.
Let us define what independent voters are. Independent voters are United States citizens registered to vote. All voters in the United States were independent voters until the election of 1800 because there were no organized political parties in the United States before that election.
Political parties are self created societies that seek to control elections and establish special status for themselves in government. Voter registration is the way to turn back party control. In 1988 voter registration in Arizona was at 48%. It has now increased about ten percentage points. That still leaves a lot of people not registered to vote.
Instead of complaining about party primaries, independent voters need to register as independent candidates and start registering voters.
In Arizona in 2004, the turnout in the primary relative to party registration was: GOP 39%, Democratic 26%, Libertarian 19%.
In 2006, GOP 33%, Democratic 29%, Libertarian 24%.
In 2008, GOP 34%, Democratic 29%, Green 35%, Libertarian 9%.
Turnout in the Libertarian primary decreased by 62% from 2006 to 2008.
Why would the other parties want to follow that example?
The Supremes ruled in 1989 that the party hacks in a regime have ZERO power to make laws for the *internal* party hack clubby moron stuff in each party.
Public laws can ONLY apply to the party hack stuff directly involving party hack primaries, caucuses and conventions for PUBLIC offices.
Sorry – party hack parties are NOT independent regimes from outer space doing what THEY want to do regarding PUBLIC office nominations (and filling candidate vacancies in such PUBLIC offices).
Ever hear of ONE person – ONE vote in elections ???
Public primaries got going in 1889-1890 — causing the ballot access problems for minor parties and independents since (due to the party hack MORON Supremes — since 1968).
This AIN’T atomic physics — constitutional law version.
Minor party primaries almost always have lower turnout than major party primaries, for the simple reason that minor parties almost never have contested primaries (except their presidential primaries are usually contested). For that reason, it has been my personal opinion for 45 years that minor parties should nominate by convention, not by primary.
#8: Prior to the early 1900s, primaries were optional for parties. Wisconsin was probably first to require parties to nominate by primary; Washington state enacted primaries in 1907.
In Mississippi in the late 1800s, county parties sometimes nominated by convention and sometimes by primary. But the state Democratic Party always nominated by convention, and it was much easier for the party insiders to control those nominations. So a movement developed to require all nominations to be made by primary. Direct primary bills failed in the biennial legislative sessions of 1896, 1898, and 1900, before finally passing in 1902. In the first statewide Democratic primary (1903), the populist (small “p”) candidate for governor won; he had failed to be nominated in the conventions of 1895 and 1899.
See Kirwan’s book Revolt of the Rednecks.
In 1995, a federal appeals court said that, when the state mandates that parties hold primaries, the parties cannot be forced to pay for those primaries (Republican Party of Arkansas v. Faulkner County).
You mention California and Arizona. California’s county and muncicipal elections are nonpartisan; last year, the only party primary in which CA independents were NOT eligible to vote was the Republican presidential primary.
Arizona independents are eligible (by law) to vote in Democratic and Republican primaries, other than for president; it’s up to each party as to whether independents vote in presidential primaries. The likely reason the Democrats nor the Republicans don’t file suit against the state law is that Sen. McCain would slam them.
When independents are eligible to vote in party primaries, voters have less incentive to register with a party.
When independents are the only non-members eligible to vote in a party primary, that’s a semi-closed (not “open”) primary.
#11 What was notable was the drop in percentage of persons voting in the Libertarian primary after they closed their primary.
Turnout in the Libertarian primary decreased by 62% from 2006 to 2008.
I don’t think they had any contested races in any year for any race. I agree that they would have had lower percentages than the major parties, but for non-affiliated voters choosing their primary on election day – a practice that the Libertarians in Arizona have now outlawed.
So the question remains, why would the Democrats or Republicans want to follow the Libertarians example?
Here is data present by party.
GOP: 39%, 33%, 34% (for 2004, 2006, 2008)
Democrats: 26%, 29%, 29%
Libertarians: 19%, 24%, 9%
Green: -, -, 35%
#13: The state is no longer compelling Arizona’s Libertarians to let independents vote in their primaries, but the party could still invite independents into its primaries if it wanted to.