Why can’t a group of individual voters engage in political association in support of an individual candidate; and a different group with some overlap engage in political association in support of another individual candidate for another office?

Why can voters who support Joe for city council, also support Mary or Sally for mayor; but if Joe were to run for Congress, they might be able to support him, but not support Mary in her run for the state senate.

The current partisan primary system has evolved into a system of political racketeering, where voters must affiliate with political parties in order to effectively engage in the process of electing their public officers.

If Joe and Mary and Sally want to seek elective office, why not simply let them gather a modest number of signatures on a petition and have them placed on the ballot where every voter could simply vote whether they want Joe or Mary or Sally to represent them.

One guess — due to armies of MORON lawyers and party hack judges incapable of understanding the English language.

SB 6 added subsection 8605 (c) that eliminates any threshold test for qualification in voter-nominated primary. A declared write-in candidate qualifies for the general election if they finish in the Top 2.

SB 6 also added Section 8606, which is totally garbled. It may mean that (A) a vote (not a person) for a declared write-in candidate may not be counted. Or it may mean that (B) votes for a declared write-in candidate must be counted, but even if that candidate receives the most votes they can not be elected.

California law requires that a voter may always cast a write-in vote, and that a candidate may always campaign as a write-in candidate, and it requires that ballots have a space for write-in votes.

It however, limits the counting of write-in votes to declared write-in candidates who follow certain procedures specified in Sections 8600-8604. California places a blank on the ballot, and a voter may write “Donald Duck”, and Mr. Duck may campaign as a write-in candidate. But the vote for Duck will not count unless he has complied with declaration requirements of Sections 8600-4. Mr. Duck can not comply with sections 8605 or 8606, since those are restrictions of election officials not on a candidate.

If Section 8606 were challenged in court, the court could rule that it was gobbledygook, and that there is no conceivable rational reason for having a gobbledygook regulation that would limit the write to vote.

Or it could adopt interpretation (A), which would mean that a candidate could declare as a write-in candidate in order that write-in votes for him be counted, but that nonetheless that the write-in votes would not be counted. Would California really attempt to defend such a scheme, where it prints a blank on ballots for write-in votes, provides a method by which a candidate can declare that he wants the votes to be counted, and then not count the votes???

Or it could adopt interpretation (B), which would mean that a candidate could declare as a write-in candidate in order that write-in votes for him be counted, the votes would be counted, and even if the write-in candidate had the most votes, they would not be elected???

I can’t find the January 30 version on either the AG web site or in the SOS initiative report (but the bracketing dates were 1/28/2009 and 2/18/2009).

Prop 62 in 2004 explicitly stated that a candidate who was registered with a non-qualified party would be shown as “No Party” on the ballot. That is, it was recognized that it was quite legal to have a valid party registration with an unqualified party – and that to limit ballot designations to only certain parties required explicit language.

It is quite clear from the whole scheme that California uses to regulate party affiliation and qualification, that registration with with an unqualified party is not only legal, but in some cases necessary in order for a party to become qualified.

So in context the “party” that one may affiliate with on their voter registration is different from the “party” defined in Section 338, which refers to a subset of the parties that voters may have declared on their registration.

SB 6 adds “300.5. ‘Affiliated with a political party” as used in reference to a voter or to a candidate for a voter-nominated office means the party preference that the voter or candidate has disclosed on his or her affidavit of registration.”

In the context of a voter-nominated office, this definition overrides that of “party” found in Section 338. If a candidate for a voter-nominated office has disclosed a preference for the SalmonYoga party on his registration affidavit, then that is indeed his party affiliation for his candidacy.

A voter certifies the truth and correctness of the information on his voter affidavit, subject to charges of perjury. California could always charge a voter with perjury if they had reasonable cause that the voter was not truthful when they disclosed a preference for the SalmonYoga party. This would probably be a very difficult charge to prove and win a conviction on.

So while SB 6 could have restricted a candidate’s party preference to that of a qualified party, SB 6 does not. I don’t know whether or not the Peace initiative had any such language. If it did, it did not make it into SB 6.

Any side by side sentences for comparisons — of who did what when ???

Standard legislative history stuff — necessary now since the party hack courts mystify all language all the time.

You have claimed that the Maldonado measure was written in the middle of the night. Are you sure that it is the same as the Peace initiative?

Prop 62 was quite explicitly clear that it restricted party affiliation to qualified parties. That is absolutely not the case for SCA 4/SB 6.

So either the Maldonado version and the Peace version are different; or they are the same and were incompetently written such that even if the drafters intended to restrict parties to qualified parties, they failed to do so.

If the 2006 election in Texas CD 22 had been contested using Top 2, there would have been different candidates on the ballot. If not for an adverse court ruling, Sekulla Gibbs would have been on the ballot in 2006. And she won a special election for the final 2 months of the term, under a special election conducted under the identical format as will occur under the Top 2 system proposed for California. I will leave it up to you to defend the idea of a March primary, and a requirement of filing for an office less than half way through a 2 year term.

If the 1996 election in California AD 30 had been conducted under Top 2, Brian Setencich would have been on the November ballot.

The 1996 election particular illustrates the problem with the current partisan primary system. Jim Costa(D) had been elected to the seat in 1992 with 65% of the vote, and then switched to the senate. Setencich narrowly won the open seat in the 1994 election, likely benefiting from the Republican congressional resurgence that year. This gave the Republicans a one-vote majority in the Assembly.

Paul Horcher, a Republican turned Independent from Los Angeles voted with the Democrats to keep Willie Brown in power. Horcher was recalled, but later was given a job in San Francisco by Brown, who was mayor by then.

Doris Allen, a Republican from Orange County along with Setencich then supported Brown, with Allen being named Speaker. Like Horcher, Allen was recalled. She ran for election to her old seat as a Republican under the blanket primary in 1998. Had it been conducted as a Top 2 election, she would have qualified for the general election.

After Allen’s recall, Setencich was named speaker. After Brown was elected mayor, he was booted from the speakership. In return for his support, the Democrats did not field a candidate for his seat (remember they narrowly lost in 1994, and Costa had won with 65% support in 1992). Setencich was defeated in the Republican primary. So Willie Brown denied Democrats the right to vote for their assemblyman in a political deal. It was in the general election that Setencich attempted to be elected as a write-in candidate.

Setencich was also given a job in the Brown administration. The Democrats retook his Assembly seat in 1998, and in 2000 held it with a 66% majority.

Had Horcher or Allen been elected under a Top 2 system, there may have been less of sense that their seats were a possession of a political party. If they had been elected with broader support they may have been able to withstand the recall challenge. And had all voters regardless of their political affiliation been able to vote in the primary, Setencich might well have been re-elected.

Current law — proposed law – with changes (in under 10,000 words please — to reduce having total confusion).

The M proposal seems to be written in perfectly clear English with ZERO doubt about what it means and what it will do if approved — i.e. Put many extremist party hacks out of business after 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or more elections — i.e. to encourage the moderates to get their acts together.

Again — for the M proposal — see (June 2010)

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm