Anyone may read the California ballot pamphlet arguments on the statewide measures, pro and con, at this link to the Secretary of State’s web page. The material will only be on-line between February 23 and March 15. It is possible that some of the neutral descriptions about the measures will change.
Proposition 15 is the measure for public funding of campaigns. The public funding measure arguments in favor are by officers of the American Association of Retired Persons, the California Nurses Association, and California Church Impact. The public funding opponents are officers of the California Senior Advocates League, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, and the Los Angeles Police Protective League.
Proposition 14 is the top-two open primary measure. Arguments in favor are by officers of the Chamber of Commerce, the American Association of Retired Persons, and the Alliance for Jobs. Arguments in opposition are by officers of the California Firefighters Association, the United Nurses Association of California/Union of Health Care Professionals, and the California School Employees Association. The argument in opposition also quotes the President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, with his permission.
The CA SOS web page should have a mini-mini listing of the main subject of each proposal.
How many zillions of trees die to produce the voter guides ???
How many postal snail folks get injured carrying the tons of voter guides to each registered voter ???
Richard–is there any plan to organize a comprehensive listing of those organizations opposed to Prop 14?
The claim by Kevin Nida, Allan Clark, and Kathy Sackman that independent candidates will be forced off the ballot is demonstrably false.
Since 1990 there have been 12 independent candidates on the ballot for offices that have been designated ‘voter-nominated’ in a total of 1579 races (0.76%).
Despite the relative dearth of independent candidates, 8 of the 12 would have qualified for the general election under a Top 2 system.
One reason for the rarity of independent candidates is the barrier that California has placed to qualify for the ballot. Statewide offices require 173,000 signatures. State Board of Equalization require well over 100,000 (if a non-party team of candidates contested all 4 seats, it would require over half a million signatures to qualify). Congressional and legislative offices require thousands of signatures, typically over 10,000 for Congress and Senate, and 6,000 for the Assembly.
The Secretary of State decimated the population of Congressional District 38 in this report , Even if 9 out of 10 voters were to suddenly disappear in this Pomona-Norwalk district, 751 signatures would be required to qualify for the ballot.
Under the complementary legislation to Proposition 14, the signature requirement for statewide offices would be reduced to 65, and to congressional and legislative offices to 40. It is quite probable that the number of independent candidates on the ballot will multiply.
Independent Candidates since 1990:
Statewide (Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General,
Insurance Commissioner, US Senator):
None
State Board of Equalization:
None
State Senate:
1990: SD8 Quentin Kopp, elected
1992: SD39 Lucy Killea, elected
1994: SD8 Quentin Kopp, elected
2008: SD15 Jim Fitzgerald, 2nd
Congress:
1992: CD25 Rick Pamplin, 4th
1992: CD29 David Davis, 3rd
1996: CD22 Steven Wheeler, 3rd
2008: CD8 Cindy Sheehan, 2nd
2008: CD37 Nicholas Dibs, 2nd
Assembly:
1996: AD74 Fred Clayton, 2nd
2000: AD6 Anna Novenic, 4th
2000: AD16 Audie Bock, 2nd
Jim:
What, if any, role did gerrymandering play in the fact that an independent finished second?
Why is the material taken down nearly three months before the election?
#5, Good question. I guess because the final version will be in the printed ballot pamphlets mailed out to each registered voter. I think the law requires that the tentative version of the pamphlet be posted on the internet so that people can look for errors. Once it’s finalized, that function is over with.
Obviously the final version will be a pdf on the internet — with the standard party hack allegations and distortions to confuse the voters on the various proposals.
#1 I don’t understand your objection to producing printed voter guides. I’d far rather have something to read in my hand than on a computer screen. It also means that busy people can take the guide with them to read on the bus or BART–I’ve seen people doing that. Maybe people even read them while they’re waiting in traffic.
Besides, there’s probably a law that says the SOS has to provide every voter with the information, and the best way to come even close to fulfilling that obligation is by using the US Postal Service.
#8,#1 I just asked the obvious questions.
Dead trees (voting guides and ballots) = the cost of peacetime Democracy ??? !!!
How much added pollution to deliver and dispose of the voting guides and ballots ??? — more Democracy costs ???
How many folks collect the voter guides since day 1 ???
Old stuff is likely a bit interesting – compared to modern evil lies and distortions.
#9 The San Francisco Public Library has a collection of voter pamphlets that date back into the 1910s. If you go to the San Francisco Department of Elections web site, you will find a link. They are interesting.
#4 In 2008, SD 15 and CD 37 had only one major party candidate nominated, and the independent in both cases filed in at least part because they believed there should be an opposition candidate. Neither district is horribly misshapen, but not necessarily as compact as they might be. They might still have had only one major candidate if they were more compact (SD 15 is along the Central Coast but extends up into southern Santa Clara County; CD 37 included Long Beach and Compton.
In 2008, CD8 Cindy Sheehan finished ahead of the Republican candidate in an extremely Democratic district. A Green candidate could quite possibly finish 2nd in this district.
In 2000, AD16, Audie Bock was running for re-election as an independent, after having been first elected as a Green candidate in a special election. in 2000, she finished ahead of the Republican and Libertarian candidate. The primary that year was a blanket primary, so the Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian were on a ballot where voter’s were not restricted to party, and all three were guaranteed to be on the general election ballot. As an independent Audie Bock was not on the primary ballot.
There were about 50% more voters in the general election than the primary, yet both the Republican and and Libertarian candidate received fewer absolute votes. So it is likely that some were simply voting against the Democrat in the primary, and would have voted for Bock in the primary, so that she would have qualified for a Top 2 election.
In 1996, AD74, Fred Clayton’s wife had run in the Republican primary and lost, and he ran as an independent in the general election. The margins in the primary and general election were similar (60:40 in the primary, 57:37:6 in the general, with a Libertarian candidate added. There was no Democrat in this race in San Diego County. Under the Top 2 system, Fred Clayton’s wife would have been on the ballot against the other Republican candidate.
3-4-10
To: Ballot Access News (Attn: Board Members, CEO & Richard Winger) and readers
Regarding your 2-23-10 article, thank you for including my name as part of those who have run as a Independent for Congress in California. I have been told that I was only the seventh person in the history of California to have done so.
Important question: If I decide to run again in 2010 as an Independent for Congress, can your readers, you and/or your organization help in any way?
Please call and/or reply to advise. Thank you,
Nicholas (Nick) Dibs
Independent for Congress (2008 election) – 37th District of California
(562) 355-5171
I’ll be voting NO on Prop 15. We can limit campaign spending and campaign contributions by simply-and-straightforwardly drawing spending and contribution limit lines, drawing them low-enough, and enforcing them: We don’t need to give government revenues away to political campaigns to do it. Besides, it’d cost about $10 per citizen to publicly finance the campaigns in our country’s federal election races, so it’d cost a fortune to publicly finance the ones in all of our country’s election races (our country has more than 87,000 governments in it.) CALL YOUR U.S. SENATORS AND TELL THEM TO MAKE S.J. RES 28 THE 28TH AMENDMENT INSTEAD! LOOK IT UP AT govtrak.us