Thank you for replying to post # 3. First, “Realtor” is
the name assigned to a member of an organization. It should always have the R within a circle after it.
Second, thank you for telling me that I can use “Priest”. I may use it next time as a form of
advertising, so I collect the funds for the redemption
of the first born. That might go to the concept of having “wards” and being called a “wardon” or “wardee”.
As I recall that was what they did with children until
the age of 30 (born out of wedlock).

Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party.

The law is split between those for the holder of an elective office (which is not limited to 3 words), and for others who are limited to 3 words for their occupation, profession, or vocation.

Candidates who are designated as Assemblyman/Optometrist are actually using the second form. I don’t see much difference between ‘Realtor’, ‘Priest’ and ‘Assemblyman’

I remember Secrtary Bowen has let ballot designation slide in the past. My friend Bruce Cohen in his race for the US House of Represtatives got Secretary of State Bowen to approve his Ballot Designation as “Realtor”, viz.,
using the title he received from the “National
Association Of Realtors”. The rules state that
titles received from organizations can not be used,
but Secretary of State Bowen has a history of not
following the rules.

I also note on Saint Patrick’s Day, a further article by Mr. Van Oot that was showing the Dems
have a like problem, viz.,

http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/03/17/1861816/california-lawmakers-not-bragging.html

Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party

State Bowen to

“Attorney-General” might be a proper spelling (the California code allows hyphenated spellings if found in a general reference dictionary published in the last ten years).

The three-word limit does not apply to elected federal, state, or local officials. So if the designation is misleading it is due to the restrictions in California law.

The actual legal case is probably of interest to the State of California, since it involves how far a state prison must go to accommodate the religious practices of an inmate, including requirements of federal law.