On December 16, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a proclamation for a special election, State Senate district 28, in western Los Angeles County. This will be the first election under top-two rules.
The Secretary of State then posted the requirements to get on the ballot in that special election. Even though Proposition 14 and its implementing language, SB 6, did not amend the election law on signatures in lieu of filing fee, the Secretary of State is interpreting the new rules to require twenty times as many signatures for members of small qualified parties, than before.
Under the old rules, members of small qualified parties needed, at most, 150 signatures of party members, to avoid paying the filing fee, which is 1% if the annual salary of the office being sought (for U.S. House and state legislature), and 2% (for statewide office other than President). Under the new interpretation, members of small qualified parties need 3,000 signatures in lieu of the filing fee (for U.S. House and state senate) and 10,000 signatures (for statewide office other than President), and 1,500 (for Assembly).
In this particular special election, the 3,000 signatures are due on Monday, December 20. It was theoretically possible for anyone to have been circulating a petition in lieu of filing fees starting on December 11, but not until December 16 could anyone have known when they would be due. The Governor called the special election on the earliest possible day, so that made the petitions in lieu of the filing fee due only four days after the Governor set the election date.
In 1982, the 11th circuit ruled that when the normal number of signatures must be collected in a substantially shortened time period, the state must proportionately reduce the signature burden. Citizens Party of Georgia v Poythress, 82-8411, decision of July 14, 1982, not reported. In that case, the Citizens Party complained about having to collect 2,000 signatures in only 50 days, when the normal petitioning period was 180 days (the period was only 50 days in that election because the legislature had taken so long to draw the district’s boundaries). Also, in 1981, the 4th circuit ruled in favor of a Libertarian Party nominee for a special congressional election in Maryland. The law required the candidate to submit 5,436 signatures and only 19 days had been permitted to collect them. Instead of reducing the number of signatures, though, the court ordered that more time be granted. Mathers v Morris, 515 F Supp 931, and 649 F 2d 280. Maryland then asked for U.S. Supreme Court review, but that Court denied the state’s request.
California is not controlled by decisions of the 4th or 11th circuit, but these decisions ought to be influential if anyone should challenge the extremely short petitioning period to collect the 3,000 signatures in lieu of the filing fee.
The California Secretary of State’s instructions for candidates also say that no one can collect these signatures who lives outside Los Angeles County, even though in court the Secretary of State says she doesn’t enforce that law. That case, pending, is Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County v Bowen, U.S. District Court, central district, 2:10-cv-02488.
When will a court bring down a constitutional law HAMMER on a MORON election regime ???
i.e. STOP an election and/or ORDER a NEW election — to put the party hack robot MORONS in State/local regimes on notice.
ANY law on the books is automatically deemed enforced — regardless of all MORON comments by all MORON bureaucrats.
— i.e. this stuff will continue until some lawyers get some brains and demand $$$ personal DAMAGES against the MORONS in regimes to bankrupt them individually and even some regimes.
Again — having elections is one of the very few things that ALL regimes MUST do in the U.S.A. — to have some sort of appearance that the U.S.A. is not a total banana republic of arbitrary laws and tyrants.
“Top-two” was designed to eliminate free elections and to assure that California and eventually the whole US will have one, state controlled party and that no one other than the government approved candidates can run for office.
Impossibly difficult ballot access requirements is one of many steps they will take to implement this evil Soviet styled takeover of the US.
The in lieu standard has always been 3,000 signatures. Prior to SB 6, candidates seeking the nomination of a small qualified party could instead gather in lieu signatures from 10% of party members (max of 150). In SD 28, this would range from 8.3% of P&F registered voters to about 1.5% of AIP party members. Since there are no party nominations the same standard applies to all candidates.
It is not so clear that getting signatures from 8.3% of the 1825 P&F members is easier than getting 3000 signatures from the pool of 465,000 registered voters.
If someone were registered with a non-qualified party (eg Coffee Party) one would need to collect the 3000 signatures, or pay the filing fee of about $950.
It is really ridiculous that an lieu signature is only worth 30 cents to some candidates and over 6 dollars to others. I’m surprised that there haven’t been equal protection lawsuits over the difference. California ought to adopt the system used elsewhere signatures are worth a fixed amount, but inflation-adjusted (perhaps $5).
Had it not been for the wise decision of the California Supreme Court, Mr.Chaimness would also be faced with collecting 500 signatures to get on the ballot – assuming he had the $950 for the filing fee, which he might not after paying his lawyer.
Under the Top 2 Open Primary system, he only needs 40 signatures. Plus his party preference of Coffee Party will appear on the ballot.
The governor called the election for the last possible* day. The special election has to be on a Tuesday between 112 and 126 days from the date of the proclamation.
The proclamation could have occurred as early as December 6 and as late as December 20, which would have set the special general election between March 28 and April 25. But the Tuesday restriction meant the only possible dates were March 29; April 5, 12, and 19. Because the governor waited until December 16, the two earliest dates were no longer available, and the election was set for the latest possible date of April 19.
Backing up 56 days from April 19, the primary would be on February 22, but because that is the day after President’s Day holiday, the primary was set a week earlier on February 15.
By comparison, Texas had an election on December 14 to fill a legislative vacancy due to a death that occurred after the election. The election was conducted using the same system as used in California.
*It is conceivable that California could have delayed the primary until March 8. There is a provision for delaying a special election to be coincident with a local election when 50% of the district voters reside in the area holding the election. 44% of SD 28 is in the City of Los Angeles, which holds its election on March 8. But the City of Carson also holds its city election on March 8, and the two cities together have 50% of the SD 28 electorate. So whether the SD 28 primary could be held on March 8 would depend on the interpretation of “a local election” means an election in a single jurisdiction, or multiple elections on the same day.
California is starting to turn into Oklahoma when it comes to terms of ballot access.
Some corrections to Richard’s original post and to comments 3 and 4:
The first day on which petitions for signatures in lieu were required to be available was December 13th, not December 11th (the Elections Code says 5 working days, not 5 calendar days after the vacancy was created on December 6th). Since the LA Registrar-Recorder’s office is closed on Saturday and Sunday, if they didn’t make petitions available early (and without any public announcement), they wouldn’t have had to make them available until Monday, December 6th.
The number of signatures in lieu now required is 1,500 for State Assembly, 3,000 for State Senate and Congress, and 10,000 for statewide offices.
In #3, Jim Riley is being disingenuous to claim that it may be easier to collect 3,000 signatures from any registered voter than to collect up to 150 from voters registered in one’s own small qualified party. That it isn’t is why third party candidates regularly used signatures in lieu rather than pay filing fees in California, but major party candidates, including protest candidates in primary challenges who were just as strapped for funds as third party candidates, did not. It costs as much in time and energy to collect the 3,000 signatures as to pay the filing fee, so the only candidates who gathered those signatures were those who were willing and able to spend more than the filing fee on signature-gathering in order to demonstrate their broad support (and help build their ground organization).
Also in #3, it’s simply wrong to say that Mr. Chaimness’s “party preference of Coffee Party will appear on the ballot”. The ruling of the Superior Court in San Francisco, currently under appeal (but which both the Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court declined to hear on an expedited basis), is that if he qualifies as a candidate, he will be listed as “No Party Preference”.
Re #4, Carson, Lomita and Marina del Rey (an unincorporated area) are all in the Los Angeles Unified School District though not in the city of Los Angeles, with Carson and Lomita in an odd-numbered trustee area up for election in 2011. If Carson and the part of Los Angeles in SD 28 together make up more than half of the registration in the district, then the LAUSD election on March 8th is a local election with which the SD 28 special election could have been consolidated, without addressing the question of whether several jurisdictions’ regularly-scheduled elections held the same day constitute a local election with more than 50 percent of the eligible voters.
Thank you, Dave, for your comment #6.
#5 Under the law pre-SB 6, an independent candidate would have required 500 signatures to get on the ballot. Under SB 6, all candidates will require only 40 signatures.
If this were a general election, then that 500 would be several 1000 under the old system, and 40 under the open primary reform.
Remember, a California senate district is about 33% larger than a California congressional district.
It is not even close to reality that California is becoming like Oklahoma in this regard.
#6 The portion of SD 28 that is in Los Angeles (and LAUSD) between LAX and Santa Monica is in an even-numbered LAUSD District 4. There might be a small bit in LAUSD District 1. The legislature’s web site, including the California statutes is down this weekend, but I think the law is stated in terms of persons eligible to vote in both the local election.
I don’t know whether it matters that the LAUSD elections are conducted by the city or not.
At the time of the post-2000 redistricting, a combination of Los Angeles, and any of Carson, Torrance, or Redondo Beach constituted 50% of registered voters in SD 28.
In any event, it might be that combining the elections would not produce that much savings. The county would have to do the SD 28 election, and the city would still have to do the rest of the city election.
Except for this possibility, April 19, with a February 15 primary is latest possible special election date.
#6 If SB 6 had not passed, Mr. Chaimness would either have had to pay the filing fee of $950, or collect 3000 in lieu signatures (or some combination of the two, since they are interchangeable).
Under SB 6 that is still true.
But if SB 6 had not passed, that even if he had the $950, he would still have had to collect 500 signatures.
Is this not correct?
What should be changed is the number of in lieu signatures for all candidates, not maintaining the training wheels version for little parties.
TO: Jim Riley
15 days before the November general election in 2010 the
American Independent Party registration was at 413,032 electors. I am well aware of the 5% rule for major party
status. Even though the AIP statewide registration is well under the 5% so AIP is a minor party, in one California County the AIP registration is over 5%. Maybe
the registration will increase to a point that the registratiion will exceed the 5% mark and in 2012 the party will be a major party.
It has been well over 38 years, since I sued the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voter over the high filing
fees. That lawsuit changed how the State of California
conducted getting on the ballot.
My question is if the signature in lieu of filing fees
need to go above the 150 number in only party registered
electors?
Thank you for a soon reply.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
#6 The ruling in Superior Court was to not issue a temporary injunction against Proposition 14. It never even got to the substance of whether the plaintiffs claims were correct. The court ruled that even if they were, they were unlikely to prevail in court.
It is absolutely the legislative intent of the People in enacting Proposition 14, that existing voter registrations that declare an intent to affiliate with a political party at an ensuing primary is to be converted to a political party preference, and that SB 6 implements Proposition 14.
Within the context of voter registration, a voter has always (since 1913) been permitted to affiliate with a party that was not qualified to hold a nominating primary. SB 6 made no changes to the voter registration and party qualification scheme that would lead a rational person to believe that a voter may not express a party preference for a party that is not qualified to hold a presidential primary, elect party officers at a partisan primary, or have its endorsements for voter-nominated offices be distributed with the sample ballot.
SB 6 does fulfill the intent of Proposition 14 that voter registrations be recast as a party preference, and thus a voter may express a preference for a non-qualified party on their voter registration.
Proposition 14 does not define what a candidate’s party preference is, leaving that to statute. SB 6 says that a candidate’s party preference (or lack thereof) is the same as was expressed on his voter registration. The candidate can choose to have his party preference appear on the ballot. Likewise, a candidate with no party preference may have that lack of preference appear on the ballot.
This is quite similar to the office/professional/occupational designation. A candidate does not have to have a designation, but if he does, it must accurately reflect the candidate’s status, and not imply endorsement. For example, clerics are not permitted to use their clerical title, but not their denominational affiliation.
Voter registration affidavits must be signed to indicate that they are truthful and correct. If a voter disclosed a party preference on their voter registration, there is no basis for California to presume that it is not accurate. Thus when that voter files as a candidate, California has no reason to presume that his party preference is not accurate, if that preference was on the voter registration.
In addition, California will present on the SOS website a 10-year history of each candidate’s party affiliation.
If Mr. Chaimness did change his voter registration to indicate that he intended to affiliate with the Coffee Party at the ensuing primary (2012 presidential primary), then on January 1, this will be converted to a party preference for the Coffee Party.
If Mr. Chaimness does file as a candidate in the special election for SD 28, then he will have the option of having his party preference appear on the ballot or nothing.
Maybe if the 3rd parties get better at beating their heads against the wall, they’ll start winning elections.
Reviewing past stuff is a total waste of time — like reviewing the EVIL history of slavery in the U.S.A. before Dec. 1865 — 13th Amdt — BUT taking note of the deadly cost to get rid of slavery — about 620,000 DEAD Americans on both sides in 1861-1865.
The EVIL current stuff is always what matters.
Equal ballot access
P.R. and App.V. ONE election
Replacement lists for legislative body vacancies – no special elections.
This stuff AIN’T atomic physics.
#11 California has one standard that applies to all candidates, and may be satisfied by signatures from any voter.
California has another standard for candidates seeking the nomination of a small qualified party, which must come from members registered with the party. A candidate may use either standard.
Beginning on January 1, 2011, there will be no partisan offices, except president and party officers (county central committees). There is no filing fee for running for president in the primary, nor as am independent candidate in the general election.
The in lieu signature requirements for nonpartisan offices remain the same. Since salaries tend to increase over time, and the filing fee is typically based on salary, while the value of a signature offset is fixed, the number of in lieu signatures required continues to increase. California really ought to increase the value of in lieu signatures and index it to inflation.
“in one California County the AIP registration is over 5%.”
That’s a disappointment. IAP registration is over 6% in several Nevada counties, and in Esmeralda it is at 8%.
Repeal proposition 14 NOW!
-How?
#18 That’s easy. Just fork over about a million dollars or so to get a repeal measure on the ballot, then fork over another five million (maybe more) to convince voters to repeal it. Had the expenditures been anywhere close to even in June, Prop. 14 would not have passed. Schwarzenegger and his business buddies saturated the airwaves with a pretty well produced spot. You just need the $$ to do the same on the other side. In June, the NO on 14 side had essentially nothing to spend.
And you got that much money?
#17-#20 — How many party hack monarchs/oligarchs in CA trying to bring back the EVIL plurality party hack primaries and the meaningless EVIL plurality general elections in the CA legislature ???
Will top 2 in CA be a step on the long road for REAL Democracy in ALL of the U.S.A. — like the DOI on 4 July 1776 ???
Stay tuned.
P.R. and App.V. — NO primaries are needed.