On February 17, Michael Chamness filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, alleging that California’s new election law unconstitutionally discriminates against him and other candidates who are not members of a qualified party. The case is Chamness v Bowen, central district, 2:11-cv-01479. He was a candidate for State Senate in the February 15 special election, and he also intends to be a candidate in the upcoming special U.S. House in the 36th district.
He is a registered member of the Coffee Party. The state will only print “No party preference” next to his name on the ballot. It will neither let him have “My party preference is the Coffee Party”, nor will it let him put “Independent” on the ballot next to his name. By contrast, members of qualified parties have a choice. They can either have “My party preference is the (whatever party the candidate is registered into), or “No party preference.” Here is the brief.
Chamness had attempted to intervene in a somewhat similar state court lawsuit, but the state court did not permit him to intervene in that lawsuit, which is called Field v Bowen and is pending in the State Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
California, so fair and balanced.
California, so unfair and imbalanced!
Any *Party Hack Robot* Party in CA [yet] ???
How much political UN-equal stuff in each rotted party hack State Constitution [and laws] ???
Placing the word Independent next to Mr. Chamness name
would make a voter thing he is stating he has a party
preference of the American Independent Party.
When people use a HAVA registration form in Imperial
County it registrar of voter asks if by writing the
word “Independent”, do they mean the “American Independent Party” and I am informed it is always yes.
Secretary of State Bowen told me in Los Angles in February, 2008 that the Imperial County Registrar of Voters was correct in his application of the election
law on that point.
Therefore, what is good in Imperial County should be good all over the State of California.
It looks like the American Independent Party will be
entering an objection in this case to protect the voters
of California.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
You know this is false:
“By contrast, members of qualified parties have a choice. They can either have “My party preference is the (whatever party the candidate is registered into), or “No party preference.”
Do you find Gautam Dutta’s use of the term “minor party” to be deceptive, especially when he gives as examples “Republican, Democratic”. Shouldn’t examples be chosen to exemplify, rather than to mislead? Or is he given deference, because he is a lawyer?
Footnote 5 in the brief is a complete misrepresentation of the totality of the paragraph in Libertarian Party v Eu from which it is lifted. In that case, the California Supreme Court determined that it was OK to force candidates who qualified for the ballot by independent nomination to be designated as “Independent”, not as description of the candidate, but rather of the manner that they were nominated. Remember, California does have fusion (or did prior to Proposition 14). If a candidate appeared on the ballot as “Democratic, Republican” it did not mean that the candidate was a Democrat AND a Republican, but rather that they were nominated by both parties.
If SB 6 had been enjoined, wouldn’t Michael Chamness have been banned from appearing on the ballot at all, because he had been affiliated with the Green Party (a major party according to the Dutta definition) prior to declaring his intent to affiliate with Coffee Party at the February 2012 presidential primary?
Jim Riley
I do not know it is false. I was told by two members
of the Imperial County Registrar of voters office in 2007 that that is how that registrar of voters deal
with the HAVA form when Independent is place on the
name of a party.
Debra Bowen did make that statement to me at the double
bubble hearing in Los Angeles circa February, 2008.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
I believe this is a state court issue and not a federal
issue. I also believe the American Independent Party is a necessary party to this lawsuit and should take
place in Sacramento County and not Los Angeles County,
even though Los Angeles County would save the American
Independent Party money in the long run. Since the AIP
attorney is located in San Diego County.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Jim Riley
Since you are on this issue now. I did find out how five person from a Los Angeles County Census Block sited
in California Elections Code section 21117 ended up in
Kern County. Reason a small part of Los Angeles County was transferred to Kern County for fire protection issues near the Gorman, CA.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Elections Code 8002.5 (added by SB 6) specifies the manner by which a candidate for a voter-nominated office specifies their party affiliation “as
disclosed upon the candidate’s most recent affidavit of registration”.
This is clearly the method that the legislature has implemented Section V(b) of Proposition 14.
Michael Chamness appears to be claiming that on his most recent affidavit of registration that he was affiliated with the Coffee Party (ie that he intended to vote in the Coffee Party February 2012 presidential primary).
Elections Code 2151(d) (also added by SB 6) defines the manner in which voter registrations executed before January 1, 2011 should be converted. It makes a clear distinction between Declined To State voters who would be converted to No Party Preference, and voters who had declared an intent to participate at their party’s next primary.
It must be presumed that the legislature meant for there to be a consistent definition of a voter’s party preference, and that a voter does not forfeit his party preference by declaring his candidacy for office.
The simple fact is a “party preference” is not a preference for a (qualified) party but rather a term that stands on its own. In the context of voter registration (see Elections Code 4), a voter may have a preference for a non-qualified party, and therefore the restricted definition of “party” in Section 338 is not applicable. The legislature made this distinction clear by its addition of Section 300.5
#5 I was referring to Richard Winger’s claim that a voter who is registered with one of the 6 qualfiied party could have “No Party Preference” appear on the ballot. A voter affiliated with one of the qualified parties can have ” ” appear next to their name. This is the same as the office/profession/occupation designation. A candidate is not required to provide a designation.
#7 I found a news story from 2005-6 where there was a bid to annex the town of Gorman to Kern County. This was turned down by the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors. This would have been an extension of the notch that is on the east side of I-5 up to the summit of Tejon Pass.
The 2010 census maps do show the notch, the 2000 maps do not. Was the notch made after 2000, or when the bid to annex Gorman was made, they realized the old map was in error. None of the articles about the proposed annexation mention an earlier annexation. But the petition from Gorman residents for annex shows the notch on the their legal description,
There is no party primary and no party nominees. I don’t care what they call it, it is in fact a non-partisan election. Listing the party preference is really misleading to voters. When voters receive their general election ballot it is reasonable to think that the candidates on the ballot are party nominees and that there are no other parties. With no party nominee it would be better not to allow any party lables. In reality, people like political parties and they would throw Prop 14 out if that happened.
#12 It is an election between candidates to determine who is elected.
The ballot itself carries an explanation that a party preference does not indicate that a party nominated the candidate. The sample ballot distributed with voter’s pamphlet repeats the explanation, and also includes any endorsements made by the qualified parties. These endorsements need not match the party preference of the candidates.
Why isn’t the Coffee Party also a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
Jim Riley
You asked a good question in #13. I believe the answer
goes to the question as to why the American Independent
Party is not a party to this lawsuit. The answer is this case belongs in Sacramento County Superior Court,
there is no Federal Question here. This is a state law
matter and suing a political party must be in Sacramento
County Superior Court.
You are right the Coffee Party (a political body of unknown form), does it have any capacity to sue or be
sued in California?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
# 11 ALL Electors/Voters are allegedly aware of ALL language in the CA Constitution and the CA Election Code — the old ignorance of the law is NO excuse stuff.
— i.e. the prefer stuff in labels on the ballots means about ZERO.
Do the party hacks answer ANY Q and A stuff from the media and various special interest gangs — to put their ideas on paper ???
P.R. and App.V. — NO primary NON-Sense any more.
New folks should look at the 2008 SCOTUS WA State top 2 primary case.
Ballot labels do NOT mean much of anything any more.
Placing the word Independent next to Mr. Chamness name
would make a voter thing he is stating he has a party
preference of the American Independent Party.
= LMAO!