Leaders of the California legislature are likely to introduce, and support, a bill to ease the definition of “political party”, to compensate for Proposition 14’s practical elimination of the vote test for a party to remain ballot-qualified. The bill will probably be introduced in the next few weeks. It may change the registration membership test from 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, to one-third of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. It would not take effect this year. That would reduce the registration test from approximately 103,000 members, to approximately 36,000.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
California statutes do not define “political party”.
Elections Code 338 defines the use of “party” in certain contexts as meaning a political party that has qualified for partisan elections (ie president and party offices). This implicitly recognizes that there are political parties that are not ballot qualified.
As you implicitly recognize, political parties are ballot-qualified for partisan offices on the basis of sufficient voters being affiliated with them. Since qualification is derived from party affiliation (or party preference), then the meaning of “party preference” can not be derived from “qualified party”.
That is the construct of “declined to disclose a preference for a qualified party” is totally bogus.
Elections Code 300.5 makes it quite clear that both for candidates and voters, their party affiliation/preference is that which they disclosed on their affidavit of registration.
Debra Bowen erred in her interpretation of 8002.5 by ignoring the bolded qualification:
“A candidate for a voter-nominated office may indicate his or her party preference, or lack of party preference, as disclosed upon the candidate’s most recent statement of registration, upon his or her declaration of candidacy.”
Michael Chamness had disclosed his party preference for the Coffee Party on his most recent affidavit of registration. He signed it, subject to perjury charges, that it was truthful and correct.
Either Chamness is affiliated with the Coffee Party, or he committed perjury. Unless Dean Logan and Debra Bowen believed that he had perjured himself, they had no choice but to accept his indication on his sworn declaration of candidacy that he preferred the Coffee Party.
I am an independent running for the US House Of Representatives in WV 1st district. Our campaign is a grassroots. We are looking for Volunteers to help canvass the area and organize events, carpooling, ect. Help us and Join our cause at : http://raymondvdavisiiiforuscongress.webs.com
The 2 main robot party hack gangs do NOT want ANY opposition.
What is to stop them from raising the percentage to 33.333 percent ????
How many loopholes bigger than the Moon for statutory machinations in the below ??? [brackets added]
CA Const
Art. II, Sec. 5 [top 2 section]
(c) The Legislature [shall provide for partisan elections] for presidential candidates, and [political party and party central committees], including an open presidential primary whereby the candidates on the ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States, and those whose names are placed on the ballot by petition, but excluding any candidate who has withdrawn by filing an affidavit of noncandidacy.
(d) [A political party that participated in a primary election for a partisan office pursuant to subdivision (c) has the right to participate in the general election for that office] and shall not be denied the ability to place on the general election ballot the candidate who received, at the primary election, the highest vote among that party’s candidates.
Pingback: California Legislative Leaders Likely to Support Easing Definition of “Party” | ThirdPartyPolitics.us