[EL] California legislature passes bill on prohibited words in party names

[larrylevine at earthlink.net]

The confusion created by the name of the American Independent Party has been recognized for at least 20 years. If a California voter wishes to register as independent there are just two ways to accomplish that. One is to register as No Party Preference (NPP). The other is to register American Independent. Examinations of the voter files revealed that a disproportionate share of the AIP registrations were among younger voters, most of whom can be presumed to have no awareness of the fact that the party was formed out of the racist history of George Wallace’s campaigns for the Presidency. A disproportionate number of AIP registrations also occur at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Although there is not evidence to back this up, political professionals have long believed that is because many, if not most, of those registering at the DMV would not otherwise have sought out the opportunity to register. These people were believed to be registering “just to pass time” as they waited to conduct their business and as people who had little to no intention of registering in any other setting were most likely to look at the two major parties with disinterest or even disdain. This whole thing came to a head in 2016, when many of those younger AIP registrants wanted to vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primary and learned they couldn’t because they were not “independent” voters. 

I think this is a situation in which a remedy was required and that’s what the California legislature has done. The reason for the haste in requiring the name change and the notification of those registered AIP it to attempt to avoid a repeat of what happened in 2016. 

Larry 

 

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of Richard Winger
Sent: Saturday, 14 September 2019 9:12 AM
To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] California legislature passes bill on prohibited words in party names

 

Yesterday the California legislature passed SB 696, which makes it illegal for any party to have "Independent" or "Independence" in its name.  The legislature also passed AB 681, which is a good bill (in my opinion) that completely solves the problem that motivated SB 696.

 

The American Independent Party has been ballot-qualified continuously since January 1968, longer than any other ballot-qualified minor party in any state at this time, except for the Conservative Party (in New York), which has been on since November 1962.

 

The reason for SB 696 is that many California voters registered into the AIP, not realizing they were not registering as independent voters.  So on presidential primary day, unknowing AIP members could not ask for a Democratic presidential primary ballot.  If they had been registered independent, they could have asked for a Democratic ballot.

 

But AB 681 makes it possible for any voter to change his or her party registration at any time prior to a primary.  It can even be done at the polls on primary day.  Furthermore in the weeks before a primary, the bill says every voter will receive a postal notice informing that voter of how he or she is registered, and explaining which parties let independent voters choose their ballot.  Also it explains that anyone can change parties, not only postally, but by telephone, fax, or e-mail.  So AB 681 ought to solve the problem.  The AB 681 process for change of party is simple, and an entire new registration card need not be filled out.

 

SB 696 only gives the American Independent Party until October 29, 2019, to come up with a new name, or it will be removed from the ballot on October 30, 2019.  The party has no scheduled state convention in that time period.

 

There are a dozen precedents that it violates due process to enact a restrictive election law, concerning minor parties or independent candidates, and make it effective very quickly.  One of them was summarily affirmed by the US Supreme Court.  I testified against SB 696 in the Senate Elections Committee on September 12, but the temporary chair of the committee only gave each witness 2 minutes, and I couldn't explain the due process precedents in that short amount of time and also point out the First Amendment problems.  There were only 2 bills on the agenda, and I felt it unjust to confine each witness to 2 minutes, when there were only 2 witnesses on each side.

 

I have testified in legislative committees in 10 states, and in the other 9 states there were no such severe restrictions on testimony.

 

The First Amendment protects party names, to a certain extent.  The 5th circuit ruled that the National Democratic Party could not be kept off the Mississippi ballot, even though the state argued it would cause confusion because the Democratic Party was on the ballot.  An Oregon State Appeals Court used the First Amendment to rule that Oregon could not keep the Freedom Socialist Party off the ballot, even though the Socialist Party was already on the ballot.

 

No state in history has ever before ordered a ballot-qualified party to change its name.  

 

Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190914/d14e5302/attachment.html>