Citizens in Charge Files Amicus Brief in U.S. Supreme Court in Support of Independent Party

Ballot Access News:

Citizens in Charge has filed this amicus curiae brief in Independent Party v Padilla, 17-1200. The issue in the case is whether the California Secretary of State violated the rights of the voters who formed the Independent Party, when he refused to instruct county election officials to tally up how many registered voters the Independent Party has. If that party has approximately 62,000 registered voters, then it should be recognized as a qualified party.

The amicus is very short and demonstrates that it has been very common for states to allow two parties to be on the ballot, even though both shared a common word in their name. The California Secretary of State had said there cannot be a party named “Independent Party” because the American Independent Party is on the ballot.

10 thoughts on “Citizens in Charge Files Amicus Brief in U.S. Supreme Court in Support of Independent Party

  1. Cody Quirk

    Who are the state officers of the California Independent Party and why don’t they have a website yet?

  2. J.R.Myers

    This is a cynical attempt to play on potential voter ignorance. It is a disingenuous attempt to fashion confusion into a party. The purpose is to gain ballot access. No doubt, California has difficult ballot access laws, but this is truly putting lipstick on a pig. This is not the honorable way to gain ballot access in California.

  3. Cody Quirk

    J.R., do you know anything about this Independent Party? Who are their state officers/contacts?

  4. Richard Winger

    There is nothing dishonorable about people forming a party named the Independent Party. Parties with that name have been ballot-qualified at one time or another in Arkansas (Ross Perot), Connecticut (currently), Delaware (currently), Florida (currently), Hawaii (former by the former mayor of Honolulu), Louisiana (currently), Maryland (Ralph Nader), New Mexico (Ralph Nader), North Carolina (John Anderson), Oregon (currently), South Carolina (supporters of George Wallace), Utah (former Congressman Merrill Cook), and Vermont. Were they all dishonorable?

  5. J.R.Myers

    They are doing this deliberately to capture the independent voters, based on confusion, not principle. Where is their website and platform? Who’s financing the effort. As they say, follow the money…and speaking of money, IMHO, it could be better spent elsewhere.

  6. Richard Winger

    The party has said from the beginning that it was formed to help independent candidates. California legislature took away the ability of independent candidates to have “independent” on the ballot next to their names (for congress and state office). If the Independent Party were on the ballot, independent candidates could join it and then could have “party preference: Independent” on the ballot (the word party is omitted from California ballots, at the end). Currently they must have “party preference: none.”

    This is exactly the same motivation that caused people in other states to form Independent Parties. Ross Perot formed the party in Arkansas in 1992 because at the time the state had no procedures for independent presidential candidates. People formed the party in Delaware because the independent candidate petition is so tough in that state. Ditto Florida (independent presidential candidates need about 120,000 signatures). Ditto Hawaii (independent candidates must run in the primary and get 10% of the vote or must outpoll some party nominee). Ditto Louisiana (state won’t print “independent” for independent candidates, except for president). Ditto Maryland (Ralph Nader formed it because the number of signatures for a new party was only one-fourth that for independent presidential candidates). Ditto New Mexico (also Ralph Nader). Ditto North Carolina (formed by John Anderson). Ditto Oregon (in 2005 state said independent candidates couldn’t be signed by primary votes, but that wasn’t true for new parties).

  7. Cody Quirk

    Really Richard? Where did they say this? CFR please. Because I have yet to see anything that indicates that they are the same as the Oregon Independent Party or those other state independent parties back east.

    Why don’t they have a website up yet? And why don’t they have their info on the California SoS’s website?
    Honestly, a political party here that lacks a website, doesn’t list their state offices, and is not outspoken about their goals and agenda raises a lot of red flags in my book as it does for J.R.; it seems to tell me that maybe they have an agenda that they do not want the general public to know about perhaps?

    And if that’s the case, then I do not want to work or cooperate with such a political party.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *