Monstrous Ruling in CA Case Challenging Top Two

An editorial by the staff of IndependentPoliticalReport.com:

Apparently, SLAPP activities are alive and well.

In 2010, California voters approved Proposition 14, an initiative to put in place California’s new top-two primary system. The measure was backed by business interests and rich benefactors, such as Charles T. Munger Jr.

In July 2010, six plaintiffsMona Field, Richard Winger, Stephen A. Chessin, Jennifer Wozniak, Jeff Mackler, and Rodney Martin — challenged two particular aspects of top-two in court, seeking to overturn the law.  To see a complete listing of motions in the case, check out the public access page here (Superior Court of California, San Francisco County).

The lawsuit had a great deal of merit.   Two specific areas were challenged:  (1) independent candidates couldn’t have “independent” on the ballot for Congress and state office, and registered members of unqualified parties couldn’t have their party label on the ballot; (2) at the time, write-in space remained on the ballot but no write-ins could ever be counted, even though the ballot did not warn voters that any write-ins would not be counted.

On the ballot label issue, 45 states permit “independent” on the ballot for independent candidates, and even California continues to permit “independent” on the ballot for presidential independents.  California allowed the use of that label ever since government-printed ballots started (in 1891) through 2010.  Three independent candidates for US House were on the November ballot in 2010 with “independent” next to their names.

Two state supreme courts, Massachusetts and Minnesota, had previously ruled the word “independent” for independent candidates cannot be banned.

Winger interviewed most of the independent California candidates for Congress and state legislature just before the June 2012 primary.  Almost all of them said they wish they could have “independent” on the ballot, since they were campaigning as independents.  Winger’s interviews included Linda Parks in Ventura County and Chad Condit in the San Joaquin Valley, the two independent candidates who got the most publicity.

On the write-in half of the case, Plaintiffs’ position was vindicated this year when AB 1413 passed, removing write-in space from November ballots for Congress and state legislature.  Winger wrote in opposition to that idea.  Winger called for leaving write-in space on the ballot and for requiring that write-ins for declared write-in candidates should be counted.  With AB 1413, at least the legislature acknowledged its agreement with the Plaintiffs that it was wrong to tempt voters to cast a write-in vote and then not count it.

No court precedent, until Field v Bowen, had ever upheld a state’s refusing to print “independent” on the ballot.

In the view of IPR staff, it seems absurd to say the lawsuit was frivolous or against the public interest.  Yet the case law for civil rights plaintiffs protects civil rights plaintiffs unless the lawsuit has no merit whatsoever.

Wealthy supporters of the law (Munger, Abel Maldonado, David Takashima, the California Independent Voter Project, and Californians to Defend the Open Primary, etc) were worried the Secretary of State would not defend top-two vigorously enough, and were permitted to intervene in the case.

On September 24, 2010, Superior Court Judge Charlotte Woolard – in Field v. Bowen – upheld Proposition 14, a decision sustained by the State Court of Appeals almost a year later, on September 19, 2011.

Gautam Dutta, attorney for the plaintiffs,  decided not to appeal the case to the California Supreme Court.

On March 27, 2012, the intervenors, represented by the Nielsen Merksamer firm of San Rafael, California, moved for attorneys fees. In an astonishing, and monstrous decision on August 1, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow, a Schwarzenegger appointee, ruled in favor of the intervenors and ordered the plaintiffs to pay $243,279.50 in attorneys fees to the attorneys for Abel Maldonado and the group supporting top-two in the 2010 campaign.g

Under California law, this is not supposed to happen.  Courts aren’t supposed to award attorneys’ fees against plaintiffs unless the lawsuit is utterly without merit.

The attorney for the plaintiffs, Gautam Dutta, is young and he and his wife just had their first baby.  He is a sole practitioner and lives in Fremont and works at home.  He will ask for rehearing; but if that fails, an appeal is likely.  However, Dutta can’t appeal without putting up a 10% bond.

One of the Plaintiffs, Richard Winger, had income last year of $6,000.   He has no pension, and his social security, after the medicare SMIB is deducted, is only $180 per month.  He is currently living on his savings, which are gradually being eaten up.

This judgment will cause him great harm.  What little money Winger has will go into the pockets of Charlie Munger, one of the richest men in California.  What sense does this make?

Charlie Munger is a multi-millionaire who is the chairman of the Santa Clara County Republican Central Committee.  He is a prominent activist in California ballot proposition politics, including in 2010, when he successfully sponsored Proposition 20, after having supported Proposition 11 in 2008.

Munger is one of eight children of Charles Munger, the billionaire vice-chairman of Berkshire Hathaway.  He has a Ph.D. in physics from Stanford University and is an experimental physicist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC). The Center is operated by Stanford University for the U.S. Dept. of Energy Office of Science.  In other words, as a government-crony physicist, his earnings from government have helped him fund initiatives for fatter government (perhaps he could be described as a Taxpayer-Funded Lobbyist?).  Ironically, “Die Luft der Freiheit weht” is Stanford’s unofficial motto and translates as “the wind of freedom blows.” Apparently it doesn’t blow in the direction of third parties, independent candidates, or the 43% of Califonia voters in the June election who voted against Top Two.

In 2006, Munger was a member of California’s Curriculum Commission, an advisory commission of the California State Board of Education; and was married to Charlotte Lowell in 1989.  Lowell, a graduate of Harvard Law School, is an attorney with the law firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom.

Munger’s sister is Molly Munger, an attorney in Pasadena, who is leading the charge on a possible 2012 ballot initiative, the “Our Schools, Our Future” initiative, which would raise taxes to provide additional money to the state’s public school districts. Ms. Munger has indicated that she is willing to fund the approximately $2 million cost of gathering the signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.

Further Reading:

So, IPR is left wondering: The judge ordered attorney’s fees on the basis that the case was frivolous.  If that’s the case, then why did the intervenors even need to intervene?

If the lawsuit was so weak that the Plaintiffs must be sanctioned, obviously California’s very capable Assistant Attorneys General would have defended it without the need for intervention.

 

— end —

 

56 thoughts on “Monstrous Ruling in CA Case Challenging Top Two

  1. Austin Battenberg

    I live in CA and I hate top two. I plan on voting for McClintock for Congress, and Johnson for President, but I refuse to vote for either Feinstein or Emken for Senate. Both are just awful if you ask me.

  2. Andy

    If these individuals end up being forced to pay this ridiculous fine then we ought to take up a collection to help defray the cost. If this happens, I’d hope that enough like minded individuals from around the country would donate so that those that were hit with the fine don’t have to pay anything, or at least have to pay very little out of their own pockets.

    I would donate to such a fund if this happens. I hope that everyone else reading this would donate as well.

    The first objective should be to try to get the fine lifted by the court.

  3. paulie

    Something is rotten in the state of California.

    A lot,and it’s spreading to other states. Looks like Arizona is next.

    Top two is a fascist virus that is malignant and expanding aggressively.

  4. paulie

    I would donate to such a fund if this happens. I hope that everyone else reading this would donate as well.

    The first objective should be to try to get the fine lifted by the court.

    There’s not enough money for an appeal, so money will have to be raised either way, as I understand it.

    Anyone willing to and know how to set up a fund?

  5. George Whitfield

    This award of attorney fees is a big step toward totolitarianism. I would donate to a fund to help them appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court of the US.

  6. Oranje Mike

    Top Two survived a legal challenge here in AZ. The Arizona Republic is the official mouthpiece for Top Two here. Columnists E.J. Montini and Laurie Roberts sing it’s praise weekly (I’m not kidding). The silver lining is that what I read in comments to their articles is starting to swing against it and I hope most people will see thru the b.s. and vote against it.

    Some folks are also trying for a permanent sales tax increase for “schools and jobs”. The worst of California corporate dogooderism is spilling over to AZ.

  7. Trent Hill

    I’m going to shoot Richard an email soon and see what sort of fund he’s setting up. Any such fund, IPR will make a post encouraging people to donate to. Richard Winger has spent his whole life fighting to improve ballot access laws and he shouldn’t be saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of debt.

  8. Catholic Trotskyist

    I am a strong supporter of Top Two. I do not believe it is fascist like so many are claiming here. If people would just participate in the primary more, and think of the primary as the first round of the general election, it would be perfect, and allow people to avoid wasting their votes on unviable candidates in the general election. I also applaud Molly’s support of school taxes, and hope more Republican families start supporting them. Having said that, as a Top Two supporter I still oppose this court ruling. The opponents of Top Two should not be forced to pay for fighting for their beliefs in court, especially when the supporters of Top Two are clearly more able to afford the costs. They did have a strong case on a couple of provisions of the law, especially about Independent candidates, and this does seem to be persecution of opposing beliefs.

  9. paulie

    If people would just participate in the primary more,

    Why would they bother when they know there will be two candidates on in the general election?

    Most voters will ignore the primary unless it has the power to actually elect the winner with no runoff.

    A system with a runoff, people pay attention to the first round because there is no guarantee there will be a second round.

  10. Mark Seidenberg

    I am against the top two prop also. I warned Mr.
    Dutta that his lawsuit was flawed in the beginning. It should have been filed in Sacramento and not San Francisco. I informed him that the use of “Independent” would confuse
    California electors, because they would think
    that they were with the “American Independent
    Party of California”.

    I gave Mr. Dutta that information as an officer
    of the American Independent Party of California.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

  11. paulie

    I informed him that the use of “Independent” would confuse
    California electors, because they would think
    that they were with the “American Independent
    Party of California”.

    Uh…sure.

    Yeah, that’s what the average Californian thinks when they hear the word independent.

    Would you like to bet $10,000 that if I call 100 or 1000 California phone numbers at random, or ask 100 or 1000 people in CA on the street at random what “independent” candidate means they would say a candidate not affiliated with any party by a massively overwhelming margin?

    I’m completely serious.

    If less than 90% identify that, rather than AIP member, as what they think independent means I will pay up, as long as I have some enforceable way to know that you would do the same if more than 90% give the answer I think they would give.

    I won’t bet on over 90%, but I think it would be more like 99% plus.

  12. Mark Seidenberg

    Paulie,

    I see no point in a bet. I believe and so did Judge
    White that the average elector would think that
    “Independent” was part of the name of the “American Independent Party of California”
    if it was on the ballot.

    Mr. Dutta was warned and now he is paying the
    price. Do not play fast and loose with a court!

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

  13. paulie

    You see no point in a bet because I am sure you know I am correct.

    As for Judge White, did he actually say something that assinine, or did he rule in this case based on completely different (but equally facetious) reasoning?

  14. Nick Kruse

    I agree with Catholic Trotskyist. Get more of your supporters to the primary and then you can have a spot on the November ballot. If you can’t place high in a primary, how do you expect to win the general election?

  15. paulie

    Support can build over the course of a campaign, for example Ventura was at 7% early on and went on to win.

    Even if winning is not possible, building support over the course of a general election campaign is.

    That becomes impossible when you get lost in a crowded field during the primary, when most voters are not paying attention because they know the real candidates will emerge from the primary, so non-establishment, alt party and independent candidates don’t even bother running or get completely ignored if they do run, even more so than with the normal election system we have had before top one and a half.

  16. Seebeck

    Well, the path forward now for LPCA is clear: get 10K registrations to 103K by November 2014 or get 1 MILLION registrations to start over shortly thereafter.

    That’s looking bleak.

  17. paulie

    From my conversation with Richard Winger my understanding it will be a year from Nov ’14 before we would have to start over, and that the number then will be based on 2012 or 2014 (I forget which now) results, but likely to be higher than 103k. We’ll also need to make room for attrition. I would like to do 20-30k at least as a start and we have the team that can do it, and do it in such a way as to create maximum ancillary benefit for the party, unlike the way it is more likely to happen.

    We’ll need fundraisers to work with us to bring it together. I have some that are willing to try if we can get a green light on the project.

  18. paulie

    Not sure what you mean by a million registrations.

    If LP drops off the ballot the choices would be register 100-whatever K voters, get 177k or so valid signatures for presidential ticket only as an independent, or get 1 million or so valid signatures (NOT registrations) to qualify the party temporarily, which makes the least amount of sense of these options unless you are a petition company owner sitting on the board of a “party” with practically unlimited financial resources and no understanding of these rules or what it takes to navigate them other than boundless trust in your expertise.

  19. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Seebeck: Well, the path forward now for LPCA is clear: get 10K registrations to 103K by November 2014…

    Why? What difference does it make?

    If the LPCA doesn’t expect to ever make it to the general election, what difference does it make whether it remains an “official, state-recognized” party or not?

    With Top-Two, irrespective of whether the LPCA retains official status…

    1. Libertarian candidates cannot list “Libertarian” on the primary ballot.

    2. Libertarian candidates can still run as independents (which is how they will appear on the ballot, whether the LPCA exists or not).

    With Top-Two, I don’t see any practical difference with whether the LPCA retains official status.

  20. Mark Seidenberg

    Root’s Teeth Are Awesome

    The number is 103,004.

    The LP is way short.

    Paulie,

    It is 2014 and not 2012!

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

  21. Andy

    “The LP is way short.”

    The LP is currently around 10,000 short. I wouldn’t define that as “way short.”

  22. Mark Seidenberg

    Andy,

    What do you define as “way short”?

    How did you come up with 10,000 shortage?

    The date to be concerned with is 135 days before
    the 2014 primary election.

    Paulie,

    I can not believe Richard Winger told you what
    you stated about a number other than the 103,004! He knows better than that.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

  23. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    My question was serious, not rhetorical.

    * Whereas, regardless of whether the LP has official status, libertarian candidates must (and can) still gather signatures to appear on the ballot.

    * Whereas, regardless of whether the LP has official status, libertarian candidates cannot list a party on the ballot.

    * Whereas, regardless of whether the LP has official status, libertarian candidates don’t expect ever to make it to the general election.

    * Therefore, what’s the advantage of the LP having “official status” (other than the ego-boost from the illusion that the LP is as “real” a political party as the two majors)?

  24. Andy

    “How did you come up with 10,000 shortage?”

    The breakdown of how many registered voters there are under each party banner is on the California Secretary of State’s website. They’ve currently got the Libertarian Party of California listed as having 93,000 and something registered voters.

    This is about 10,000 short of what they currently need to retain ballot status. They will of course need some padding on top of this, due to people being purged from the voter roles, but none the less, I wouldn’t define this as being “way short.”

  25. Andy

    “* Therefore, what’s the advantage of the LP having “official status” (other than the ego-boost from the illusion that the LP is as “real” a political party as the two majors)?”

    If you are talking about Oklahoma, the LP can’t put their Presidential ticket on unless they gather around 53,000 valid petition signatures. It’s slightly less if they put the Presidential candidate on as an independent, I think around 49,000, but the difference is so small that it is trivial, and given this fact, it makes more sense to do the party petition (which also allows them to run a slate of candidates with the Libertarian Party label next to their names).

  26. paulie

    It is 2014 and not 2012!

    If it is based on 2014 numbers, then we have a year from Nov 2014 (making the cutoff Nov 2015) as Richard Winger has told me. The number of registrations we will need is not known exactly, but is most likely to go up.

  27. paulie

    How did you come up with 10,000 shortage?

    93k or so valid now.

    I can not believe Richard Winger told you what
    you stated about a number other than the 103,004! He knows better than that.

    Ask him yourself. I think it is in the archive comments here but I don’t feel like digging it up.

  28. paulie

    * Whereas, regardless of whether the LP has official status, libertarian candidates must (and can) still gather signatures to appear on the ballot.

    * Whereas, regardless of whether the LP has official status, libertarian candidates cannot list a party on the ballot.

    Not correct. Candidates of qualified parties can list their party label on the primary ballot. The LP is a qualified party right now. It stops being a qualified party once it drops off the ballot due to the grandfathered-in status based on general election vote percentage expiring unless registrations are raised sufficiently, at which point you become correct, and candidates can no longer be listed as Libertarian even in the primary.

    * Whereas, regardless of whether the LP has official status, libertarian candidates don’t expect ever to make it to the general election.

    Also not necessarily true. It is possible to get into the top two in cases where there is only one major party primary opponent, as some independents did in 2012 iirc.

    * Therefore, what’s the advantage of the LP having “official status” (other than the ego-boost from the illusion that the LP is as “real” a political party as the two majors)?

    One major advantage is not having to get 177k+ valid signatures to list the presidential candidate as an independent in the most populated state in the country. It would become by far our most expensive ballot access state, or, if we don’t qualify there, would vastly diminish the value of the LP nomination to national candidates and in turn have ripple effects on the party in every other state.

    To get that candidate listed on the ballot as Libertarian would take over a million valid signatures, which is not practically possible unless the party grows a lot more than it ever has.

    Also, if top two is ever overturned by a new initiative or by the courts, the LP would have to get about ten times as many registrations to re-qualify as it would take to remain qualified.

    I listed the advantages in the primary, and potentially (albeit rarely) in the general election earlier.

  29. zapper

    The LP must begin a massive party building registration drive in CA … ASAP.

    It should be run around a plan to strengthen its county affiliates or to organize a separate active affiliate in every county in CA where one does not exist.

    Fundraising should begin and be handled by volunteers to prevent massive dilution of funds by unneeded commissions.

    Dedicated LP members should be recruited and hired to work the project on a long-term basis at reasonable pay levels that encourage outreach and party building along with gathering registrations.

  30. paulie

    What’s stopping me?

    I need an entity that donors can contribute to which will generate donor confidence.

    LP of CA would be logical, but they don’t seem to have any interest in giving us the go ahead.

    County parties would be a decent stand-in, but we can’t even get one of them to sign off on it.

    Any other suggestions?

  31. Richard Winger

    Thanks to IPR for the excellent editorial and all the support from the commenters. Keep in mind, probably on September 25 the US Supreme Court will say whether it will hear the Washington state case against top-two. That case is being brought by the Washington Democratic Party and the Washington Libertarian Party.

    As to the threat to party status for the Libertarian Party and Peace & Freedom Party, they need their registrations by November 2014, because if they don’t have them, the Secretary of State will print new registration cards that omit them. It is true the two parties could still get more registrations during 2015 but it would be much more difficult without the party’s having its own check box on the form. The “other” line where the new voter writes in the party is very short and small.

  32. Andy

    “zapper // Sep 18, 2012 at 11:09 am

    The LP must begin a massive party building registration drive in CA … ASAP.

    It should be run around a plan to strengthen its county affiliates or to organize a separate active affiliate in every county in CA where one does not exist.

    Fundraising should begin and be handled by volunteers to prevent massive dilution of funds by unneeded commissions.

    Dedicated LP members should be recruited and hired to work the project on a long-term basis at reasonable pay levels that encourage outreach and party building along with gathering registrations.”

    We’ve already got a plan and some great libertarian workers, who are ready, willing, and able to get the registration and build up the LP of California. The only thing that is lacking is the funding to get these libertarian workers on the ground and to keep them working until ballot status is secured for the LP of California.

    There needs to be a place for the donors for the project to send the funds. The LP of CA would seem to be the most logical choice, but it could also be LP of CA county affiliates, or perhaps a PAC or SuperPac that is dedicated to the project.

    Putting this project off rather than getting it started as soon as possible would be highly suboptimal. See the ballot access fiascos in Oklahoma and Pennsylvania this year for examples of such fiascos. If Libertarians want to ensure that the job gets done in the most effective manner in California then it needs to start early. This should be a priority after this November’s election.

  33. Seebeck

    The numbers came directly from my SVC report last April, broken down by region and county. The needle has moved next to zero on those numbers since, because very little action has been done by the LPCA membership in that regard, and what has been done is barely keeping up with the drops, if at all.

    Paulie is correct, it is a million signatures, not registrations. My error.

    There are 8/10 active counties in the southern region (or 7, depends on Kern) and a small few of the remaining in the northern region. The spread isn’t there much at all except in the city areas.

    The registrations need to be there by the 135 days deadline in 2o14. That’s roughly the end of June 2014. The new threshold for 2015 and beyond is set by the November 2014 governor election. If the LP doesn’t make the 103K, it loses ballot access for even the primaries starting with 2015. The LP has it right now due to the electoral percentage requirement being met in 2010, but that option is effectively gone with Top Two.

    The registrations allow for easier signature requirements for primary ballot access plus Presidential ballot access.

    Without those, the LPCA and the LP might as well shutter down, because the LP will lose its biggest state, added to the lost column with Arizona soon and Washington now.

  34. Seebeck

    Frankly, this should have become top priority immediately after Prop 14 passed. It’s been almost two years of zilch done on it.

  35. Andy

    “Seebeck // Sep 18, 2012 at 9:13 pm

    Frankly, this should have become top priority immediately after Prop 14 passed. It’s been almost two years of zilch done on it.”

    Yep, this is correct. Very little has been done thus far. I’ve been sounding the alarm bell since then but unfortunately not many people in the LP of CA have bothered to take any steps to get the job done. This needs to change…fast.

  36. Nor Cal

    The northern California counties are grouped into a 24-county region. We’re kicking off on January 1st, 2013 with our annual voter registration drive there and in Central California.

  37. Seebeck

    “Annual voter registration drive”?

    I was tracking the numbers as part of the ExComm and OpsComm.

    What drive?

    Any how many counties in this new northern region are active vs. wishful thinking? Last time I checked there wasn’t anything active north of Sacto and Grass Valley.

  38. Catholic Trotskyist

    A voter registration drive right after the election? Come on guys, have it in the next month when people care most.

  39. paulie

    I’d prefer to have it right now, too, but first the program has to be authorized and the money raised (at least enough to get started and not have to stop and start or get too far ahead of the money available). So, the sooner the better, even if it is after the election, which as you correctly point out is less than optimal.

  40. paulie

    “Annual voter registration drive”?

    I was tracking the numbers as part of the ExComm and OpsComm.

    What drive?

    That was Ogle. He’s not doing a LP voter registration drive, he is registering voters in general. A few of them happen to register Libertarian. Not enough to rise above the noise level of people moving, dying, becoming disqualified, falling off the rolls through inactivity, becoming old enough, becoming US citizens, switching parties, etc.

  41. paulie

    Frankly, this should have become top priority immediately after Prop 14 passed. It’s been almost two years of zilch done on it.

    Yep.

  42. zapper

    @46 Paulie, what is your estimate of cost to set up an outreach & county party building program that will also gather 20,000 new registrations to give a decent safety margin beginning in November 2012.

    My guess is $8000 per month for 2o months.

  43. paulie

    I would assume a 20-30% fundraising overhead. If so, it would cost at least $200k.

    I don’t think it is a good idea to spread it out over 20 months.

    Even if we had only two people working on it, that would mean they could each make only $1,000 a week or less and be locked into it for 20 months, whereas there are likely to be many times when people who are good at this and can travel can make a lot more in other states.

    We could do it on again off again or pair it with other petitions in CA at times, but I would prefer to knock it out over, say, 3-6 months, which we could easily do.

    If the money only came in at the rate of 8k/month it is possible to stretch it out like you suggest, but that would not be my first choice.

  44. Mark Seidenberg

    Richard Winger,
    It seems to me that three qualified political
    parties have problems, viz., American Elect,
    Peace & Freedom, and Libertarian Party by
    November, 2014.

    There is a little change in the law that might
    help, viz., same day registration.

    I expect the figure will go up from the 103,004
    figure that is now in effect.

    One thing that can be done is use the old registration forms. That will require hording
    them.

    An other thing is the LP, P&F, & AE should
    do is look at the period between November,
    2014 and February, 2015, because the
    odd year report does not operate until
    February, 2015.

    HAVA forms create other problems. That goes
    to the County Level with the election officials.

    If the Libertarian or Peace and Freedom Party
    is not completed with the correct spelling they
    may not be counted correctly.

    Another thing is the parties need to find out the
    dates that the County Election officials will clean
    up the registration within each of the 58 counties.

    The other problem will be special elections.
    if they are not a qualified political party the
    candidate become NPS.

    TO: Richard Winger,

    Can persons that are under 18 years after the November, 2014 elections and registering for
    the next election, be counted in the total registration during the February, 2015 report?

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

  45. Mark Seidenberg

    Paulie,

    One thing the P&F and LP can do is use the services of High School Coordinator under
    section 2148(a) under the terms of Student Voter Rights Act of 2003. I do not understand
    why I never see P&F or LP representives in
    contact with New Voters in the High Schools
    or at locations were new Citizens get sworn in
    by the courts.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

  46. paulie

    We do have some people at high schools and citizenship ceremonies but not enough. Spread too think, and too many things to do, along with too many keyboard bombardiers….

  47. Mark Seidenberg

    Richard Winger

    It still comes down to how each county election
    official treats the persons “political party preference” with the ability to state an “intention
    to affiliate with that (AE, P&F, or LP)! My information is they are all over the map.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

Leave a Reply

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