Let Chamness Run as an Independent
A Venice congressional candidate should be allowed the label he wants.
Venice has been without a member of the House to represent it for nearly a month. An election is scheduled on May 17 to replace Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) who resigned, although the election rules have been challenged in court by Michael Chamness, a Venice resident who is running for the seat.
Chamness doesn’t have a problem with the state's new primary system which will allow the top two vote getters to run against each other despite party affiliation. He does object to the fact that he can’t list his party membership, because it’s not one of the six official parties recognized by the state.
Members of other parties would have to state “no party preference” on the ballot. Chamness claims that doing so would be a a lie. He prefers to list himself as an independent.
Chamness is a member of the Coffee Party a 2-year-old group with an intriguing platform should be part of the political debate. The Coffee Party's website clearly states, “We maintain our independence from all political parties and labels.”
There is a very low threshold in California to be a qualified political party. In a timely manner before an election, one percent of registered voters have to complete an affidavit of registration on which they've written the name of the party they want to join.
Chamness wants this election to be run under the old rules, which will circumvent the will of the people as exercised by voting for Prop 14 which set up the top two primary system.
Federal U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II heard arguments Monday and will rule soon. Wright should keep the current system in place, but should thread the legal needle and let Chamness label himself as an independent which better reflects Chamness' political views.
If Wright rules against Chamness, the Coffee Party should get to work in collecting the 103,004 registrants needed to become official.
Do you think that minor party affiliation should not be acknowledged on the ballot?
Tell us in the comments.
Samantha Page
12:44 pm on Thursday, March 24, 2011
Couldn't this all be circumvented if the language just read, "No major party preference"?
Gautam Dutta
10:25 am on Friday, March 25, 2011
Thanks for covering this important issue. It definitely would have been far better if the state's new election law had allowed candidates like Michael Chamness to use the ballot label of "Independent" . After all, California used to allow candidates to identify themselves that exact way for over a century -- from 1891 through Dec. 31, 2010.
We filed this lawsuit to mend the new Top Two Primary, not to end it. For this reason, we have asked the federal court to put the new election rules on hold until the Legislature fixes the problem -- and restores EVERY candidate's constitutional right to an accurate ballot label.
Gautam Dutta, Esq.
Attorney for 36th District Congressional candidate Michael Chamness
Richard Winger
2:22 pm on Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Washington state lets candidates label themselves any way they want, and Washington state has the top-two system the Prop. 14 imitates. Washington state just says the label can't be longer than 15 letters and can't be obscene. Plenty of candidates in Washington state used the label "independent" in 2008 and 2010, the years top-two was in effect in that state.
It is grossly untrue that it is easy to qualify a party in California. Getting 103,004 registrations is a titanic job. No party has qualified in California since 1995. Furthermore the job must be done in the odd year before the election. The early deadline all by itself is almost certainly unconstitutional. The Republican Party was formed on July 6, 1854, and won more seats in the US House in the autumn 1854 election than any other party. California law would have made it impossible for a party to be on the ballot if it were formed in the election year itself, something that has been held unconstitutional in 14 other states in the last 25 years.