The Ninth Circuit has scheduled oral arguments in Peace & Freedom Party v Bowen for Thursday, February 13, in San Francisco. The issue is whether the Secretary of State should have listed Peta Lindsay on the party’s presidential primary ballot in 2012. Lindsay is under age 35.
The issue of whether California should print the names of candidates on the ballot who don’t meet the constitutional qualifications is very confused. In 2012, the California Court of Appeals ruled in Fuller v Bowen, 203 Cal App 4th 1476, that election officials do not have the authority to judge the qualifications of candidates for state legislature. The court said the Secretary of State was correct to list a particular Republican candidate for State Senate on the ballot, even though he admitted he had not lived in the district for a full year before filing. The court said only the legislature can judge the qualifications of candidates.
Also, in 2010, the same California Court of Appeals ruled that the Secretary of State should not investigate the qualifications of candidates for president. The decision in Keyes v Bowen, 189 Cal App 4th 647, says, “With respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties’ candidates.” The word “must” is in italics.
Yet in the Peace & Freedom case, the U.S. District Court ruled that because Lindsay admits she does not meet the qualifications, the Secretary of State was correct to keep her off the ballot. Long ago, in 1892, California printed the name of the Prohibition Party’s vice-presidential nominee on the ballot even though he was under age 35. Also, in 1972, the California Secretary of State permitted Linda Jenness to be a qualified write-in presidential candidate, even though she was under age 35.
In comments, Richard Winger also notes:
Putting a presidential candidate on the ballot who does not meet the constitutional qualifications does not violate the U.S. Constitution. Presidential candidates’ names on general election ballots are not there as candidates; the names of the presidential candidates are there as markers to identify slates of presidential elector candidates. The presidential elector candidates of PFP have a First Amendment right to say that if they are elected, they will vote for Peta Lindsay. Congress would then count the electoral votes and set aside those votes. That is what happened in the 1872 election. Three Democratic presidential electors voted for Horace Greeley in the electoral college in 1872, even though he was dead. Congress set aside those 3 electoral votes on the theory that votes for a dead person are invalid.
See above. As I already clearly said:
Of course not. SOS should not be looking at candidate eligibility to serve at all, as the court case cited already said, and as Richard and I have explained why. Only the electors, with appeal to the courts, should even be thinking about that at all.
What part of that was not clear? Is there a point to asking questions I already answered before you asked them?
Paulie,
What about the issues of being born out of wedlock and not being employed by the United States Government or the Panama Rail Road as a requirement under the 1937 Act of Congress
as a requirement to be part of that collective naturalization act? Should the Secretary of State
look at those matters also?
That’s complete nonsense, and no, I will not waste time treating that bizarre BS seriously again. I’ve spent far more than enough time on it already.
Of course not. As I already said, the SOS should not be looking at candidate eligibility to serve at all, as the court case cited already said, and as Richard and I have explained why. Only the electors, with appeal to the courts, should even be thinking about that at all.
Paulie,
In 2008, both the Republican and Democratic parties picked persons that were not citizens of the United States at birth to run for POTUS.
A little history, In early 1981, I was in the office of a United States Senator from California with a
three way meeting between me and # 2 man at the US Department of Interior, who later became
both the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Energy. This was just after the president
was shot.
Secretary of State Haig comment came up at the meeting of how he was in control until Bush
arrived in Washington. The senator raised the issue by saying if he was in Senior Senator shoes
from South Carolina, he would have to be skipped because he was born in Canada. Then said
number # 2 man from the Department of Interior, stated that if he held the Office of Secretary
(which he did at a latter date) he would have to be skipped also, because his mother Rose was
a British Subject born in Canada at his birth. Then the Senator made the comment, which I
never heard before, “Eh! Yankee White”.
John McCain III was born out of wedlock in the Colon Hospital on the Island of Colon, Republic of Panama. His mother Roberta Wright McCain was not employed by the required employer
under the terms of the 1937 collective naturalization act for births in the Republic of Panama.
Obama mothers was under the age of 19 years and one day, therefore she could not have
been a resident of the United States for ten years, and five of those years after the age of
14 years when she gave birth to Obama in 1961 at age 18.
The law related to citizenship for the office of POTUS and VPOTUS is more than the
age of 35 years, as you can see from above. Should that Secretary of State look at the
age of the mother at the birth of the candidate also, as in the case of Obama.s mother
under age birth?
The electors, if that person wins electoral votes. Subject to appeal through the courts. Otherwise, it does not matter whether they are qualified or not, since as Richard pointed out they are just a figurehead for a slate of electors.
Only if they want to. Parties should be free to pick someone who is ineligible to serve. They may plan to replace that person if they actually win electoral votes, or they may rationally expect that the chances of them getting electoral votes are so low that it’s not worth even planning for that contingency.
That’s a different situation. I think they should have followed the law.
BTW what was their excuse for not putting Goode on your ballot if he wanted to be on it and you wanted him to be on it? As far as I know he is eligible to serve so that could not have been the excuse either. Sounds out of whack.
Paulie,
Who do you think should make the determination if a candidate is qualified to take office as POTUS or VPOTUS if they are on the ballot? If they are on the ballot for a qualified political
party, should that party leadership determine the qualification for the candidate.
Back in 2008 in California, the Democratic Party, by it’s rules let person who won the primary
for Congress get one pick for Presidential Elector. One Democratic Congressman, picked a
dead woman to be a California Presidential Elector that died in Eureka.
Secretary of State Bowen, did not reject the name of the dead person to be placed on the
ballot list. The law in California is clear. Presidential Electors that do not show up in Sacramento,
CA are replaced by the body as a whole through majority vote of those present. That did
not happen, because the Chairman of the California Democratic Party picked a replacement
on his own and just got Secretary of State Bowen to look the other way and not comply with that
law.
I don’t. I just want people to be able to control whether they are on the ballot or not. Beyond that I think it should be up to the party, and not bound by whether the individual is qualified to take the oath of office or not.
Virgil Goode asked me to submit his name on the list. Paulie, Thank you for your belief of
support for the view of Debra Bowen. However, Ron Paul was on the ballot in at least one
state, third party, because of supporter wishes. The process in California is the person with
ballot status has to ask to be removed, this is the same practice in Montana.
Therefore, Paulie, why do you want the Secretary of State to control who is on the ballot if the
candidate does not object?
Well, I oppose drafting candidates against their will, so I agree with her about Palin. Was Goode unwilling to be in your primary, or what was her reason for leaving him off?
In 2012, as Chairman of the American Independent Party of California, I submitted a list of names to be placed on the primary ballot. Bowen pick three from that list only. She left off
former U.S. Congressman Virgil Goode and the spouse of Sarah Palin, viz., Todd Palin.
I hope the parties can get their picks on the ballot, not just go by the choices of the California
Secretary of State as to her likes and dislikes.
Does this decision help make the native-born President clause in the Constitution obsolete or does it now depend on Congress?
The e decision in Keyes v Bowen, 189 Cal App 4th 647, says, “With respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties’ candidates.” The word “must” is in italics. <-- This is about who the SOS must place on the ballot, not who is eligible to take the oath of office, which are two separate matters. The native-born clause likewise does not address who can be on the ballot.
Does this decision help make the native-born President clause in the Constitution obsolete or does it now depend on Congress? Of course the courts lower than the US Supreme Court have limited ability to establish precedent. I once wrote a law journal article at the Florida Coastal Law Review on whether the original Constitution’s native-born President clause was superseded by the XIV Amendment. I am not sure anymore actually on that question but I’ve love to see it tested in the courts!