Posts Tagged ‘open primary’

Tucker for Senator: Fight filing fees

Sunday, December 19th, 2010

Your email:

 

Peace & Freedom Party

In 1974 I ran for State Senator against Democratic incumbent Alan Robbins (the same Alan Robbins who later was convicted of various felonies while in office). In order to run for office that year I had to get a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals injunction against the enforcement of California’s filing fees for which there was then no legal alternative. You couldn’t even have write-in votes counted for you without paying a fee, meaning that indigents and people who worked for a living couldn’t run unless they had rich supporters to finance their campaigns.

While my case tied up the state with the injunction, Don Paul Lubin of the Peace and Freedom Party, who wanted to run for Board of Supervisors, got his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Marge Buckley handled both cases. When Lubin vs Panish was decided 9-0 by the Supreme Court striking down California’s filing fees as facially unconstitutional, Jerry Brown, then Secretary of State, responded by throwing five (5) candidates off the ballot for not paying the fees that had just been declared unconstitutional, including Peace and Freedom Party candidates Bob Donovan (Attorney General), Bernie Klitzner (Controller), and Jim Stanbery (State Treasurer).

Since then, I’ve run for everything from Assembly to President at one time or another.

Tucker in Che Beret from Cuba

In 1974 as mentioned, I ran against Alan Robbins for State Senator in the San Fernando Valley. In 1976, I ran against Jim Keysor in the SFV for State Assembly. In 1978, I was the PFP nominee for Lieutenant Governor against Merv Dymally and Mike Curb. In 1980, I caused the defeat of ranking Californian in Congress Jim Corman by taking away nearly 2,100 votes, almost three times as many as the 750 votes he lost by to the Republican. In 1982, I ran for the PFP nomination for Governor against a candidate who claimed that nuclear power was safe and environmentally sound in the Soviet Union (sure, like the plant at Chernobyl). I lost the election, but in the light of history, I won the argument.

In 1992, I ran for Congress against Republican Carlos Moorhead, who had answered a question I posed to him at a community forum by saying he voted against Barbara Boxer’s bill for abortion funding for rape and incest victims because it included funding for victims of spousal rape, which he described as being “when a husband gets a little too aggressive with his wife.” I exposed him for the male chauvinist pig that he was throughout the district.

Jan B. Tucker with Dr. Benjamin Spock - 1976

In 1994 I was the PFP Candidate for State Treasurer against Phil Angelides and Matt Fong Eu. Following the one debate that included Angelides, Eu, and Libertarian Petersen along with myself, Eu and Petersen congratulated me admitting that I’d really kicked ass in the KQED FM forum, while Angelides stalked off.

In 1996, I ran for the PFP Presidential nomination and placed second out of four candidates in the primary, trouncing the Socialist Party’s candidate and edging out the party leadership endorsed candidate. I placed second to the Workers World Party nominee, Monica Moorhead.

In 1998, I was again the PFP’s State Treasurer nominee, setting the record for the highest vote ever in any PFP primary election that I hold to this day. That year, I was the party’s highest vote getter in the general election and got more votes than Green Party gubernatorial candidate and former Democratic Congressman Dam Hamburg. That was in spite of the fact that the party leadership refused to support me and overtly denounced me. In 2000, while PFP was off the ballot, I ran in the Green Party’s U.S. Senate primary.

Now, due to the death of State Senator Jenny Oropeza, I’ve taken out petitions to run for the 28th State Senate special election, but there’s a catch. After our court victories in 1974 getting the old filing fee law thrown out, the legislature wrote a new law. It imposed thousands of signatures to wave the filing fees for Democrats and Republicans, and a pretty hard but doable 10% or 150 signatures, whichever is less for a district or statewide election, for third parties. That may sound easy but it still is very, very difficult and almost impossible for candidates who are actively opposed by their own party’s leadership (which defeats the very purpose of party primaries, which are supposed to give the choice of a party’s candidate to the party rank and file, not to party bosses). Usually, you have months in which to gather the necessary signatures.

However for the special election in the 28th District, in which the State of California is now implementing the so-called “open primary” rules under Proposition 14, the alternative to paying the filing fee is that I got to take out the petition yesterday (Friday) and they have to be back with 3,000 good signatures on Monday. The State of California is just pretending to have an alternative to paying the filing fee at this point, because this is ridiculous, especially when it’s raining cats and dogs throughout the 28th District.

So California, get ready for another lawsuit.

For more info about my candidacy, go to the Facebook event page:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=121386141253835

Jan B. Tucker @ South Central Farm

British Election Results: 1 in 20 Have Gone Neo-Nazi

Saturday, May 8th, 2010

In case people missed this little asterisk on the British election results, a full 5% — in raw numbers just under 1.5 million Britons — voted for the United Kingdom Independence Party and the British National Party. These parties are the spiritual descendants of Sir Oswald Mosley’s pro-Nazi movement and try to maintain a polite veneer of supposedly being non-racist enough to meet the qualifications of parties to run in British elections.

This poses a BIG problem for electoral reform in Britain.

One thing that is a must for either the Conservative or Labour parties to come to power in a coalition government is to get the support of the Liberal Democrats. There is simply no other possible coalition formula that doesn’t include them, and the Lib-Dem bottom line is going to include some form of proportional representation or electoral arrangement that enables them to reflect with parliamentary seats a closer measure of the votes they actually get.

Many “list” systems of straight proportional representation systems that nations use also have a minimum proportion necessary for a party to receive any seats at all. If I recall correctly, Germany has a 5% minimum threshold. If Britain went to a system like that, an electoral alliance between the BNP, UKIP and other far-right groups looks like they could easily attain a 5% threshold, inasmuch as they just did it standing on their own.

What the Lib-Dems and the Labour Party might want to agree on as a method of keeping the Nazis out of parliament while still instilling fairness to the system would be a French type of system, where there are two rounds of elections with every party able to participate. What happens in effect in France is that after the first round, whoever came out on the left with the best chance of winning and whoever on the right has the best chance of winning goes on to the second round, with the other parties that they can align themselves with dropping out of the race.

This latter type of election is similar to what some Labour Party cabinet members were already suggesting de facto, when in the last days before the election they openly promoted “strategic voting,” urging their own members to vote Liberal Democratic where that party was the best chance of beating the Conservative candidates and imploring Liberal Democratic voters to vote Labour where their candidates, likewise, were in a better position against the Conservatives.

No matter how you configure election rules, somebody will get and advantage and somebody will lose an advantage. When California used, for a couple of elections, an open primary system, I was the hands down primary winner against the leadership of my own party, the Peace and Freedom Party. I set the all-time high vote record for the PFP primary for any candidate for any office in any election in history. Partially as a result, PFP’s leadership teamed up with the Democrats and Republicans to challenge the open primary in court. They got rid of the Open Primary, which was immensely popular with California’s voters, but they are stuck with the fact that I will now always hold the high primary vote record as long as we have a closed primary.