California State Senate to Vote on Abolishing Write-in Space on General Election

[CARLHAYDEN]

California State Senate to Vote on Abolishing Write-in Space on General Election Ballots on Wednesday, September 7

September 6th, 2011

The California Senate will vote on Wednesday, September 7, on AB 1413.

http://www.ballot-access.org/

[Napoleon]

That is rather sickening.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It seems they really don't want people to be able to cast protest votes. Somehow I am not surprised.

[greenforest32]

That is rather sickening.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't know if I'd call it sickening, but yeah, this doesn't seem like a good idea in any way.

[bullmoose88]

I don't know if I'd call it sickening, but yeah, this doesn't seem like a good idea in any way.

This.  Mickey Mouse will not be pleased.  Goofy bastards.

[Franzl]

I don't know if I'd call it sickening, but yeah, this doesn't seem like a good idea in any way.

I don't think a write-in is necessary if ballot access restrictions are reasonable. Unfortunately that's not the case in most states.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Presumably you would still be able to spoil your ballot, or does the bizarre American obsession with stupid voting machines get in the way of that?

[Franzl]

Presumably you would still be able to spoil your ballot, or does the bizarre American obsession with stupid voting machines get in the way of that?

You can still spoil whatever you want, but it isn't generally reported as an invalid vote. It's just not included in the total.

[Bacon King]

Presumably you would still be able to spoil your ballot, or does the bizarre American obsession with stupid voting machines get in the way of that?

The Diebold machines that Georgia uses will allow you to leave a race blank, but don't let you spoil your ballot in any other way. The older machines that Louisiana used (it was a giant paper ballot, about four feet wide, mounted on a machine where you click a candidate's box and a little red X lights up) had another little red X in the top-left corner of the ballot item that would light up if you didn't have the correct amount of boxes checked for that race (I.E., 2 for the New Orleans at large city council seat(s) and 1 for everything else) but it let me submit an undervote so I'm pretty sure it would let you submit an overvote as well. Louisiana doesn't do write-ins, though, but that's not as big of a deal because it's incredibly easy to get on the ballot in the state.

[CARLHAYDEN]

This isn't an isolated example of state legislators having a desire to do whatever they can to quell voters.

They are currently trying to block referendum.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/09/democratic-effort-to-avoid-californiaama.html

[MaxQue]

This isn't an isolated example of state legislators having a desire to do whatever they can to quell voters.

They are currently trying to block referendum.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/09/democratic-effort-to-avoid-californiaama.html

Well, considering than all they are in trouble because voters by referendum to block taxes and to force some expenses, that is perhaps a good idea.

[RI]

Five states (Hawaii, South Dakota, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Nevada) have already done this, so, while sad, it's not exactly revolutionary nor is it a California-exclusive effort.

And, fwiw, California and Washington, for that matter, should be fighting the referendum power in their states, but this is not about that.

[J. J.]

It is a stupid idea.  It is the Senate saying, "Let's limit the voter's choice on who to elect."  In some smaller municipalities, it might actually prevent a candidate from getting elected.

Maybe they can translate some old USSR statutes. 

[BigSkyBob]

Since write-ins are perfectly acceptable for the primary,  voters just will have to accept the fact that the top two vote getters in the primary are the two finalists in November. People with a problem with this fact ought to work to abolish the open primary system.

The only issue I have is that pesky detail called the Constitution.  In past Lousianna open primaries, candidates winning an absolute majority in the primary ran unopposed in November. This was declared unconstitutional since the Constitution states the date federal elections are to take place. It is an interesting  Constitutional question to ask, "If the states can't use the primary to restrict election day to one candidate, why does the Constitution allow states to use the primary to restrict election day to two candidates?"

This objection would only apply to Federal offices. I don't know what the California Constitution reads about this matter.

[angus]

I wrote in Alfred E. Newman once for state assembly contest.  It was 2002 and I was living in Alameda County, just inland from Oakland, and both the Democrat and Republican were spamming me with about five pieces per day.  All negative.  They had several televised debates on the local access channel.  It was getting pretty tiresome.

The Newman vote would not be counted, I learned later, since Alfred E. Newman was not a legitimate write-in candidate.  It would have the same effect as if I'd not voted in that race, I later learned.  Like just skipping that race, or leaving it blank, but voting in all the rest of them.  Same effect maybe, but not as satisfactory.  Somehow, it's just not as cathartic to skip it.  I think I'm against the proposal.

[BigSkyBob]

I wrote in Alfred E. Newman once for state assembly contest.  It was 2002 and I was living in Alameda County, just inland from Oakland, and both the Democrat and Republican were spamming me with about five pieces per day.  All negative.  They had several televised debates on the local access channel.  It was getting pretty tiresome.

The Newman vote would not be counted, I learned later, since Alfred E. Newman was not a legitimate write-in candidate.  It would have the same effect as if I'd not voted in that race, I later learned.  Like just skipping that race, or leaving it blank, but voting in all the rest of them.  Same effect maybe, but not as satisfactory.  Somehow, it's just not as cathartic to skip it.  I think I'm against the proposal.

Actually, it can even be worse. In Minnesota Senate election of 2008, one voter cast a series of write-in votes for "Mickey Mouse" for minor offices. He did cast a vote for Norm Coleman. Al Franken challenged his vote for Coleman based on the idea the ballot had an "identifying mark."

The political class does not take kindly to being mocked.

[angus]

The political class does not take kindly to being mocked.

Although, at least in Franken's case, they don't have any qualms about mocking others. 

Well, of course the idea of not voting in a particular race on a ballot has occurred to many people, and it'd probably be simpler to just have folks leave it blank.  And that would preclude the problem you mention, but that still leaves the problem of what to do when legitimate write-in candidates exist.  Having ballots prepared with an "other: ______ " option available is a cost-effective and sensible way to deal with the problem.  Otherwise, you'd have to change write-in candidate rules in a way that they have registration deadlines that occur in time to have ballots printed.  But if you're going to do all that, then why would they be a write-in candidate in the first place?  You could have their names spelled out properly if that were the case. 

[Marokai Backbeat]

This isn't an isolated example of state legislators having a desire to do whatever they can to quell voters.

They are currently trying to block referendum.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/09/democratic-effort-to-avoid-californiaama.html

Trying to block a referendum? A state after my own heart.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Since write-ins are perfectly acceptable for the primary,  voters just will have to accept the fact that the top two vote getters in the primary are the two finalists in November. People with a problem with this fact ought to work to abolish the open primary system.

The only issue I have is that pesky detail called the Constitution.  In past Lousianna open primaries, candidates winning an absolute majority in the primary ran unopposed in November. This was declared unconstitutional since the Constitution states the date federal elections are to take place. It is an interesting  Constitutional question to ask, "If the states can't use the primary to restrict election day to one candidate, why does the Constitution allow states to use the primary to restrict election day to two candidates?"

This objection would only apply to Federal offices. I don't know what the California Constitution reads about this matter.

Exactly, while I voted against it, a majority of the voters voted to have only 2 candidates in the general election.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This isn't an isolated example of state legislators having a desire to do whatever they can to quell voters.

They are currently trying to block referendum.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/09/democratic-effort-to-avoid-californiaama.html

Trying to block a referendum? A state after my own heart.

I think it's pretty clear that Amazon's referendum will fail, they just want to continue to not collect sales tax for another 9 months.