California and the Laws that Divide Part 1: Primary Election Chaos
Predictably, the 2024 Presidential Primary Election in California was mired in chaos.
The causes can all be traced back to the California Legislature (and Governor) whose efforts over the last 25 years have built an electoral process that voters can neither understand nor trust.
This series of articles will explore the chaos that was the California Presidential Primary and connect that chaos to the laws and circumstances that perpetrated it.
Election Integrity Project®California (EIPCa) strongly alleges California’s current electoral process to be unconstitutional, and is challenging over 20 California election laws on that basis. This lawsuit is groundbreaking and revolutionary, and not only worthy but in need of your support.
The proponents of California’s indefensible election system justify every successive law passed as allegedly making registering and voting “easier,” “effortless,” more “accessible,” and more “inclusive.”
But in reality, these permissive laws have made everything more confusing, with so many choices and so many things to navigate that voters are literally left wondering what to do in order to cast a vote, or to make that vote count. Many simply stay home.
In trying to create a system that they hoped would lead to almost 100% voter participation, the legislature has given Californians a system that inspired only 33% of eligible voters to vote in the most recent election.
This system is driving voters away, and disenfranchising many of those who continue to participate.
EIPCa believes that more than 20 unconstitutional California election laws have led to this unacceptable situation. Our Federal Lawsuit challenging the Constitutionality of these laws, as well as Secretary of State regulations and Registrars’ policies and procedures, brings that challenge officially to the adjudication of the courts
The success of EIPCa’s lawsuit is vital in returning INTEGRITY,
The 1993 National Voter Registration Act “Findings and Purposes” section §20501 states:
U.S. Code § 20501 - Findings and purposes
(a) Findings The Congress finds that (1) the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right;
(2) it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the exercise of that right; and
(3) discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office…
(b) Purpose #3 of 4 says: (3) …protect the integrity of the electoral process…
[Click here to read the rest of the article]
Vote Safe and a Little More in 2024 Part 9 – Post Election Details
[Click here to read the article] |
California and the Laws that Divide Part 2: More Primary Election Chaos
Part 1 of this article series highlighted one major issue that led to an unacceptable level of chaos in the recent Presidential Primary election.
That issue was that the Motor Voter Law continues to generate “unintentional” changes of party affiliation for voters. The elements of the software that cause the difficulties for voters have been known and understood for years, and could have been resolved, but so far have not been.
But the Motor Voter Law is only the tip of the iceberg sinking California’s election integrity.
The complicated Primary rules
In California, the primary election for all offices is merged with the Presidential Primary, appearing to be one big election. But it is not.
For every office except President, all voters may vote for any candidate, irrespective of party. The top two vote getters move on to the General Election, again irrespective of party.
This is what California voters as the “rules” of a primary election.
As a result, the Presidential Primary comes as a confusing complication because it operates under entirely different rules, even though it appears to be an integral part of the rest of the ballot.
The state laws do not govern the Presidential Primary.
The “rules” are made by the participating political parties with regard to whether their Primary is “closed” (only registered party members may vote) or “open” - and if so to whom.
This may all sound reasonable, but what is on paper (laws, regulations, policies) has NO way of becoming general public knowledge.
It is all far too complicated, and laws, etc. so quickly and often, it is impossible to keep up.
[Click here to read the rest of the article]
When Roads Converge [Click here to read the article]
|
Santa Clarita, California (June 22, 2021)Click here to download copy of press release-- California’s November 3, 2020 election was marred by significant voting and registration irregularities, according to Election Integrity Project® California, Inc. (EIPCa). The non-partisan organization analyzed the state’s official voter list of February 9, 2021 and reported its findings to California’s Secretary of State Shirley Weber on June 17, 2021. This followed EIPCa reports of 2020 cross-state voting on April 30 and May 18, 2021 that the Secretary has ignored. EIPCa’s June report cites California’s election code that requires officials to provide timely answers to citizens’ questions.
EIPCa seeks answers to the following questions, on behalf of California voters:
VoteCal Database Date | # Counties with Registrations Exceeding # Eligible Citizens | Total Ineligible Registrations |
March 2020 | 11 | 1,063,957 |
February 2021 | 23 | 1,834,789 (+72% since 3/20) |
“Many in the nation are questioning the validity of the 2020 general election in their states”, said EIPCa President Linda Paine. “Mass irregularities in California’s registration and voting numbers continue to erode voter confidence here and we are hopeful Secretary Weber will immediately address our questions.”