Humboldt all huhu over write-in question
The Hawaiian pidgin language is full of descriptive words, such as “huhu,” which describes a state of agitated anger.
The North Coast blogs have been all huhu since before the supervisor elections over the campaign's hot-button issue: Johanna Rodoni's shadow candidacy for 2nd District county supervisor.
When the TS reported that it was “possible” Johanna could be a November write-in it was enough to throw gas on the flaming huhu. How could the “Substandard” be so stupid? Don't they know the law? A write-in by Johanna Rodoni? What outrageous incompetence to suggest anything of the kind. Sub-sub-sub!”
That's why online political opinion gives you the most for your entertainment dollar -- or even more, since it costs nothing
TS County: Rodoni can be write-in
The TS is vindicated.
TS Nothing appears to prevent Johanna Rodoni as write-in
The HuHu: County elections department says Johanna can file for a write-in candidacy - but the law probably says otherwise
OH GOD, Eric, you're not taking leads from "Jane Doe!"
In my opinion, Johanna cannot run in November
BLIND ITEM
Johanna can run in November
CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE
ELECTIONS CODE
SECTION 8600-8605
ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 8140-8150
What Eric's looking at:
Bradley v Perrodin, (2003)
Edelstein v. City and County of San Francisco (2002)
Follow-up - an excellent piece on the late editor Rich Somerville and The Hu Hu: The end of Somervillization as we know it
So why did we just have a primary election? Makes no sense if you were to allow write-in's. If the whole process of a primary is to ensure two candidates, thus making the winner have to receive 50% of the vote, why would you allow more candidates? Either have one election, winner takes all (thus eliminating the 50% requirement) or a run-off with two candidates.
ReplyDeleteAm I off here Rose?
I see your reasoning and I don't have any answers.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me there is always a write in slot on every ballot, though, run-off or not.
I don't agree with Eric's interpretation, though,
Every voter in America should have the right to write in whoever they want in any election at any time it seems to me. To try to curtain any write-in possibility is to curtain democracy.
ReplyDeleteEric is truly anti-democracy when it suits his candidate, Clif Clendenen. He's going the extra mile to try to get Johanna disqualified. The man is a danger to democratic freedom from government by his representing unelected political gangsters, who themselves represent small elitist blocks of voters who think they know everything, most of whom don't even live in the 2nd District but in the Arcata/McKinleyville area.
Eric has made it clear that he only wants "progressives" elected.
ReplyDeleteFunny thing is, he might like Johanna, but she doesn't march to the "progressive" drumbeat.
I think she can be a write in candidate in the general election. She still needs to qualify which even after so much has been in the news and on various blogs about how this is done that some just don't understand it. People always write in names in every election but they did not file as a qualified candidate and are not counted. Eric has said this has to be resolved before the ballots are printed - why?? If Johanna gets qualified as a write in candidate her name won't be printed on the ballot. There is always a write in line so what is the difference?
ReplyDelete"There is always a write in line so what is the difference?"
ReplyDeleteNo,not always.This county really needs a charter.
The California Appeals Court ruled that a run-off is a continuation of the original election, not a new election, and that it has the same deadline for filing candidacy papers. Since a write-in candidate must file, they missed the deadline prior to the original election in this race.
ReplyDeleteThe California Appeals Court ruled that a run-off is a continuation of the original election, not a new election, and that it has the same deadline for filing candidacy papers. Since a write-in candidate must file, they missed the deadline prior to the original election in this race.
ReplyDeleteWhatever you say, JaneDoe.
ReplyDeleteBanking Expert
Code Expert
Election Expert
NOT!
what paranoia there is here. Everyone who disagrees with you isn't Jane Doe but I do like her reasoning on this. Thanks for the compliment.
ReplyDeleteAnd what reasoning would that be?
ReplyDeletePoint being that her "reasoning" has been proven to be factually deficient more than once. As in wrong.
No paranoia in pointing out that as her reasoning has been shown to be wrong several times, it wouldnt be far fetched to believe her analysis here to be similarly flawed.
This ruling and the laws behind it are so ambiguous that I'd imagine that all sides could drag this through courts for years to come.Personally,I say let her run and beat her based on merits of being a better representative,ensure that the state revises and clarifies the laws here,and don't file any suits and just allow the state to work on clarification and revision.
ReplyDeleteJane Doe, unlike you and I, puts her ID on her posts and is held accountable for her mistakes. No one has a perfect record but she is a sharp cookie and is right more often than she is wrong. I don't recall ever seeing her claim to be an expert but she is an opinionated bitch sometimes. She isn't the only one.
ReplyDelete" I don't recall ever seeing her claim to be an expert "
ReplyDeletePlease go to Heraldo's blog and look up the discussions where she discusses how SN is a local bank and calls those who disagree with her "idiots".
Please look up where she quotes govt code with regards to the TPZ issue over and over and OVER again, to make her point that this part of the code gives the Board of Supes authority.
When it is correctly pointed out that the part of the code she is citing applies to regulatory agencies, she haughtily states that the BOS IS a regulatory agency.
During these threads, she regularly dismisses people out of hand as "idiots". When she does this it is implicit that she holds herself to have expertise; more expertise than those she disagrees with.
Valuing your own opinion above others isn't implicit of anything other than you think you are right. I missed the regulatory agency discussion but did see where she argued (correctly I believe) that the definition of project was being misinterpreted by the HumCPR folks. Has anyone in the planning department ever been fired for 'lying' about that sentence? Why did everyone just drop it if it was a lie? The bank thing was just a stupid mistake that anyone could make. With all the posting she does, those are the only things you could think of? How many times have you and I been wrong in a post in the last year? No one knows because we don't use an ID that can be held accountable for them.
ReplyDeleteEven Hank Sims has chided Jane on occasion, to which she responds by calling him an asshole.
ReplyDeleteLook, I am not going to argue semantics with you. Jane has constantly left no room for debate in the arena of ideas where she thinks she's been right, and has blasted others. She's been PROVEN wrong, numerous times.
That you haven't seen her present herself as an expert makes TWO of you, assuming you aren't Jane. It's pretty apparent to most who have read her rants that she has.
Did you take a poll? Who are you speaking for Anonymous?
ReplyDeleteEveryone but you and Jane
ReplyDeleteYou are an expert on what everyone thinks of Jane Doe? You have no way of knowing what everyone else thinks about anything so you are telling lies now. Your obsession with JD is sick.
ReplyDeleteJane Doe kicks conservative ass so they hate her/him.
ReplyDeleteI have yet to meet anyone who likes "Jane."
ReplyDeleteBut anyway - mresquan said...
This ruling and the laws behind it are so ambiguous that I'd imagine that all sides could drag this through courts for years to come.Personally,I say let her run and beat her based on merits of being a better representative,ensure that the state revises and clarifies the laws here,and don't file any suits and just allow the state to work on clarification and revision. mresquan is the voice of reason here.
Why don't you post the relevant code for nonpartisan run offs here? 8141
ReplyDeleteCalifornia Codes
ReplyDeleteCalifornia Elections Code
ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 8140 & 8141
8140. Any candidate for a nonpartisan office who at a primary
election receives votes on a majority of all the ballots cast for candidates for that office shall be elected to that office. Where two or more candidates are to be elected to a given office and a greater number of candidates receive a majority than the number to be elected, those candidates shall be elected who secure the highest votes of those receiving a majority, and equal in number to the number to be elected.
Where a candidate has been elected to a nonpartisan office at the
primary election, that office shall not appear on the ballot at the ensuing general election, notwithstanding the death, resignation, or other disqualification of the candidate at a time subsequent to the
primary election.
8141. If no candidate has been elected to a nonpartisan office
pursuant to Section 8140 or if the number of candidates elected at
the primary election is less than the total number to be elected to
that office, then candidates for that office at the ensuing election
shall be those candidates not elected at the primary who received the next highest number of votes cast for nomination to that office, equal in number to twice the number remaining to be elected to that office, or less, if the total number of candidates not elected is
less.
It's now added to the post, 1:07. Thanks, and if you have any more, I'll be happy to add them, too.
ReplyDeleteWhatever helps in the discussion.
And the pertinent section of the published decision Bradley v Perrodin, (2003) 106 Cal. App. 4th 1153, the court cited Edelstein:
ReplyDelete"A runoff election, as Perrodin correctly points out, is merely the second round of voting in a single election. ( Edelstein v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 29 Cal.4th 164, 174 [126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 727, 56 P.3d 1029].) [***14] If one of the candidates receives a majority of the votes cast in the primary election, there is no need for a runoff election. Where no majority is achieved in the primary election, only those candidates who qualify in the primary election may participate in the runoff election. There is no new filing period for a runoff election."
If there is no new filing period for a runoff election, how can someone file a write-in candidacy?
Stephen, you can write in Saddam Hussein or Mickey Mouse on a ballot if you want. The fact remains if they haven't filed candidacy papers by the deadline, your vote doesn't count.
ReplyDeleteJane Doe only puts her name on her posts when she feels like it. She also posts anonymously (not gonna share how I know this but it is truly funny!)
ReplyDeleteKonkler must know that Johanna can be a write in because of his blithering that the county needs a “charter.” I have given up on Eric, because as usual he is a lazy lawyer who doesn’t read the cases he posts about and then uses language out of context to support his legally unsupportable arguments.
Here goes....
In 2002 the California Supreme Court ruled that while the California Government Code 15430 ALLOWED WRITE INS IN A GENERAL ELECTION, it was not unconstitutional for a city or county to limit write ins to the primary election by a provision in the city/county’s charter. They analyzed the issue and said that such a city/county ordinance limiting write ins to the primary elections albeit section 15430 did not abridge the first and fourteenth amendment because write ins were allowed in the primary and the general election was an extension from the primary.
That being said, the court recognized that under California law, write ins were allowed in the general election.
Now for the fun stuff.....
Under § 15402 - Whenever a candidate whose name appears upon the ballot at any election dies after the 68th day before the election, the votes cast for the deceased candidate shall be counted in determining the results of the election for the office for which the decedent was a candidate. If the deceased candidate receives a majority of the votes cast for the office, he or she shall be considered elected and the office to which he or she was elected shall be vacant at the beginning of the term for which he or she was elected. The vacancy thus created shall be filled in the same manner as if the candidate had died subsequent to taking office for that term.
Now this doesn’t conflict with Elections Code 8026... see Elec C § 8026 applies to all elections, including both general and primary elections, in accordance with the definition of "election" set forth in Elec C § 318, when a candidate in a two-person, nonpartisan, nonjudicial contest involving an incumbent dies within 68 days of the date set for the election; because Elec C § 8026 refers to a more specific set of circumstances, it controls over Elec C § 15402. Faulder v. Mendocino County Bd. of Supervisors (2006, Cal App 1st Dist) 144 Cal App 4th 1362, 51 Cal Rptr 3d 251, 2006 Cal App LEXIS 1827, review denied Faulder (Keith A.) v. Board of Supervisors (Lintott) (2006, Cal) 2006 Cal LEXIS 15346.
Additionally, since Johanna was appointed by the Guvernator, she automatically can be a write in without having to have filled out papers in May.
However, I have reviewed section 8141 which provides that:
If no candidate has been elected to a nonpartisan office pursuant to Section 8140 or if the number of candidates elected at the primary election is less than the total number to be elected to that office, then candidates for that office at the ensuing election shall be those candidates not elected at the primary who received the next highest number of votes cast for nomination to that office, equal in number to twice the number remaining to be elected to that office, or less, if the total number of candidates not elected is less.
Does anyone know of another section that I have not reviewed that says the deceased candidate may not be placed on the general ballot. Seems I MAY have seen it, but I have way too much work right now. If you know its number can you post it for me?
Looking for a loophole to 8141?
ReplyDeleteNo actually, I am looking for another statute that says that Roger Rodoni's name can not be on the ballot in the general election as he took the most votes.
ReplyDeleteJust provide the statute, we can all read it for ourselves. 8141 does not support the proposition that it excludes Roger, so there must be something out there that I have missed.
I saw the statute about a deceased person not being allowed on the general ballot too. I believe Eric posted it on either his blog or Heraldo's. If not for that, Roger's name would rightfully appear on the November ballot and the governor could appoint anyone he wanted, most likely Johanna, to take his place. However, if as is stated in Edelstein and Bradley, that a runoff election is the second round in a single election, does the no deceased candidate on the ballot apply in a runoff?
ReplyDeleteWell if anyone knows the statute number can you post it?
ReplyDeleteI found this:
ReplyDeleteElections Code 8809. Whenever a candidate has declared a candidacy for a primary election, the candidate's name shall be printed upon the ballot for the primary election, unless the candidate has died, and that fact has been ascertained by the officer charged with the duty of printing the ballots, at least 68 days before the day of the election.
Still looking
No that is not it. That is when a candidate dies over 68 days before the election and not within the 68 day window. But thanks for looking.
ReplyDeletehmm..
ReplyDelete15340. Each voter is entitled to write the name of any candidate
for any public office, including that of President and Vice President
of the United States, on the ballot of any election.
The key word seems to be candidate. To be a write in candidate you must qualify for candidacy which is filing before the deadline. IF a nonpartisan runoff is a continuation of the previous election, a write in candidate would have had to file before the primary. Right?
"No actually, I am looking for another statute that says that Roger Rodoni's name can not be on the ballot in the general election as he took the most votes."
ReplyDeleteRead this week's Town Dandy,Hank's saying that Clif may have pulled ahead.
If there is nothing to prevent a deceased winner of a primary nonpartisan election, it will be Roger and Clif on the ballot in November (regardless of which was first and second)?
ReplyDeleteJane Doe can be a number of different posters all using the same IP adress. Several people using one computer or several seperate computers on one router. Jane could also be Heraldo. Calling yourself a name like Jane Doe is in no way a sign of seperiority, honesty or even consistency. That the posts from Janr are one sided,radically left leaning and most often mean spirited says much more.Says that Jane is a Heraldo clone if not Heraldo. I'm the DUKE of NEW YORK and I don't like Jane's posts who ever he/she/it is. I hope Mrs. Rodoni runs. If she does she will get my write in vote. DUKE of NEW YoRK
ReplyDeleteShe isn't trying to win a popularity contest so she probably doesn't care what you think Duke. She's a bitch and conservatives hate her. So what?
ReplyDeleteNow can we get back to the thread topic. Doesn't anyone have the statute regarding deceased candidates?
ReplyDeleteYou musy know her very well to know she is a "bitch" as you say. I'll leave that assesment to you 7:53. I will say that she is with out a doubt trying to win a popularity contest. Have you ever seem how the heraldites let out the dogs of war on one of their own who dares to drift away from the party line ? Toe the "mark" comrad or pay the price.Popularity contest indeed! The DUKE.
ReplyDeleteYou must have gone to a rough middle school if you think JD's is trying to win a popularity contest. I'd hate to see it pissy.
ReplyDeleteNow can we talk about the topic of the thread? Your fixation on JD is wierd.
"She's a bitch and conservatives hate her." you say?
ReplyDeleteShe's stupid and conservatives hate stupid more than anything else.
This is the I hate Jane thread now? How boring you are. Is it news that conservatives think progressives are stupid and vice versa? Can we talk about the thread topic instead of personalities?
ReplyDeleteJane,Jane,Jane,you ignorant popularity contestant. Don't like the tone of the thread 9:53? Then don't try slimming it with poor Jane drivel.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 11:50, I have been trying to get back onto the thread topic but people keep talking about Jane, the ignorant slut conservatives love to hate. She is probably enjoying the attention.
ReplyDeleteNow does anyone know the election code dealing with a deceased candidate's name appearing on the ballot in a runoff election?
A deceased candidate can NOT appear on the ballot.That issue was resolved a long time ago.For the 2nd district run-off you'll only see Clif and Estelle's name,and if the recent ruling holds up,a write in spot for Johanna,if she chooses to run.
ReplyDeleteOr anyone else who chooses to run.
ReplyDeleteClif is toast. He can't win against Johanna and his handlers know it. That's why Eric has been making such an ass of himself by leading the Prog chorus for disenfranchising all of Johanna's voters. Mresquan right behind like a good Prog minion unable to think for himself and marching right after Eric into voter fascism.
ReplyDeleteThese Progs are running scared. They cannot win against Johanna except through eliminating her voters. Now we know another reason why no one in Humboldt County who values our Constitutional rights should ever vote a Prog into office. They are a danger to our personal freedoms besides being the well known danger to the economic well-being of Humboldt County.
Heraldo is censoring all my posts now because he too cannot stand the truth exposed about his current frame job of the cop in the video and his blog promoting Prog anti-democracy tactics to stop voter choice in Humboldt County.
ReplyDeleteI guess I must be doing something right if I'm not allowed to tango in Heraldo's Hideaway.
ReplyDeleteKeep up the great work marginalizing yourself with your posts showing what a nasty, lying, hypocritical and vindictive piece of garbage you are. Its clear to more people every day.
ReplyDeletehere is the code you requested counselor:
ReplyDelete8810. Whenever a candidate has been nominated at any primary
election after having filed a declaration of candidacy, the name of the candidate shall be printed upon the ballot for the ensuing
general election unless the candidate has died and that fact has been ascertained by the officer charged with the duty of printing the ballots, at least 68 days before the day of election.
Those are great self-help points, anon 8:10. I do hope you can overcome your faults. You could start by telling the truth sometimes..
ReplyDeleteI thought she had promised to ignore us, Stephen.
ReplyDeleteWho is she?
ReplyDeleteSorry 10:13 but that code section seems to say that Rodoni must be on the ballot. 8810 says the name must be on the ballot in a primary unless the candidate died AT LEAST 68 DAYS BEFORE the election. Since Rodoni died within 68 days, his name was on the ballot. Now do you have a statute or the statute (whatever) that applies in the general election when a candidate dies within 68 days fo the primary?
ReplyDeleteNo 2:32. That is for the primary and the general election. Since Rodoni died less than 68 days before the primary his name was on the ballot. Since he died more than 68 days before the general election, his name will not appear on the ballot.
ReplyDelete"...the name of the candidate shall be printed upon the ballot for the ensuing general election unless the candidate has died and that fact has been ascertained by the officer charged with the duty of printing the ballots, at least 68 days before the day of election."
ReplyDelete