California chair breaks with Constitution Party–Part 3

The Constitution Party apparently is involved in a controversy with Edward C. Noonan, the State Committee Chairman of its California affiliate, the American Independent Party.

The following is a media release announcing that the California American Independent Party has changed its national affiliation from the Constitution Party to a new America’s Independent Party, headquartered in Fenton, MI:

America’s Independent Party Now Third Largest : Alan Keyes will Be Our Candidate

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Media contact:
Markham Robinson
Parliamentarian
American Independent Party of California
mark@masterplanner.com

Sacramento CA - June 28, 2008

California’s American Independent Party, which has a forty-year history in the Golden State, today announced its affiliation nationally with the newly-formed America’s Independent Party of Fenton, MI. The Party had previously affiliated on a national basis with the Constitution Party of Lancaster, PA.

The State Central Committee of the American Independent Party voted unanimously in its Friday meeting to make the switch, after which the new 2008 national affiliation was duly filed with the Secretary of State’s office in accordance with the requirements of California’s Election Code.

State Chairman Edward C. Noonan, on hand in Sacramento for the official filing, stated, “We believe it is time to affiliate with a new party, one that has a will to win. In sixteen years, the Constitution Party has never elected a candidate. America’s Independent Party may be the best chance we have of stopping the never-ending advance of socialism.”

Friday’s move makes the newly-minted America’s Independent Party the third largest national political party in the United States based on voter registration.

23 Responses to “California chair breaks with Constitution Party–Part 3”

  1. NewFederalist Says:

    Trent- Please comment. Does this stand a chance of holding up in court? What are the chances of this change being accepted by the CA SoS?

  2. MPM Says:

    “based on voter registration”

    Obviously, most people who register with the AIP believe they are registering as independents (even New York’s Independence Party admits this is the case for them).

  3. Stefan Says:

    What are the chances you can get most IAP members plus some RP supporters to organise and register the Constitution Party in California (80 000 signatures?), with Nancy as chairwoman and get rid of Noonan? This way you can represent the party under an own name, no affiliation under a different name and can brand accordingly.
    Alan Keyes does not have a snowball’s chance. Noonan mentioned he wants to win, well, he was not very effective against Obama for the senate race and also in
    the past GOP presidential primaries. (Obama and McKinney will already get most if not all of the African-American vote).

  4. NewFederalist Says:

    It is far too late to qualify the party for a ballot line for the 2008 election cycle. 88,991 registrants were due by the last day of 2007. It is a good thought for the future IMO.

  5. Tim Says:

    Nonan hs been a Keyes supporter all along and wanted to get Alan on the AIP line. Remember, he ran Jim Gilchrist for Congress. The AIP isn’t exactly in accord with the Constitution Party these days anyway.

    Is there any way that both Keyes and Baldwin an be on the ballot in California at this point? I’m for giving voters the widest possible choice. I think every ballot should include McCain, Obama, Nader, Keyes, Barr, Baldwin, and McKinney at the very least.

    One down, many to go…

  6. Tim Says:

    “Does this stand a chance of holding up in court?”

    Is there any reaon why it wouldn’t? Is there any provision in the law saying a party can’t change its national affiliation?

    Baldwin had betterstart circulating independent petitions.

  7. Gary Odom Says:

    Please refer to my posting to part I of Noonan’s silliness. The AIP did not disaffiliate, but rather confirmed its prior affiliation with the Constitution Party. The so-called meeting that brought this about was a purported “online” meeting to which the State Central Committee (the old one) was not given info.

    The AIP has NOT disaffiliated from the Constitution Party and people who get caught up with that, especially the Keyes supporters, are going to have mud on their face and be very embarrassed about this.

  8. Gary Odom Says:

    Excuse me, that should have read “not given notice.” (rather than “not given info”)

  9. Ben Says:

    Past disagreements like this don’t usually get sorted out for many months. Most likely, Ed will retain control of the AIPCA well past Election Day 2008. Will Keyes have the AIPCA’s ballot line? Likely.

  10. Red Phillips Says:

    Why can’t they act like adults? Keyes lost fair and square because the vast majority of CP convention delegates did not agree with his interventionist foreign policy. Period. End of story. They need to get over it and move on. Perhaps rethinking their interventionist foreign policy while they do.

    Are Keyes and his supporters actively encouraging this?

  11. DaveC Says:

    Jesus spoke to his disciples in a parable telling them, “There was a woman who had two suitors. The first suitor was a diligent man who had courted her for many years. At the harvest he was always to be found in the fields helping her father to bring in the wheat. The second suitor was a wanderer who appeared suddenly with promises that he woud make her the queen of the entire land. After pondering all these things the woman chose the first suitor and they were betrothed. The second suitor was sore aggrieved. Encountering the woman one day as she gathered firewood he berated her with these words, ‘Because you have chosen poorly now I am going to take what should rightfully have been mine.’ So saying he dragged her into the woods and raped her. Who now can tell me the interpretation of this parable?” All of the disciples were silent so after a moment Jesus continued, “The second suitor is like unto a politician who covets the ballot access of a political party. And having failed to win the nomination of that party he seeks to tear it asunder for his own purposes. Truly I say to you, that politician and all who follow him will be sorely accursed. He who has ears let him hear.”

  12. Edward Harrison Says:

    Dave.

    funny.

    Any Green Party Bible stories you want to share?

  13. Gary Odom Says:

    Ben said:

    Past disagreements like this don’t usually get sorted out for many months. Most likely, Ed will retain control of the AIPCA well past Election Day 2008. Will Keyes have the AIPCA’s ballot line? Likely.

    You probably don’t understand CA election laws but it doesn’t work that way.

    Sorry, Ben, not likely at all.

    Keyes has virtually no support with the California AIP. Even at the CP convention (where the Chairman’s perogative can heavily weight the vote) there were more Baldwin supporters than Keyes and most of the Baldwin people couldn’t make it. And, one of the Keyes supporters was Pastor Wiley Drake who had Chuck give a sermon in his Church Sunday.

  14. Ben Says:

    Gary, perhaps I do not understand CA election laws. I do understand politicans pretty well, though. It appears both sides have what appear to be legitimate arguments to provenance. That being the case, it is likely that the CA SoS will wait to sort it all out until after the Election to determine the “ownership” of the AIPCA. Likely, neither faction will end up with an acceptable solution and y’all will just end up arguing over burial of a corpse. How long did it take to determine control of the Reform Party? Oh wait, I believe they are still trying to figure that out now 6 years later.

    What needs to be decided is control of the AIPCA. Any one can stand on a soapbox and claim to be just about anything, but until one side concedes to the other there is conflict. In situations like this, most politicians take the route of least resistance and wait. In his mind, there are many more pressing concerns than who controls a minour third party that usu. gets less than 1% of the total vote.

    For the CA SoS to wait, can only benefit Ed Noonan. For the national CP to expend resources in maintaining control of the AIPCA, can only hurt ballot access in other states w/ poor to almost non-existant CP organisation. There are at least 10 states in danger of not having Baldwin/Castle on the ballot that had Peroutka/Baldwin in 2004.

    Spin away, Gary, but this time in 2004 Cal Zastrow was out on the streets gathering signatures for Peroutka/Baldwin. You, on the other hand, are in California trying to hold on to a greasy flagpole in a windstorm.

    The number of experienced petition gatherers has also declined in just about every state affiliate of the CP. Some once thriving CP affiliates also are on the verge of bankruptcy many of them having less than $100 in the bancque now well within an election season. Many more were never thriving to begin with and only exist on paper or in one’s imagination.

  15. Gary Odom Says:

    Nice to hear from you, Ben.

    Cal Zastrow was a very good petition gatherer. No doubt about it.

  16. Bill Woolsey Says:

    This appears to be very similar to the conflict within the Arizona LP some years ago.

    There, one faction of the Arizona LP organized according to state election law, which involved standing for election as party officials in the primaries. Registered Libertarians and independents could vote in these elections. A handful of people did this, and then formed a state leadership.

    The traditional LP organization challenged them in court. Basically, the traditional Arizona LP membership had a state convention for members and then elected its leaders.

    The national LP disaffiliated the Arizona LP, held an plebicite among members of the National LP in Arizona and then affiliated the faction that had organized through the primaries.

    The conflict was resolved in the Arizona courts. The traditional organization won. Basically, the courts said that political parties cannot be forced to use the primary scheme to choose their party leadership. The traditional organization won the right to choose who would be placed on the Presidential ballot in the state.

    So, the nominee of the National Libertarian Party, Harry Browne, was not on the ballot in Arizona. L. Neil Smith was on the ballot.

    Obviously, there are some differences. But the key similarity here is that the Noonan faction followed the election laws and won party positions in the primaries. This tiny faction has now followed the laws, organized the party according to state law. And are claiming to control the ballot line for the Presidential race.

    I am not sure what the other faction did, but it sounds like they used the tradtional 3rd party approach of a state convention of members to elect the leaders.

    The California Libertarian Party does this.

    Anyway, my guess is that the courts will side with the traditional party organization as long as they have bylaws explaining what they do. The argument that state election law overturns the bylaws failed in the Arizona case.

    Oh, it was about political parties having the 1st amendment right to govern their own affairs.

  17. Ben Says:

    Bill Woolsey Says:
    June 30th, 2008
    “So, the nominee of the National Libertarian Party, Harry Browne, was not on the ballot in Arizona. L. Neil Smith was on the ballot.”

    That is all that is really in contention within the AIPCA. Which is why I believe that Keyes will hold the AIPCA ballot line in 2008. It may even end up that the AIPCA may have to re-petition as a new political party or their 300K+ “members” have to register to vote again.

    I personally think that state governments should get out the business of monitoring political party membership. I am also opposed to primaries all together, and think that all candidates should have the same ballot access requirement regardless of political party endorsement/affiliation.

    There are parts of Minneapolis where there would be no Republican legislative candidates if they had to gather 500 signatures from potential voters to attain ballot access as the GP, LP, and CP are required to do. Many politicians in Minnesota and other states have no opposition as the minour parties cannot meet the ballot access requirements that the incumbent majour party candidate does not have to meet. However, y’all knew that and I digress.

  18. Cody Quirk Says:

    Noonan has no legal standing, the AIP convention was in accord with its bylaws.

    If Noonan sues, his lawsuit will be thrown out.

  19. Larry Breazeale,Msgt.(ret.)USAF Says:

    Ed Noonan you are a fool , and a “legend in your own mind”. YOU are who the company you keep…..’birds of a feather’. FELONY STUPID.

    -Larry Breazeale, Msgt.(ret.)USAF
    NATIONAL VETERANS COALITION
    Constitution party

  20. Bri Says:

    Larry Breazeale,Msgt.(ret.)USAF Says:
    July 1st, 2008
    Ed Noonan you are a fool , and a “legend in your own mind”. YOU are who the company you keep…..’birds of a feather’. FELONY STUPID.

    Does that indictment include Ed’s brother-in-law Chris Hansen and his sister-in-law Janine Hansen? The real fools are the ones that elected him AIPCA chairman in the first place. How any one that has ever dealt with Ed Noonan could support him for any public position is beyond me.

  21. Cody Quirk Says:

    Does that indictment include Ed’s brother-in-law Chris Hansen and his sister-in-law Janine Hansen?

    =Nope. Wrong state.

    The real fools are the ones that elected him AIPCA chairman in the first place.

    = Then I guess Americans are fools for reelecting George W. Bush.

    How any one that has ever dealt with Ed Noonan could support him for any public position is beyond me.

    = People change in time. I supported Peroutka back in 2004 and look what happened.

  22. RRHeustisJr Says:

    CQ says: If Noonan sues, his lawsuit will be thrown out.

    Is Cody an election lawyer?

    If so, then from what law school did he obtain his Juris Doctor?

    If not, then how can he speak for a judge before the merits of the case have even been pleaded?

    The hyperbolic posturing is laughable.

  23. Cody Quirk Says:

    So you’re taking Ed’s side? Your siding with a Mormon?

    That’s laughable.

    First off, Ed thinks State Parties still need to have their convention in Sacramento; that law is no longer on the books.

    Ed is so irrational, he claims that the CP never elected anyone to office.

    Then how do you explain our election victories in Nevada, Utah, Michigan, Wisconsin and West Virginia?

Leave a Reply