[pfp2006news] plus one more P&F candidate, minus two, sort of

[Dave Kadlecek]

The Peace and Freedom has gained one candidate for public office and
lost two, though both situations require a little bit of explanation
beyond their names and offices.

Dina Padilla (see
"http://www.peaceandfreedom2006.org/candidates/dpadilla" for more
information) has qualified as an official write-in candidate for the
Peace and Freedom Party nomination for Congress in the 11th District
(currently held by Richard Pombo, consisting of most of San Joaquin
County and parts of Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties).
Dina is an activist for the rights of injured workers who left another
party too recently to be able to appear on the ballot in a Peace and
Freedom Party primary. In years past, there would have been no point in
her running as a write-in candidate, because the state Elections Code
would require her to get more votes than there are P&F voters in her
district to be nominated as a write-in. However, Proposition 60 passed
in November 2004, amending the state Constitution to provide that each
party "shall not be denied the ability to place on the general election
ballot the candidate who received, at the primary election, the highest
vote among that party’s candidates". This made the unfair provision of
the Elections Code unconstitutional, so Dina should appear on the ballot
in November as the first P&F candidate for Congress to be nominated by
write-in.

Two Peace and Freedom Party candidates in the Sacramento area, Mike
Roskey (for Congress in the 3rd District) and Mike Lopez (for Assembly
in the 5th District), were forced to withdraw from active candidacy and
to promise to resign immediately if they are elected, on pain of being
fired from their jobs if they didn't. The Peace and Freedom Party urges
the voters of their districts to vote for them anyways. Both Roskey and
Lopez are state employees, and under California law, state employees
generally can run for office and engage in political activities, as long
as they don't campaign while they are supposed to be working. However,
the federal Hatch Act doesn't just restrict the political activities of
federal employees, but also the political activities of state and local
government employees working in programs that are wholly or partially
federally funded (though, strangely enough, not of employees of private
contractors doing the same work). The Employment Development Department,
for which both Roskey and Lopez work, receives federal funding, and the
agency's management waited until after they filed (and could not legally
have their names removed from the ballot, except by their untimely
deaths) threatened both candidates with dismissal unless they withdrew.
See "http://www.peaceandfreedom2006.org/candidates/mroskey" or
"http://www.peaceandfreedom2006.org/candidates/mlopez" for more information.

(Note that the other Hatch Act challenge in California this year was to
Jim Ayres, one of five Republicans running against Peace and Freedom's
Jon Taleb in the 65th Assembly District. Ayres works for the Riverside
County Economic Development Agency, which receives federal funds, but
his managers and the relevant federal agency apparently decided that his
work didn't involve any of the federal funding, so it would be legal for
him to run. See "http://www.talebforassembly.org/" for more information
on Jon's campaign.)

/Dave Kadlecek