Sen. Umberg Hates ‘Independent’ Political Party Names

State Senator Tom Umberg (D-Garden Grove) is easily the most centrist politician in California. That’s why it makes sense that he’s sponsored a new bill that specifically targets the extreme right-wing American Independent Party. Put simply, Umberg’s bill–Senate Bill 696–will ban the use of words like “independent” in political party names. The reason: Umberg says it’s confusing to voters.

“As representatives of California residents and voters, we have an obligation to correct any wording on a state-issued document that is designed to be an impediment to our democratic system,” Umberg said in a June 21 news release. “It is clear that many individuals who truly wish to be outside a political party preference are misguided by the name of certain parties when they register. This bill is simply meant to honor their intent.”

To do this, Umberg’s bill would prohibit the use of words like “decline to state,” “no party preference,” and, of course, “independent” from the official names of registered political parties in California.

“SB 696 also requires the Secretary of State to provide notice to any qualified party whose name includes a variation of the word ‘independent’ that they are required to change their name,” states the June 21 news release from Umberg’s office. “Additionally, the Secretary of State will need to notify each voter registered to that party informing them of the resulting name change.”

Since there are few parties around known as the Decline to Staters, it’s clear that Umberg’s main target with this bill is the American Independent Party (AIP). Formed in 1967 to fight against the Civil Rights Era, the AIP chose Alabama Governor (and avowed segregationist) George Wallace as its first presidential candidate (fun fact: controversial Air Force General Curtis LeMay was his running mate). The AIP has always been anti-immigration and pro-states’ rights.

“Freed from the lawless oppression of Liberal rule, we may then compassionately and justly use our energy and ingenuity to provide for ourselves and our families,” states the AIP manifesto. “We will then establish truly free and responsible enterprise and reassert the basic human right to property.”

Get the idea? Though Umberg’s bill is new, the issue with voters getting confused and accidentally joining the American Independent Party is actually quite old. In the last couple of decades, the Los Angeles Times has touched on the issue a few times:

July 22, 2002: “[Jeff] Brain said his registration with the American Independent Party from September 1996 until September 2001 was also unintentional. He said he meant to register as an ‘independent,’ but was confused by the voter form. He said he never received election material from the party.”

Jan. 21, 2008: “Some analysts believe that the party remains alive in California because voters mistakenly sign up thinking they are registering as independents.”

Then in 2016, the Times conducted an in-depth investigation into the matter. Their conclusion was that the AIP’s numbers were unquestionably too high.

“[A] Times investigation has found that a majority of its members have registered with the party in error,” the paper reported on April 17, 2016. “Nearly three in four people did not realize they had joined the party, a survey of registered AIP voters conducted for The Times found.

As you might expect, the American Independent Party isn’t a fan of Umberg’s bill. “We’re going to resist it,” AIP California Chairman Markham Robinson told me. “We’re lobbying in Sacramento to delay it.”

On June 27, Markham submitted a formal letter of opposition to the state Assembly Elections Committee. In it, Markham called the bill “inherently insulting.” He also disputed that voters are confused by the AIP having the word “Independent” in its name.

“The new and improved voter registration form has, first, an explanation of political party preference,” Markham wrote. “Then, second, two headings with mutually incompatible assertions: ‘I want to choose a political party preference’ and ‘I do not want to choose a political party preference.’ Moreover, each of the party choices under the first heading has as the last word of its name, the word ‘Party.’ How can anyone who is paying the least attention or cares ignore the fact that they are picking a party to be a fan of?!”

Markham also criticized the Los Angeles Times‘s coverage of the issue of voter confusion. “The ‘Voter education’ to which this legislation no doubt refers are prolonged campaigns by the LA Times and others to reduce American Independent Party registration by trying to convince voters that they have been duped and therefore need to change their registration,” Markham wrote. “These have all failed to achieve their goal to any significant degree and our registration numbers have continued to increase.”

In any case, should SB 696 pass and be upheld by the courts, Robinson told me that the AIP had come up with a new name, though he refused to share it with me. “That’s a closely guarded secret,” he said, then predicted that the AIP’s registration “would double” if the bill became law.