Ballot Title: Candidate in 3 Words or Less

One candidate chose the term “peon.”

Another sought the ballot designation “wage slave,” but was turned down. He finally accepted the more prosaic “worker” in its place.

State election officials told a third candidate he could use “poker player” as his occupation, but not “gambler.”

Today is the deadline for deciding candidates’ occupational designations that will appear under their names on the June primary ballot. The chief of the secretary of state’s elections division, Caren Daniels-Meade, reports there have been more than 120 disputes over the designations, which should be no more than three words long. Some of the rifts have involved well-known candidates, others obscure ones. A few cases are in court; a few others remain unresolved.

If there is no agreement between election officials and the candidate, and no court gives directions by tonight, the candidate will appear on the ballot with no designation under his or her name.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dianne Feinstein is already resigned to that category. When the secretary of state’s office turned down her preferred designation of “former mayor of San Francisco,” on grounds it was “too long and the word ‘former’ cannot be used,” she decided to run without designation.

Ballot designations can be critical. Polls show that some candidates do far better with one designation than another, particularly in races where many voters are grasping for straws in making up their minds.

For example, in the most recent Los Angeles County judicial elections, the only judge who lost was Roberta Ralph, who made the mistake of picking the designation “incumbent,” rather than Superior Court judge. Other candidates have benefited by designating themselves “disabled veteran” or in some other way that might elicit voter sympathy.

Those who have held important elected offices, like Feinstein, usually wish to remind the electorate of it. Angela Buchanan, a Republican candidate for state treasurer, for instance, told the secretary of state’s office she wanted to use “retired U.S. treasurer” as her designation, thus reminding voters of a position she held more than a decade ago. This was rejected as “not appropriate” and the matter is in court.

One of the angriest ballot designation battles this year involves Walter Zelman, a Democratic candidate for insurance commissioner who wants to use “director, Common Cause” as his ballot designation, despite the fact that he resigned that position to run and no longer occupies it.

Election officials accepted this under a policy that says if someone had a job just before announcing candidacy, that job can be used as the designation. But Common Cause’s national president has denounced Zelman for using his former Common Cause title, and Common Cause’s new state director is seeking a court order prohibiting its use.

Daniels-Meade said the secretary of state’s office had trouble with seven other insurance commissioner candidates’ choices for ballot designation. Only one of those remains unresolved.

Officials agreed, after documentation was submitted, to accept Democrat Michael Blanco’s desire to be designated as “living trust attorney,” and Democrat Ray Bourhis’ desire to be designated as “insurance consumer’s attorney.” They reached an agreement with Democrat Bill Press to use “consumer advocacy, commentator,” in place of the “consumer advocate, commentator” that he originally wanted to use. Peace and Freedom candidate Tom Condit was the one who settled for “worker” in place of “wage slave.” Peace and Freedom candidate B. K. Duren’s wish for “activist for democracy” was changed to “community development organizer” and Libertarian Ted Brown’s choice of “insurance client representative” was altered to “insurance adjuster/investigator.”

But there has been no agreement over Republican Tom Skornia’s desire to be designated “legal reform advocate.” A court hearing is set on that today.

Chief Deputy Secretary of State Anthony L. Miller explains that election laws state that the ballot designation is supposed to reflect the profession, vocation or occupation of the candidate, and not a statement of belief in a particular issue or the name of any political philosophy.

Thus, Merle Woo, a Peace and Freedom candidate for governor, was turned town when she wanted to use “socialist feminist educator” under her name on the ballot. She settled on “feminist studies educator.”

It often seems to be a fairly intricate matter of semantics, and the secretary of state’s office frequently asks candidates to submit documentation or arguments that will persuade it to go along with a suggested designation.

For instance, in the case of Roger Batchelder, the San Diego state Senate candidate who wanted to be known as a “peon,” election officials were at first reluctant. But he pointed out that a dictionary definition of the term was “a member of the laboring class” and convinced them that for him “peon” was accurate.

Daniels-Meade said that recent heavy attention focused on the abortion issue led several candidates to try unsuccessfully for designations reflecting both sides of the issue.

Salomer Honigsfeld, a Peace and Freedom candidate for the 4th District Board of Equalization seat, for instance, tried to get “pro-choice nurse” past the authorities. But she settled for “retired nurse.”

Republican Jeffrey T. Greene, running for governor, wants to use “family values advocate and political organizer,” a violation also of the three-word limit the state imposes. This one remains unresolved.

“We won’t take it if it implies an evaluation,” Daniels-Meade explains.

“But this is a very difficult law to administer,” she said. “The candidates are getting more creative. We spent seven or eight extra hours last Saturday calling people at home and trying to work some of these things out.”

But some, Daniels-Meade said, could not be resolved. John Eastman, for instance, a Republican congressional candidate from West Covina, wanted to call himself a “presidential appointee.” Told that this was not acceptable to election officials, he then proposed “Reagan-Bush official, businessman.” That was not acceptable either and there is, as yet, no agreement.