2 State Candidates’ Ballot Designations Denied

In a blow to two candidacies for statewide office, a Sacramento judge ruled Thursday that Democrat Walter Zelman, running for insurance commissioner, and Republican Angela Buchanan, running for treasurer, could not refer specifically to their former employers in identifying themselves on the June ballot.

Superior Court Judge James T. Ford decided that Zelman could not use the ballot designation, “director, Common Cause” and that Buchanan could not use “retired U.S. Treasurer.”

Polls have shown that both candidates’ support among those surveyed in their respective races was materially increased when they were identified with their well-known and often well-thought-of former employers.

The judge said it is what a candidate does or has done for a living that counts, rather than whom he or she has worked for. He said it clearly would not be proper for someone working for IBM to be allowed to use “IBM technician” on the ballot, rather than “technician.”

The ruling reversed a decade-old policy of the secretary of state’s office that allowed candidates to list their former jobs by employer, in some instances, if they had just left them to run for an office. Under this policy, the secretary of state had ruled that Zelman could use his preferred designation because he had only recently resigned. But the policy held that Buchanan could not, because she had held her post more than a decade ago.

The judge struck down both requests.

No other candidates are immediately affected by the ruling.

Later Thursday, Zelman said he had notified election officials that he would run under the more general designation, “director, consumer’s organization.” Buchanan, meanwhile, settled for “chief financial officer.”

Although Thursday was supposedly the deadline for settling on ballot designations, another candidate, Republican Tom Skornia, running for insurance commissioner, won a court order delaying a decision in his case until an April 4 hearing. Skornia wants to describe himself as a “legal reform advocate,” but election officials have balked on grounds that this is a position on the issues rather than an occupation.