California Write-in Case Loses

On August 9, California Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian refused to place several major party nominees on the November ballot. Sonoma County Republican Party v McPherson, 06-cs-01078, Sacramento. The candidates had each polled a substantial number of write-ins in the June 2006 primary, and no one was running against them for their own party’s nomination. But none of them got enough write-ins to fulfill California Election Code section 8605, which requires a write-in total equal to 1% of the vote for that office in the last general election. It is somewhat likely that there will be an appeal.

Judge Ohanesian said that Proposition 60, which is part of the California Constitution, and which says that parties cannot be denied the ability to have the person who got the most votes in their own primary placed on the November ballot, was never intended to apply to this situation. However, California case law is very clear, that legislative intent is irrelevant when the words of the Constitution are clear.


Comments

California Write-in Case Loses — 7 Comments

  1. According to:

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sca_18_cfa_20040621_084126_sen_comm.html

    the legislative intent was to “ensure the widest possible range of choices for the voters in a general election”.

    And were one following the “intent” line of reasoning, the question would be one of voter intent, in adopting Proposition 60. Without exception, everything in the election materials spoke of guaranteeing a party’s right to placement on the general election ballot, so I see no room for inferring any intent to act otherwise.

    I see no conflict either way. The words of the Constitution are clear.

  2. Most states have wording that guarantees “fair and equal elections”; yet, have outrageous requirements for ballot acces for anyone not an R or D. These requirements are neither “fair” nor “equal”. It seems intent and wording only matter when it benefits the R’s & D’s.

  3. We absolutely love it when the Democans and or the Republicrats get stuck with the very same barriers THEY erected to stifle citizen participation in the first place! It could not have happened to a ‘nicer’ couple of thugs, er, ah, guys!

  4. The Ds and Rs have put so much effort into keeping all other choices off the ballot that this year they are finally tripping over their own “rules”.

    As a Canadian, I’m used to ballots with at least a half-dozen names – indeed, we’ve had 4 or 5 major parties up here for decades, and no one seems to gets confused.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.