This Sacramento Bee story shows that both sides are unhappy with Judge Allen Sumner’s rewrite of the Ballot Title and Description of California’s Proposition 14. It is believed that both sides have lodged an appeal. The Pro-14 side is appealing the language on whether Proposition 14 could increase the cost of election administration. Any appeals are to the State Court of Appeals, and must be settled by the end of the day, Monday, March 15.
I think this statement by Judge Sumner is very straightforward, and was needed, given the lack of clarity on this point on Maldonado’s website:
“The elimination of the constitutional right of a political party that has participated in a primary election for a partisan office to participate in the general election for that office.”
However, it seems to be ambiguous in itself. Does this mean that if a political party has NOT participated in a primary election for a partisan office, it can place candidates on the November ballot?
It may be worded badly, but I am sure no official in California would rule that an unqualified party has any ability to place candidates directly on the November ballot, if Prop. 14 passes.
I guess what I was wondering is whether qualified parties would rewrite their rules to skip the primary process altogether.
The wheels of justice grinding the party hacks to dust ??? Stay tuned.
Perhaps the courts are making amends for the party hack stuff connected with slavery before the Civil War — i.e. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) ???