The California State Court of Appeals will hold oral arguments in Field v Bowen in San Francisco on September 12 at 9 a.m. This is one of the two cases that challenges two particular details of the Proposition 14 “top-two” system: (1) that some candidates may show a party label on the ballot and others may not; (2) that write-in space is printed on general election ballots but write-ins for Congress and state office may never be counted.
There is a similar lawsuit, with different plaintiffs, in federal court as well. That case is called Chamness v Bowen. That case has an oral argument on August 22 in Los Angeles.
What genius lawyer will note 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 regarding write-in votes ???
See *right to vote* in such section — to appear later in the 15th, 19th, etc. amdts.
In CC/ROV Memorandum 10086 issued March 9, 2010 prior to the June 2010 primary, the SOS correctly interpreted Elections Code 13102 to mean that voters affiliated with political parties other than those 6 qualified at that time could request a Republican or Democratic primary ballot.
Those eligible to request a primary ballot under the terms of 13102 are commonly referred to as “Declined To State” voters. While DTS voters comprise about 97% of the class of voters who may request a primary ballot from those parties which deign to permit it, there is a clear distinction under California election law between DTS voters and voters affiliated with political parties, qualified or not.
Proposition 14 said that it was the legislative intent of the People in adopting the constitutional amendment that “existing voter registrations, which specify a political party affiliation, shall be deemed to have disclosed that party as the voter’s political party preference unless a new affidavit of registration is filed”, and that SB 6 was intended to implement Proposition 14.
SB 6 included Elections Code 2151(d) which provided for conversion of existing voter registrations. It specifies that DTS registrations should be converted to No Party Preference registrations, and that all other registrations should be converted to disclosing a preference for the political party that the voter had previous declared their intent to affiliate with.
At the June 2010 primary, a voter who had declared their intent to affiliate with the Coffee, Reform, or Social Action parties could have requested a Republican or Democratic ballot, and then in the non-partisan section voted with the majority for Proposition 14.
On January 1, 2011, when Proposition 14 became operative, their voter registration would have been converted to a party preference for the Coffee, Reform, or Social Action parties, respectively.
If they were to run for a voter-nominated office, under the explicit terms of Elections Code 300.5 and 8002.5, their party preference as a candidate would be identical to that which they had disclosed on their party preference. Note that 8002.5 does not say that a candidate may disclose their party preference on their declaration of candidacy, but rather merely indicate what it is. This is similar to the occupational/professional/office designation. It is voluntary.
California may not compel a candidate to have a designation or a party preference appear on the ballot. It may require that the information be accurate. In the case of professional/occupational designation, California applies a number of conditions including the share of income derived from an occupation. For a party preference, California requires that a candidate party preference be the same as the candidate disclosed on their affidavit of voter registration. It should be remembered that an affidavit of voter registration must be signed by the voter certifying that its information is truthful and correct. In addition, the SOS displays a 10-year party affiliation of all candidates for voter-nominated offices on its website.
The California legislature could have said that a candidate was limited to expressing a preference for a qualified party, even though this would be constitutionally dubious. But they did not do so. They explicitly said that a candidate’s party preference is identical to the party preference on the candidate’s voter registration, and they deliberately and explicitly continued the practice of voters being able to affiliate with non-qualified parties on their voter registration.
The Secretary of State’s interpretation of Proposition 14 and SB 6 is contrary to statute and past practice with regard to voter registration and party affiliation. It is contrary to the expressed will of the People in passing Proposition 14 that there be NO distinction on the basis of party preference. If her interpretation were correct, it would violate the 1st and 14th amendments of the US Constitution.
Pingback: California State Appeals Court Sets Oral Argument in Case Against Two Aspects of “Top-Two” | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
Hasn’t this been moved to September 7?