California State Files Its Brief in Top-Two Case

On June 18, the California government filed its brief in the State Court of Appeals in Rubin v Bowen, the minor party case against the top-two system. The government brief has some of the same deficiencies of the brief filed by top-two supporters. On page one it refers to California’s elections for Congress, state legislature, and state executive office as “nonpartisan.” And page sixteen says the November election is a “runoff.”

Page twenty-two implies that, before California put the top-two system in place, independent voters could not vote in partisan primaries. The truth is that between 2001 and 2010, independent voters were asked at the polling place if they wished to vote on a Democratic or Republican primary ballot, for all congressional and state office elections.


California State Files Its Brief in Top-Two Case — No Comments

  1. “Page twenty-two implies that, before California put the top-two system in place, independent voters could not vote in partisan primaries.”

    I wish that Top Two supporters would stop lying about this. I’m not optimistic, but I can at least hope.

  2. Richard:

    During most of the 2000’s the American Independent Party also
    allowed all Decline to State voters to vote in its primary.

  3. How many more years of top 2 cases before SCOTUS and the State Supreme courts uphold the top 2 stuff ???

    — i.e. its dangerous math.

  4. John Arntz wrote in the June 2010 voter’s pamphlet:

    “Unaffiliated voters who vote at polling places on Election Day must tell the pollworker if they want either of these party ballots. If no request is made, the voter will receive a nonpartisan ballot.”

  5. Yes, but you left out the part that directs poll workers to inform independent voters that they could have a major party primary ballot. The Secretary of State’s “2010 Poll Worker Training Standards” says, “County election officials should train poll workers how to use and distribute DTS voter information materials including signs, posters, and written information, to inform these voters that they may request a ballot of a political party that has authorized a DTS voter to vote the ballot that political party for a particular election.”

    We had a large cardboard sign on the table at the polls and were instructed to ask each independent voter to read it.

  6. Vote by mail voters who were DTS or affiliated with non-qualified parties were significantly less likely to “request” a partisan ballot.

    Also the Secretary of State issued a directive to county election officials prior to the 2010 primary explaining that the right to request certain partisan ballots was available to registrants with non-qualified parties. So the law must have not been applied uniformly across California.

    Your original statement may result in readers inferring that a voter could request a Republican ballot for all statewide elections between 2001 and 2010.

Leave a Reply

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