Two Socialist Party Candidates Sue California to Have Party Label on Ballot

On October 8, two Socialist Party candidates for the California legislature filed a federal lawsuit against the California law that forces them to have “party preference: none” on the ballot, if they run for Congress or partisan state office. Soltysik v Padilla, c.d., 2:15cv-7916-AB. They want to have “party preference: Socialist” on the ballot.

Because California no longer has party nominees for Congress or partisan state office, there is no purpose for the party labels shown on California ballots except to give information to the voters about that candidate’s principles. California only permits candidates who are members of qualified parties to have a partisan label on the ballot.

By contrast, Washington state, which has a top-two system very much like California’s, lets all candidates choose any partisan label they wish, as long as it is not obscene and not longer than 15 characters.

The lawsuit is an ACLU case. The two candidate-plaintiffs are Emidio “Mimi” Soltysik and Jennifer McClellan. Both are registered Socialists. Here is a press release. The case is assigned to Judge Andre Birotte, Jr., an Obama appointee.


Comments

Two Socialist Party Candidates Sue California to Have Party Label on Ballot — 4 Comments

  1. Good luck to them, I hope they win their lawsuit. It’s bad enough that CA has Top Two, but now they can’t even have the right to put what their partisan/ideological association is? I nominate CA as having the absolute WORST election laws in the country, and I live in IL, so that’s saying something.

  2. Mr. Soltysik is also a candidate for the Socialist Party’s presidential nomination, along with Dean Capone and Elijah Manley.

  3. This is the argument that Gautam Dutta should have made. Kamala Harris and Alex Padilla should decline to defend the statute since it clearly violates both the 1st Amendment and the California Constitution.

    The suit claims that prior to AB 1413 (2012) that SB 6 forbade a candidate who preferred a so-called non-qualified party from having that party preference. That was a misinterpretation by Debra Bowen.

    Prior to the passage of Proposition 14, the Secretary of State sent an advisory to the county election officials explaining the distinction between decline-to-state (DTS) voters, and voters affiliated with non-qualified parties. Both groups of voters were permitted to vote in primaries of parties that permitted them to do so because the distinction was voters not affiliated with parties participating in the primary. This would have also covered Americans Elect voters, since even though the party was qualified to participate, it chose not to participate.

    Proposition 14 said that it was the intent to comply with the SCOTUS decision in the Washington Top 2 case. In that case, the Washington AG, Rob McKenna, successfully argued that a candidate’s party preference was a personal political expression, and did not imply party endorsement. On remand, the lower courts were tasked with determining whether voters might be confused by the difference.

    Bowen’s misinterpretation would increase the possibility of voter confusion, since qualified status implies endorsement by the party.

    Proposition 14 said that SB 6 would convert existing voter party affiliations to voter party preferences. The sections that provided for the conversion made a distinction between party affiliated voters and DTS voters, not between voters affiliated with so-called qualified parties and those who were not.

    When a voter fills out an affidavit of voter registration, they are required to sign it, indicating that all information on the card is truthful and correct, subject to possible prosecution for perjury.

    The continued system of qualification for presidential primaries is unworkable, unless a voter could express a preference for a non-qualified party on their voter registration.

    In sum, a voter’s political party preference is individual and personal and what they wrote on their affidavit of voter registration.

    SB 6 added Section 8002.5(a)

    “A candidate for a voter-nominated office may indicate his or her party preference, or lack of party preference, as disclosed upon the candidate’s most recent statement of registration, upon his or her declaration of candidacy. …”

    and Section 300.5.

    “Affiliated with a political party” as used in reference to a voter or to a candidate for a voter-nominated office means the party preference that the voter or candidate has disclosed on his or her affidavit of registration.”

    There is nothing about “qualified” party preference. “qualified” can not be inferred based on Section 338. A voter’s political party preference is what they wrote on their affidavit of voter registration, and which they signed to certify that it is truthful and correct.

    No amount of breaking one’s reading glasses, turning the law upside down, and imagining about running for Congress can lead to Debra Bowen’s misinterpretation.

    Paragraph 50 of the complaint is in error.

    The ability not to have a political party preference is to comply with ‘Cook v Gralike’. Just as the State may not coerce state-endorsed or approved speech, they may not compel speech. California does not require a candidate to express their profession/occupation/office designation on the ballot. They do require it to be accurate. For example, if an occupation is specified, the candidate must have had income from that occupation in the previous year.

    Since the voter has signed his affidavit of voter registration to indicate that it is truthful and correct, the party preference can be presumed to be accurate. If Alex Padilla or Dean Logan question that it is truthful, they could always refer the matter to the AG or DA for possible prosecution of perjury.

    In addition, the SOS is required to publish the party affiliation history of candidates for the past ten years.

    Even if SB 6 had been written in the manner that Debra Bowen misinterpreted it, it would violate the California Constitution as amended by Proposition 14. If a candidate says that their party preference is for a so-called non-qualified party, what would Dean Logan do?

    He would send a notice to the candidate that would read something like this:

    Dear Candidate

    After considering, taking into account, in sum, having regard for your party preference, I have decided that you may not have your party preference appear on the ballot.

    Your friend, Dean Logan

    Proposition 14 says that the State of California should not have any regard for the party preference of candidates or voters. By banning certain party preferences, California is playing favorites and denying equal protection.

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.