On August 14, the Secretary of State filed this brief in Patterson v Padilla, S257302, in the California Supreme Court. This is the case that challenges the new presidential primary ballot access law on the grounds that the State Constitution directs the Secretary of State to put all “recognized” candidates on a presidential primary ballot.
The state says the plaintiffs (the state chair of the California Republican Party and the party itself), do not have standing to bring this case. The state suggests that the cases pending in federal court over the federal constitution should be the preferred method of settling the constitutionality of the law.
The state’s brief does not discuss whether or not President Trump is a “recognized” candidate.
The first precedent mentioned in the state’s brief is Salinger v Jordan, a 1964 State Supreme Court opinion over whether Pierre Salinger could have his occupation, “United State Senator”, on the ballot or not. The Secretary of State had denied that label for Salinger because he felt the occupation had to be the same label as it had been in the primary, and Salinger had not been a Senator at the time of the primary. Salinger won the case. In the current case, the state used the Salinger precedent to support its conclusion that it is in the public interest that the voters have information about candidates.
recognized – UNCON – vague for voidness – 1 Amdt / 14 Amdt due process
ALSO subversion of group representing group members
see olde 1958 NAACP case – attempt by govt to get membership list of group — for an obvious purge of such members.
The brief on pages 18-19 claims that the tax return requirement is justified because it is comparable to the definition of a “recognized candidate” in Elections Code section 6000.1, which was just added to the Elections Code by SB 505 at the same time as the tax return requirement was added by SB 27. Thus that language is not well-established and/or upheld in previous litigation, so it seems strange that it can be cited as evidence that the legislature can establish such requirements. Incidentally, the part of SB 505 that is of most questionable constitutionality isn’t included in the portion quoted, namely the requirement that a presidential candidate file a form by November 26th proving that the quoted requirements are met.
The brief also makes the seemingly ridiculous argument that the constitutional provision isn’t intended to require that all recognized presidential candidates appear on the ballot, but only those recognized candidates who meet any other requirements established by the legislature. Given that the purpose for the provision was to end the situation where many recognized presidential candidates didn’t appear on California primary ballots because they didn’t jump through the petitioning hoops previously required, it’s hard to believe that the provision can be interpreted as limiting rather than expanding who can be on California presidential primary ballots. Under this interpretation, a candidate who files sufficient petitions to appear on the primary ballot (under the provisions still in the Elections Code) could be excluded if the Secretary of State determined that he or she was doing so merely as a publicity stunt and not as a serious candidacy.
What a pathetic brief. The Salinger decision was based on an informed electorate intelligently electing one of the candidates. Here, California is trying to keep a candidate off the ballot. Salinger was running against Claire Engle and Alan Cranston, Engle had underwent surgery to remove a brain tumor and suffered a stroke. Salinger won the Democratic primary, and then Engle died, and Salinger was appointed to fill the last few months of the term as he was running for the full term. He apparently did not have a designation in the primary (former press secretary might not be that worthy of a title). California permits the designation to change between the primary and the general election, but the SOS was arguing that since Salinger did not have a designation in the primary, he was nor “changing it”.
The brief also quotes Bullock v Carter saying states have the authority and perhaps the obligation to keep fraudulent or frivolous candidates off the ballot. It was pretextual that was the reason for the filing fees in Texas.
The brief also suggests that a candidate must qualify for matching funds in order to be recognized as a candidate. That is only one of six standards that may be met. It also claims that recognition is not an absolute standard because it permits withdrawal of a candidate who had been recognized.
What happens if several million persons believe that they might receive write-in votes (see 6241, 6441, 6621, 6822, 6862)? Is an FEC filing required if the canpaign has less than $5000 in contributions or expenditures?
Govt brief — Standard throw lots of legalese sxxx on a wall ???
– some may stick — to get past the next election ???
It seems to me that each party has the final say in who is or is not a candidate of that party.
NOOO party hack rigging of candidates.
Individuals are nominated/elected.
Equal nom pets / filing fees.