The California Constitution, Article II, sec. 5(a), says, “The legislature shall provide for primary elections for partisan offices, including an open presidential primary whereby the candidates on the ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates.”
The Independent Voters Project, which supports the top-two system, filed a lawsuit on July 23, 2019, arguing that because the term “open primary” is in the California Constitution in connection with the presidential primary, therefore the current law on presidential primaries (which allows each party to decide whether to let independent voters vote in its presidential primary) violates the California Constitution. The Independent Voters Project thinks “open primary” in this context means the state must print a presidential primary ballot with all presidential primary candidates from all parties on that ballot, and that any voter must be allowed to use that ballot.
The case has a hearing in San Bernardino on November 19 at 8:30 am. It is Boydston v Padilla, civ-ds-1921480.
That part of the California Constitution was added many years ago by the voters, and the Voters Pamphlet for that election shows that “open primary” meant a presidential primary open to all partisan candidates. Before that was added to the California Constitution, presidential candidates needed a severe petition in order to get on a presidential primary ballot.
Each party should decide for itself whether or not it wants to include Independent voters.
Mike
I would agree, although I know why we dont let parties do this. its a legacy of white-only primaries.
NOOO extremist primaries.
—
Equal Nom Pets
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
*recognized* = VOID for vagueness = 100 pct ARBITRARY = tyrannical.
See Constitution Annotated = SCOTUS Con Law ops
Too many MORON *lawyers* and worse MORON *judges* to count.
Does the state legislature get to define whether a candidate is recognized?
There are several claims by the IVP.
Among the more interesting claims is that the presidential primary is essentially a straw poll for the benefit of political parties (private organizations) and not for the voters, and thus violates a California Constitution provision against spending for non-public purposes.
In November 1972, non-DR registration was 7.3%, and that appears to be after adoption of the 18 YO vote and for the 1972 presidential election, and qualification of the AIP and P&F parties. So DTS would probably be around 4%, and perhaps even lower at the time of the primary.
In 1966, non-DR voters were only 3.2%.
The proponent arguments in the voter’s pamphlet literally refers to “both parties”. At the time, California purported to dictate to the political parties how they would choose delegates. This was nine years prior to ‘ex rel LaFolette’.
The context under which the amendment was approved has drastically changed.
All they are asking for is that voters who don’t want to publicly align with any party, whether by registering or asking for a ballot be permitted to vote in the straw poll like any other citizen. This could easily be accomplished by providing a non-partisan ballot with all recognized candidates.
ANY requirement that the results of the Prez *open primary* determine the Prez candidate names on the FINAL general election ballots [regardless of any party hack caucuses/conventions] ???
One more case of BAAAD drafting and/or the infamous ***unintended consequences*** ???
@EB,
The legislature has the authority to direct how the presidential primary is conducted.
There are explicit statutory provisions regarding recognition. For some parties the SOS is required to inform the party bosses that they are seeking advice, though that advice is voluntary.
The legislature in 2019 has enacted explicit standards to be a “recognized” candidate.
See Elections Code 6000.1
Any idea what the hearing on the 23rd about? Also since
all six parties qualified on October 1, 2919, with the 1/15 th of 1 % of the registration on E-154, why did the six party not get notice of this hearing or made necessary party to such a lawsuit.
@DR,
The California requires that the winner of a partisan primary be placed on the general election. Literally, it says that the legislature can’t prevent the winner from being nominated. So if the legislature were to say that the 5th place finisher should be nominated, the party could say, “no siree Messr. Newsome and Padilla, you can’t make us do that, we can have the winner on the ballot! You’re not are boss!”
But a more sensible interpretation is that it requires the winner of a primary to be nominated.
When the provision was added, congressional, legislative, SBOE, state executive (except Superintendent of Public Instruction), and presidential elections were partisan elections. Proposition 14 (Top 2) in 2010 converted all partisan elections, except for president to voter-nominated (Top 2).
So if president is the only partisan primary, and the winner of the primary must be placed on the general election ballot, doesn’t the presidential primary have to be a straw poll?
@MS,
The hearing on November 19 is to get a temporary restraining order. If they don’t get relief by then, it will probably be too late for 2020.
Why do the qualified political parties need to be notified?
There is a gratuitous and extraneous comment in the complaint that says that registered AIP voters are mistakenly registered. To the extent that the plaintiffs are claiming to represent AIP voters, then the party would be a real party in interest. But I don’t think they are claiming that.
Two plaintiffs are NPP and want to vote for any candidate, including NPP candidates.
One plaintiff is NPP, but wants to vote for a Democrat, without disclosing his affiliation.
One plaintiff is GOP, but wants to vote for a non-Republican without changing his affiliation.
One plaintiff is Democrat, but would prefer to be NPP.
One plaintiff is Green, but wants to vote for a Democrat.
The court could remove certain plaintiffs for lack of standing.
An interesting tidbit from the 2000 primary Statement of Vote.
For the blanket primary, the total votes for a candidate is labelled “OPEN”, and DTS voters were styled “IND”
They also included a “X-OVER”
JR
Again-
ANY requirement that the results of the Prez *open primary* determine the Prez candidate names on the FINAL general election ballots [regardless of any party hack caucuses/conventions] ???
[names plural]
Simple YES or NO will suffice.
NO 1,000 page brief needed.
JR – RE CA Elections Code 6000.1
—
A State legislature can NOT define words and phrases in a State constitution unless the State const permits it — otherwise ALL State consts would be totally subverted by gerrymander HACKS.
For readers-
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/450/107/
Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981)
No. 79-1631
Argued December 8, 1980
Decided February 25, 1981
450 U.S. 107
Syllabus
Rules of the Democratic Party of the United States (National Party) provide that only those who are willing to affiliate publicly with the Democratic Party may participate in the process of selecting delegates to the Party’s National Convention. Wisconsin election laws allow voters to participate in its Democratic Presidential candidate preference primary without regard to party affiliation and without requiring a public declaration of party preference. While the Wisconsin delegates to the National Convention are chosen separately, after the primary, at caucuses of persons who have stated their affiliation with the Democratic Party, those delegates are bound to vote at the Convention in accord with the results of the open primary election. Thus, while Wisconsin’s open Presidential preference primary does not itself violate the National Party’s rules, the State’s mandate that primary results shall determine the allocation of votes cast by the State’s delegates at the National Convention does. When the National Party indicated that Wisconsin delegates would not be seated at the 1980 National Convention because the Wisconsin delegate selection system violated the National Party’s rules, an original action was brought in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on behalf of the State, seeking a declaration that such system was constitutional as applied to appellants (the National Party and Democratic National Committee) and that they could not lawfully refuse to seat the Wisconsin delegation. Concluding, inter alia, that the State had not impermissibly impaired the National Party’s freedom of political association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the State’s delegate selection system was constitutional and binding upon appellants, and that they could not refuse to seat delegates chosen in accord with Wisconsin law.
Held: Wisconsin cannot constitutionally compel the National Party to seat a delegation chosen in a way that violates the Party’s rules. Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U. S. 477, controlling. Pp. 450 U. S. 120-126.
(a) The National Party and its adherents enjoy a constitutionally protected right of political association under the First Amendment, and
Page 450 U. S. 108
this freedom to gather in association for the purpose of advancing shared beliefs is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by any State, and necessarily presupposes the freedom to identify the people who constitute the association and to limit the association to those people only. Here, the members of the National Party, speaking through their rules, chose to define their associational rights by limiting those who could participate in any binding process leading to the selection of delegates to their National Convention. Pp. 450 U. S. 120-122.
(b) Wisconsin’s asserted compelling interests in preserving the overall integrity of the electoral process, providing secrecy of the ballot, increasing voter participation in primaries, and preventing harassment of voters, go to the conduct of the open Presidential preference primary, not to the imposition of voting requirements upon those who, in a separate process, are eventually selected as delegates. Therefore, such asserted interests do not justify the State’s substantial intrusion into the associational freedom of members of the National Party. Pp. 450 U. S. 124-126.
93 Wis.2d 473, 287 N.W.2d 519, reversed.
STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 450 U. S. 126.
—-
The party hacks at a meeting some where and at some time can NOT dictate what SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL candidates get on a State’s ballots — UNLESS the State Const/laws permit it.
IE- party hacks acting as PUBLIC Electors – part of the State – in the PUBLIC election process.
The SCOTUS MORONS have done their usual moron stuff and totally screwed up the public vs clubby private parts of ballot access – esp for Prez/VP and 12 Amdt electors.
@DR,
I don’t understand your point about California Elections Code 6000.1 and LaFollette.
@DR,
Read Article II, Section 5(c) and (d).
Section 5(d) says that the winner of a partisan primary shall be placed on the general election ballot.
Literally it doesn’t say that, but rather if state statute dictated someone else the party could demand that the 1st place candidate be placed on the ballot. Though in this case, the statutes permit the clubby aspects of the party to determine who the presidential candidate is. The clubby aspect is unlikely to demand that the state popular vote be used, though they could.
Section 5(c) says that president is a partisan office (ignore everything about how candidates qualify for the presidential primary ballot), therefore 5(d).
Let me know if you would like an explanation why 5(d) is in the constitution.
How about posting the relevant FULL text of stuff under inspection ???
– SEPARATE from any *analysis* / commentary
— esp for the benefit of newbees.
I assume anyone reading would know how to locate the California Constitution.
Sorry – LOTS of folks on this list are google clueless or have better things to do.