On August 24, a California Superior Court ruled that Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado, and the California Independent Voters Network, and the campaign committee for “Yes on 14” , should all be allowed to intervene in the lawsuit that challenges two restrictive aspects of California’s “Top-two” system. The case is Field v Bowen, cgc10-502018, San Francisco. All three intervenors have the same set of attorneys.
In Court, the intervenors said that there is not necessarily a correspondence of viewpoints between the California Attorney General (who is charged with defending the challenged laws), and the viewpoints of the intervenors. However, they did not give any example of what those different viewpoints might be.
The hearing was a useful means for the attorneys from all sides to interact with the judge, and give the judge a sense of the case. The attorney for the plaintiffs, Gautam Dutta, made a brief argument on the merits of the case, which challenges the provision saying write-ins can’t be counted, and the provision that lets some, but not all, candidates put their party membership on the ballot. This was in the context that both of the challenged provisions limit voters’ rights, and therefore it is not rational for the intervenors to assert that they represent the interests of the voters. The other side, however, did not engage this argument.
One more MORON event.
Prop 14 is a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment.
The SB6 MORON law involved is a totally separate matter.
How soon will the ENTIRE legal system collapse due to New Age MORON lawyers — making the rash assumption that the legal system has not already collapsed into mass ignorance and stupidity ???
—
Will allowing the intervention of Proposal supporters have an obvious effect on the Prop 8 cases/mess ???
Stay tuned for more zoo-circus stuff in the CA regime – legislative, executive and judicial circus rings.
The judge should throw out the portion of the lawsuit with regard to party affiliation as not being ripe, since the SOS has not yet defined registration procedures and forms.
Current law requires that qualified parties be listed on the voter registration form, and that in the absence of an indication of party affiliation, that the voter is presumed to be “declined to state” (DTS).
The current registration form has an explicit DTS selection, followed by a list of political parties, and a box to write the name of an “other” party.
Under SB 6, the law requires that qualified parties be listed on the registration form, and that in the absence of an indication of party affiliation, that the voter is presumed to be NPP (no party preference). The law also requires that the No Party Preference option be included on the registration form.
Thus, the only substantive difference between the current law and SB 6, is that there is now a requirement that current practice be followed with respect to having an explicit option for the voter to express non-affiliation with any party.
Elections Code 2151 (d) makes it quite clear that “No Party Preference” is simply a recasting of “Declined To State”, and distinct from affiliating with an other party, whether that party is “qualified” or “other”.
If Dutta’s interpretation of the applicability of Elections Code 338 to party affiliation of voters was correct, then Elections Code Sections 2187, 5002, and 5003 do not make any sense. For example, Section 2187 would require elections officials to report the number of persons registered in “nonqualified qualified parties”
The current online version of the California Statutes includes both the pre-SB 6 and post-SB 6 versions, so it is simple to confirm that party affiliation for voters is merely a recasting of “intent to affiliate with a political party at the next primary” to “political party preference”, and “declined to state an intent to affiliate” with “no party preference”. Thus just as under current law, a voter is totally free to affiliate with a “non-qualified” party.
I’m surprised that Guatam Dutta is not claiming that Elections Code 2151(b)(2) requires that the qualified party names be listed twice on the registration form.
“person whose name has been written on the ballot as a write-in candidate” and “person whose name has been written in upon a ballot” in Elections Code 8605 and 8606, respectively, both refer to a person.
There is no basis for inferring that the second actually means a “vote” for such a person, especially if one is making a claim that the non-counting of such votes is explicit.
The litigants should simply agree that Elections Code 8606 is nonsensical, irrelevant to the purpose of Proposition 14, and should be severed.
#2 I’m surprised that Guatam Dutta is not claiming that Elections Code 2151(b)(2) requires that the qualified party names be listed twice on the registration form.
—-
Do NOT be surprised by the useless incompetence of ALL New Age election law so-called lawyers regarding any election law subject.
Did any of the SCOTUS party hacks specialize in election law before being appointed a party hack SCOTUS person ???
One of the defendants, Dean Logan, who was in charge of King County, Washington elections during the 2004 gubernatorial race, and Los Angeles County elections in the 2008 presidential primary when ballots cast for American Independent and Democratic voters could not be distinguished, has filed as having no position on the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. There is no guarantee that election officials will defend the state law or point out the errors in Dutta’s lawsuit.
Pingback: My garage roof is a concrete slab for the patio above. The patio cracked and leaks.? | Roofers In Spartanburg SC