Ninth Circuit Sets Briefing Schedule in Case Against Washington State Top-Two System

The 9th circuit has set a briefing schedule in Washington State Republican Party v Washington State Grange, 11-35122. The briefs of the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian Parties are due May 23. The responses of the Grange and the state are due June 20. The parties’ rebuttal briefs are due July 4. This is the case that challenges Washington state’s top-two system, which has been in effect since 2008.

In the 9th circuit, all three issues will be aired: (1) whether party labels on the ballot lead voters to believe that the candidates with those labels represent those parties; (2) whether voters’ rights are injured by a general election ballot that includes only the two most popular candidates in any particular race; (3) whether the Libertarian Party’s trademark of its own name is violated by the law allowing any person to use the party’s name on the ballot.


Comments

Ninth Circuit Sets Briefing Schedule in Case Against Washington State Top-Two System — 4 Comments

  1. Which plaintiffs were injured by omission of which specific candidates from the November 2008 and November 2010 general election ballot? Were there any candidates who appeared on the primary election ballots for 2008 and 2010, but did not appear on the general election ballot because they were not one of the two most popular candidates in a particular race, but whose omission did not harm the voters.

    Start with the 2010 US Senate Race.

  2. Again and again –

    (1) All Electors-Voters are allegedly aware of the LAW — the OLD ignorance of the LAW is NO excuse stuff.

    — the labels are de facto MEANINGLESS.

    (2) ALL Electors-Voters are doing the nominations — so the top 2 stuff is obviously constitutional — regardless of ALL subfactions of the Electors-Voters complaining about having NO candidates on the ballots. See the 2008 WA State top 2 primary case in SCOTUS.

    — BUT there should be P.R. — regardless of the party hack SCOTUS folks.

    (3) ALL labels on ALL candidates = FREE advertising for the various real parties — and even one person or fictional parties.

    What is the civil injury to ANY political party by any candidate using such political party name in a label on the ballots ???

    How many Stalin/Hitler candidate clones have *I prefer Libertarian Party* ???

    What if the label stuff was *I prefer Donkey/ Elephant/ Libertarian/ etc. Ideology/Platform Stuff* ???

    Would the party hack gangs have some sort of civil injury ???

  3. And of course – the Electors-Voters are voting for human candidates — and NOT any labels.

    But of course even pre-school stuff is now super hard to detect in the New Age of Mystification of Everything under the Sun.

  4. Unless the judges of the 9th circuit are insane this case is a no brainer.

    Of course party labels on the ballot lead voters to believe that the candidates with those labels represent those parties. How could it not?

    Obviously voters’ rights are injured by a general election ballot that includes only the two most subsidized candidates in any particular race.

    Obviously the Libertarian Party’s trademark of its own name is violated by the law allowing any person to use the party’s name on the ballot. The whole point of a trade mark is to control who can use something.

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.