On November 21, the Peace & Freedom Party and the Libertarian Party of California, along with the Green Party of Alameda County, filed a lawsuit in Superior Court in Alameda County, complaining that Proposition 14, the “top-two” measure passed in June 2010 by the voters, violates the rights of voters to vote freely in November, and also that the measure violates the Associational rights of political parties and their candidates. The case is Rubin v Bowen, RG 11-605301. Here is the complaint.
The lawsuit was filed by the law firm of Siegel and Yee, one of the best-known law firms in Alameda County, California.
This is the first lawsuit in California to allege that the essense of the top-two system is unconstitutional. There have been two lawsuits in California pending since 2010 that allege that two particular details of the California top-two primary system are unconstitutional. The two particular details attacked in those earlier lawsuits are the ban on counting write-in votes (even though the law says write-in space should be printed on the ballot), and the fact that some candidates may express their political views on the ballot but others may not. Those lawsuits are called Field v Bowen and Chamness v Bowen. The courts have not yet granted injunctive relief in either of those cases, although they are still pending.
Pingback: “Three California Political Parties File Lawsuit, Alleging that Top-Two Primary Law is Unconstitutional” | Election Law Blog
See the ongoing and ongoing top 2 case in WA State — filed in 2005 and still going — a mere 6 years plus.
When will SCOTUS bring down a HAMMER on the MORONS ???
See Bush v. Gore 2000 — the hammer on ALL of the FL regime MORONS – legislative, executive and judicial.
NO definition of a LEGAL vote in 2000 in the various MORON FL voting systems – esp. the now DEAD punch card ballots.
Since when is it somehow UN-constitutional to have ALL PUBLIC Electors-Voters in a sovereign State of the Union do nominations of PUBLIC candidates for PUBLIC offices ???
How much FREE publicity for listing the name of ANY political party on the PUBLIC ballots ???
Pingback: Three California Political Parties File Lawsuit, Alleging that Top-Two Primary Law is Unconstitutional | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
too bad the American Independent Party is brain dead – comatose. They should be part of this.
I am absolutely outraged at you Richard!!!
I am sure that my dear friend, Mark Seidenberg, the new chairman of the (state of California recognized) American Independent Party, MUST have authorized the AIP to be a party to this lawsuit! NO ONE truly opposing the current political duopoly or the Top Two Tyranny imposed on California would not be part of this lawsuit.
SHAME, SHAME on you, Richard, for neglecting to mention the participation of the AIP!!! HOW DARE YOU???!!!
Right? Otherwise, Peter Gemma is quite correct. And he is…isn’t he? So, Mark, quo vadis?
The AIP in California is for top two. They are looking forward to the government shutting down the rest of the third parties while they maintain ballot access for themselves.
I think that the plaintiff’s are misconstruing Elections Code 19301, or alternatively the whole part from 19300 to 19305 is dead and was not updated when other sections were updated. The authors of SB 6 apparently searched the code for “designation” and edited the text whether it made sense or not.
For example, Election Code 19300, prior to SB 6, simply provided that a voting machine would permit a voter to split their ticket at a general election. (ie it was OK to restrict a voter to candidates of one party at a party primary, but not at a general election).
When was the last (mechanical behemoth) voting machine used in California? They were introduced around 1920, because that was used as an excuse to get rid of RCV in San Francisco (just as the current optical scan hardware was used as an excuse to imposed a defective form of IRV in 2002).
Now 19300 literally says that if you are using a voting machine at any election in which legislative, congressional, or statewide office is on the ballot (ie both primary and general elections) that it would be OK to force straight ticket voting – which is of course nonsensical since it is directly contrary to the intent of Proposition 14.
Elections Code 19303 provides that a voting machine may provide a straight ticket lever, so that a voter could easily vote for all 55 presidential elector candidates of a single party. This is not a requirement of a voting machine – so it is implied that a voter using a voting machine must be able to vote for individual presidential elector candidates.
But equal protection would require that all voters then be able to vote for individual presidential elector candidates, regardless how they vote such as by paper ballot. Since this has not been true for some time (how long???) 19303 is simply obsolete.
Once you realize that they are talking about presidential elections, then it makes sense to group (presidential elector candidates) together on a voting machine so that it would be simple for a voter to individually select all the elector candidates of one party. There have not been any other partisan offices with multiple candidates from a single party for close to a 100 years in California, have there?
19302 says that the grouping on voting machines must conform with the grouping on paper ballots. I’ll bet that if you look back at the election code when voters could vote for individual electors, that there was language specifying how all the elector candidates from a given party were presented on a paper ballot.
Now the only candidates that are “grouped” are the presidential and vice presidential candidate.
They quote Justice Scalia’s dissent in Washington Grange with regard to appropriation of a party name, but fail to note that when the case was remanded to the district court, that that court found that claim to be without merit, and it is likely that the 9th Circuit and US Supreme Court will affirm that decision.
The Supreme Court and Congress have recognized primaries and general elections as part of a single process, and that States may disqualify candidates from participating in latter stages (eg look the federal campaign finance laws). California has conducted its elections for most offices in that way for a century.
If a P&F member wants to run for Superintendent of Public Instruction they are not guaranteed a position on the general election ballot.
#8, the California election for Superintendent of Public Instruction IS in June. For that office, someone can be elected in June, and most times, they are. There is only a 2nd round if no one gets 50% in June.
By contrast, California’s Prop. 14 says the election itself (for Congress and partisan state office) is always in November, and will always be held in November for all relevant office. The June event is not the election. No one can get elected in June. The June event is just a ballot access barrier that only two candidates can surmount.
TO: AFH
In your post number 6, you gave disinformation that states: “they (the AIP) are looking forward to the government shutting down the rest of the third parties.”
This is news to me. What is your source of that disinformation.
My current problem with this lawsuit is that it requires
the suit to be venued exclusively in Sacramento County.
Alameda County is the wrong forum. The American Independent Party is not into forum shopping, Bact
in 2008, some of the officer in the AIP meet in Los Angeles County when the Election Code requires the meetings to be in Sacramento (County). Activities in
Sacramento County is a big deal with the California
Legislature. It is the California Legislature that wants to keep this kind of lawsuit in Sacramento County.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman,
American Independent Party of California
PS See Government Code section 88006.
#9 Per Elections Code 8140 a candidate who receives the majority of the vote for a nonpartisan office at a primary election is elected. Per Elections Code 8141 if no candidate receives a majority at the primary election the top two are placed on the ballot at the ensuing general election.
One can read what Proposition 14 actually says by reading Article 2, Section 5.
A primary election is held to determine which two candidates advance to the ensuing general election.
There is nothing in the Constitution about which dates the primary and general election are conducted.
hi to all http://www.ballot-access.orgers this is my frst post and thought i would say hello to you all –
thanks speak soon
garry
Mark, why are you still obsessing over 2008? Even I have gotten over that.
Not getting involved in this lawsuit over technical issues does not make you guys look good, FYI.
Cody Quirk,
We need to get action of Prop. 14 for the 2012 election.
Filing in the wrong county will not get a court case heard in time, because it will end up in Sacramento County anyway and too late to do any good. If the LP
Green Party and P & F Party wants to waste there parties
money and time it is their business. I will not allow
AIP to waste it resources on a case that will be in
Sacramento County anyway and to late to do any good.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party