Attorneys’ Fees Upheld in California Top-Two Case

On October 23, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow issued a tentative ruling in Field vs. Bowen. He refused to reverse his earlier order, requiring plantiffs to pay almost $250,000 in attorney fees.

Attorneys for plantiffs will argue in court Wednesday, October 24, at 9:30 am, to ask Judge Karnow to change his mind.

If you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, please come to the hearing, which is at 9:30 am at 400 McAllister Street, Room 302, San Francisco. UPDATE: Judge Karnow refused to reconsider his earlier opinion, so now the case will be appealed to the State Court of Appeals. Thank you to all the people who attended the hearing. All of the 45 seats in the courtroom were filled, and 25 others were unable to be seated, so remained out in the hallway, unable to either see or hear. There may be publicity about this outcome soon. At the oral argument, Judge Karnow seemed to feel that it is objective truth that a top-two system is intrinsically helpful to the public. Therefore, in his mind, it follows logically that anyone who files a lawsuit against any part of the system is damaging the public interest. This case did not even challenge the essence of the top-two system; it challenged two especially unfair aspects of it that are not present in the Washington state top-two system.


Comments

Attorneys’ Fees Upheld in California Top-Two Case — 11 Comments

  1. If it comes to you having to pay some portion of this injustice, Richard, please let us know how best to contribute to a fund for your relief.

  2. someone ask “the donald” (trump) to save Richard from this terrible judgment.

    Donald Trump’s ‘very big’ news coming Wednesday

  3. Provisions in a State constitution that are not in violation of the US Constitution are intrinsically in the best interest of The People.

    The People determined that Top 2 was in their best interest by approving it.

    The write-in provisions were clearly severable, and the party access claims were based on a misreading of SB 6 (albeit one which the Secretary of State joined in).

    The lawsuit should be regarded as an attack on the legislative and constitution-making process.

  4. A travesty. Let’s not forget this judge. Hopefully the appellate court will have more sense.

  5. #7, any law that shrinks voter choice in the election itself is an attack on voting rights. Under federal law, congressional elections are in November, and if a state wants a run-off, it must after November. Cutting voter choice in the election itself harms the public.

    We know you like top-two, but you never seem to mention why. What public policy is enhanced by top-two? Is Louisiana significantly better off than its neighbors because of its long use of top-two? And if Louisiana’s system is so wonderful, why isn’t there any agitation in your home state of Texas for it?

  6. NYSCA said this year that all that matters is that the current state election statutes be “consistent” with prior (unconstitutional) state statutes — totally ignoring the state constitution not in violation of the US Constitution.

  7. #9 You make a distinction between the various stages of an election that both the SCOTUS and Congress have not made.

    In Classic, Smith v Allwright, Tashjian, and Foster v Love, the SCOTUS has repeatedly confirmed that primaries are part of the election of representatives. It the primary in Connecticut was not part of the election, then the qualification clause would not apply.

    Congress would have no authority to pass 2 U.S.C. § 5; nor regulate campaign contributions for congressional primaries; nor require ballots to be sent overseas 45 days before a primary, but for the fact they are exercising time, manner, and place regulation over congressional elections.

    Top 2 gives all candidates an equal opportunity to advance to the final two, where the final choice is made.

    Top two does a better job than partisan primary system of fulfilling Article I, Section 2: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.”

    The purpose of Top 2 is not to make sure the railroads run on time. In a republic, there is intrinsic value in the election process by which the People choose their government.

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.