On December 24, U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter upheld California’s ban on write-in votes at the general election for Congress and partisan state office. Milonopoulos v Bowen, central district, 2:14cv-5973. The case had been filed by Theo Milonopoulos on July 30, 2014. He was a write-in candidate for U.S. House, 33rd District, in the June 2014 primary, and he only received one write-in vote. But he wanted to be a write-in candidate in November, so he filed a pro se lawsuit.
The decision was issued only two days after the hearing. Judge Carter said that because the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Hawaii’s ban on write-in votes in 1992 in Burdick v Takushi, therefore the California write-in ban is constitutional. Carter wrote that Hawaii’s general election choices are more restricted than California’s. This is untrue. In California, all congressional and partisan state office races are limited by law to only two candidates. Hawaii general election ballots give voters far more choices. In November 2014, there were nominees of four parties on the Hawaii ballot for Governor, three for U.S. Senate, three for U.S. House in the 2nd district, and up to four candidates in legislative races.
Carter also said that if California permitted write-in candidacies in November, someone who ran in the primary and lost might file as a write-in. This does not follow logically. California is free to permit write-in candidates in November but to refuse to count write-ins for candidates who had run in the primary, and several states follow that policy.
Nielsen Merksamer, the law firm that intervenes in all California election law lawsuits that have any bearing on the top-two primary, has forwarded a copy of the Milonopoulos decision to the California State Court of Appeals that is hearing Rubin v Bowen, the minor party challenge to the California top-two system. Rubin v Bowen will be heard in San Francisco on Thursday morning, January 15. Nielsen Merksamer has informed the three judges that are hearing Rubin v Bowen that they should take the Milonopoulos decision into account when they hear Rubin v Bowen. Nielsen Merksamer represents Californians for an Open Primary, which holds itself out to the public as a group that promotes voting rights. Neilsen Merksamer had intervened in the Milonopoulos lawsuit in support of the ban on write-in votes.
Are ANY of the MORON lawyers and judges aware of 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 ??? — abridge / deny language.
The USA Const AIN’T that long and complex —
mainly about having a LIMITED FEDERAL Govt regarding inter-State and inter-Nation stuff.
— except for the MORON robot party hacks on SCOTUS.
What a shame. Why would anyone who values electoral freedom move to the People’s Republic of California? What a decadent, elitist and altogether repugnant place! (No offense to those who are stuck there!)
California permits write-ins in non-partisan elections, and for president in the general election, and in all primaries. No harm is done having write-ins in those elections. The judge should have realized that if write-ins don’t do any harm in those kinds of elections, there is no harm done with having write-ins for all types of elections.
KRosario v. Rockefeller
410 US 752, 93 S. Ct. 1245, 36 L. Ed. 2d 1 – Supreme Court, 1973 – Google Scholar
755 The petitioners are New York residents who became eligible to vote when they came of
age in 1971. Although they could have registered and enrolled in a political party before the
cutoff date in 1971—October 2—they failed to do so. [4] Instead, they waited until early …
Cited by 929 How cited Related articles All 3 versions Cite Save
Rosario v. Rockefeller
458 F. 2d 649 – Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 1972 – Google Scholar
Pedro J. ROSARIO et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Nelson ROCKEFELLER, Governor of the State
of New York, John P. Lomenzo, Secretary of State of the State of New York,
Defendants-Appellants, Maurice J. O’Rourke et al., Defendants. Steven EISNER, on his …
Cited by 45 How cited Related articles Cite Save
Kusper v. Pontikes
414 US 51, 94 S. Ct. 303, 38 L. Ed. 2d 260 – Supreme Court, 1973 – Google Scholar
… It is said that our decision in Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 US 752, recognized the state interest
in inhibiting “raiding,” and upheld the constitutional validity of legislation restricting a voter’s
freedom to change parties, enacted as a means of serving that interest. …
Cited by 1293 How cited Related articles All 3 versions Cite Save
O’brien v. Skinner
414 US 524, 94 S. Ct. 740, 38 L. Ed. 2d 702 – Supreme Court, 1974 – Google Scholar
… exercise of the franchise.” Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 US 752, 760 (1973). … The misdemeanants
were in jail through their own doing, just as the petitioners in Rosario v. Rockefeller, supra, found
themselves unable to vote because of their failure to meet an enrollment deadline. …
Cited by 434 How cited Related articles All 3 versions Cite Save
Nader v. Schaffer
417 F. Supp. 837 – Dist. Court, D. Connecticut, 1976 – Google Scholar
… The Supreme Court has recognized the legitimacy of this state interest in decisions such as
Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 US 752, 93 S.Ct. 1245, 36 L.Ed.2d 1 (1973); Storer v. Brown, 415
US 724, 94 S.Ct. … 1274. Rosario v. Rockefeller, supra, 410 US at 762 n.10, 93 S.Ct. 1245. …
Cited by 162 How cited Related articles Cite Save
Heavey v. Chapman
611 P. 2d 1256, 93 Wash. 2d 700 – Wash: Supreme Court, 1980 – Google Scholar
… Nonetheless, consideration should be given to two recent cases cited by plaintiffs which deal
with primary elections: Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 US 752, 36 L.Ed.2d 1, 93 S.Ct. 1245 (1973)
and Nader v. Schaffer, 417 F. Supp. 837 (D. Conn. … See Rosario v. Rockefeller, supra. …
Cited by 39 How cited Related articles Cite Save
Smith v. Penta
405 A. 2d 350, 81 NJ 65 – NJ: Supreme Court, 1979 – Google Scholar
… In Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 US 752, 93 S.Ct. 1245, 36 L.Ed.2d 1 (1973), the Supreme Court
sustained a New York statute 71 that conditioned an individual’s right to vote in a particular party’s
primary on his having declared an affiliation with that party eight to eleven months …
Cited by 54 How cited Related articles Cite Save
Salera v. Tucker
399 F. Supp. 1258 – Dist. Court, ED Pennsylvania, 1975 – Google Scholar
… In Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 US 752, 93 S.Ct. 1245, 36 L.Ed.2d 1 (1973), the Court stated that
plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action against a primary registration requirement was properly
heard by the lower court even though plaintiffs had qualified to vote in succeeding …
Cited by 56 How cited Related articles Cite Save
Neale v. Hayduk
35 NY 2d 182, 316 NE 2d 861, 359 NYS 2d … – NY: Court of …, 1974 – Google Scholar
… primary. The effect of this statute, held valid in Rosario v. Rockefeller (410 US 752),
is to mandate that people must enroll within 8 or 11 months in advance of a primary
depending on whether it is to be held in June or September. …
Cited by 27 How cited Related articles Cite Save
Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm.
489 US 214, 109 S. Ct. 1013, 103 L. Ed. 2d 271 – Supreme Court, 1989 – Google Scholar
… whether they serve a compelling state interest. A State indisputably has a compelling
interest in preserving the integrity of its election process. Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410
US 752, 761 (1973). Toward that end, a State may enact …
Your argument would be better made to the California legislature, rather than a federal district court judge.