The web page Restore Voter Choice has links to all the briefs filed so far in the California Supreme Court, in Rubin v Padilla. The minor parties filed their opening brief in early March 2015, and the government and the intervening defenders of the top-two system filed briefs at the end of March. It is likely that the minor parties will file a reply brief soon.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
More brain dead stuff.
1. UNEQUAL votes for each gerrymander district winner.
2. UNEQUAL total votes in each gerrymander district.
3. About 25 percent ANTI-Democracy minority rule –
1/2 votes x 1/2 gerrymander districts.
ANY lawyers with ANY brain cells in CA and elsewhere ???
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
‘Lubin v Panish’ concerned a non-partisan election, at which at most two candidates would advance from the June primary to the November election.
In the June 2012 primary over 150 Republican and Democratic candidates received more than 5% of the vote, but failed to advance.
The Green Party candidate who received 18.6% of the vote finished 3rd (last) among 3 candidates. No show bets in a 3-horse race.
The plaintiff’s brief misrepresents ‘Foster v Love’. Louisiana as a matter of law was issuing certificates of election in October, and not even opening the polling place in November.
in Lubin v Panish, the election was in June. Only if no one got 50% in June would there be a November runoff. Most of the time someone for California county supervisor races did get over 50% in June, especially when incumbents were running for re-election.
The US Supreme Court was very aware that Lubin was a Peace & Freedom Party candidate, even if the election was non-partisan. The decision says on page 716, “This legitimate state interest, however, must be achieved by a means that does not unfairly or unnecessarily burden either a minority party’s or an individual candidate’s equally important interest in the coninued availability of political opportunity. The interests involved are not merely those of parties or individual candidates; the voters can assert their preferences only through candidates or parties.”
The SCOTUS knows the meaning of “or”.
Further the brief juxtaposes quotes from ‘Lubin v Panish’ and ‘Anderson v Celebrezze’
Lubin was clamoring for a place on a June ballot, not for an election at the height of peak interest as was Anderson.