On April 1, Paul Merritt, a California independent candidate for U.S. Senate, filed a federal lawsuit over (1) the law that forces him to have “party preference: none” on the June 7, 2016 ballot, instead of “independent”; (2) the fact that his ballot statement, which said, “Paul Merritt, Registered Independent voter” was altered to delete those last three words.
The lawsuit, Merritt v Padilla, c.d., 8:16cv-606, is pro se. On April 8, U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter refused to grant an order changing the ballot label or changing the statement in the voter pamphlet. The denial was based partly on procedural errors by the plaintiff and partly because the Judge said the Ninth Circuit already upheld denying the label “independent” in Chamness v Bowen, 722 F.3d 1110 (2013). However, the decision in Chamness says that denying an independent candidate the word “independent” on the ballot might be unconstitutional, if any plaintiff submits evidence showing that the denial injures the candidate. But in Chamness, the plaintiff did not present any evidence that “Party preference: none” is worse for independent candidates than “independent”. See this story about Merritt’s lawsuit.
Michael Chamness did not have a very good lawyer. Had he sought to run as having a preference for the Coffee Party, as his affidavit of voter registration stated, he might have won. The California Constitution does not permit the state to have regard for or take into account the party preference of a candidate or vote.
Before Top 2, the State of California made no distinction between a voter who intended to affiliate with Democratic Party at the next primary, and a voter who intended to affiliate with the Coffee Party, beyond providing a check box on registration forms. It did make a distinction between those who had stated their intent to affiliate, and those who had Declined To State (DTS) their intent.
Proposition 14 said that party affiliations (intent to affiliate at the primary) would be converted to a party preference, and that this would be done according to legislation passed by the legislature at the time Proposition 14 was placed on the ballot (SB 6). SB 6 provided that party affiliations would be converted to party preferences, while Declined To State (DTS) would be converted to No Party Preference (NPP).
A party preference, by a voter or by a candidate, is a personal political expression. By restricting that expression to certain state-approved messages is viewpoint discrimination. Kamala Harris is arguing that she can inform voters on the ballot that she prefers the Democratic Party, because that is a popular viewpoint, but that Mimi Soltysik could inform voters that he prefers the Socialist Party, because that is not as popular a viewpoint.
In effect, Harris is arguing that it is the role of the government of California to discourage voters from voting for candidates who have new or less popular beliefs.
The article says that Alex Padilla had edited Merrit’s candidate statement. The online version says:
“California make history . . . elect an independent Senator Merritt. Elect an independent thinker. Elect the person, not the Party-in-power’s. Our National government is a shambles. We need a strong USA defense. Merritt is solid on international issues. I believe in Faith, respect people and all religions. Merritt supports Senator Feinstein’s boarder security fence, no offshore oil drilling, and our desert environmental protection Act. Merritt adheres that President Reagan’s idea on small government is best. Background: two law degrees, broker, hotel owner, elected city councilperson. Homeowner boards: Palm Springs, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Orange County. Life member Nature Conservancy. Most Billionaire Republicans and Union boss Democrats don’t represent you! Merritt is Independent for all Citizens. Paul Merritt is a Californian!”
What changes did Padilla make?
JUST FYI,
AND THANKS for your interest.
part of the BALLOT STATEMENT Paul MERRITT registered INDEPENDENT voter
Paul Merritt is so incompetent that he switches between referring to himself in the first to third person in his bio for the voter information guide. I am confused why we are concerned about his party preference or lack there of.