A mediation conference was held on September 27 in the Ninth Circuit’s election law case, Soltysik v Padilla, 16-55758. The issue is the California law that lets some candidates for Congress and partisan state office have their party affiliation on the ballot, but bars this for other candidates for the same offices. The U.S. District Court had upheld the law. The plaintiffs are registered Socialists, but when they run for office, their party label on the ballot is “party preference: none.”
On September 29, both sides told the Ninth Circuit clerk that mediation had failed, so now the case will proceed to be briefed in the Ninth Circuit.
The law requires people of political parties not recognized by California to LIE. Calif. Secretary of State’s refusal to mediate to allow candidates to be truthful about party preference is typical of the Democan & Republicrat duopoly.
In 2010, the State of California would have recognized Soltysik’s intent to vote in a Socialist primary. That California did not hold a primary for the party is immaterial as to his intent and aspirations. California would have used his registration for determining whether the Socialist Party qualified for a primary.
The SOS sent a memo to county clerks immediately prior to the 2010 election at which Proposition 14 clarifying the distinction between Decline To State (an intent to affiliate) and voters who had stated an intent to affiliate with a party that happened not to qualify for that particular election.
Proposition 14 said that party affiliation would be converted to a party preference, and that SB 6 would implement the conversion. SB 6 provided that party affiliations would be converted to party preferences, and that Decline To State would be converted to No Party Preference. This is still state law.
SB 6 clearly expressed that the party preference expressed on an affidavit of voter registration is the party preference of a candidate for a voter-nominated office. SB 6 did permit a candidate to have a blank space, but that could be used for candidates who preferred the Democratic or Socialist parties, or for candidates who did not have a party preference.
And this provision is identical to the occupational designation on California ballots. A candidate does not have to have an occupational designation. If he does, he must have documentation that it is true. In the case of party preference, an affidavit of voter registration which is signed by a voter to certify that it is truthful and correct is the equivalent documentation. If Alex Padilla or Dean Logan believe that Soltysik committed perjury on his affidavit of voter registration, they should refer his case to the AG or DA.
It was a bizarre regulatory construct of Debra Orwell Bowen that a candidate who *had* expressed a preference for a political party on their affidavit of voter registration, had not disclosed a preference for one of the six state orthodox parties. Bowen was an ambitious politician who had been term-limited in the senate, and tried to jump to Congress in the second Top 2 special election. Alex Padilla was term-limited in senate, and admitted in the SOS debate that he was a partisan political hack.
I’m missing something here. Did Soltysik get enough signatures to petition his way on to the California Ballot next month ?
Bob M., I guess you aren’t familiar with California’s top-two system. The ability for candidates to petition directly onto the November ballot (for Congress and partisan state office) has been abolished. That’s what top-two systems do. They destroy all means to get on the November ballot except by placing first or second in the June primary. So this case is over whether Soltysik could have had “socialist” on the ballot next to his name in June.
In the case before the 9th Circuit, Soltysik is filing as a potential candidate for the Assembly. He ultimately didn’t file for the June Primary, but likely has standing because of California’s continued violation of its own Constitution, and the 1st Amendment.
Write-in candidates for President have until October 25 to file. In California, it is the 55 presidential elector candidates who file, so presumably 55 elector candidates will file to get Soltysik listed as a write-in candidate (as an independent).
See my earlier posting about the MORON stuff about mediation in FACIAL unconstitutional cases.