All the briefs have been filed in Independent Party v Padilla, 16-15895, in the Ninth Circuit. The issue is whether a group named the Independent Party should be able to try to get on the ballot. The U.S. District Court had ruled against the Independent Party.
Here is the state’s brief. Here is the reply brief, filed December 2, 2016.
How about *No Party* or *Dependent Party* or *Party Party* , etc. ???
What’s in a name of any party ??? — since the corrupt HACKS therein ignore all prior stuff once they get POWER.
If a party is preferred by a candidate, the party is not necessarily participating in the election. In June 2016, the American Independent Party leaders were not even aware that there was a congressional candidate who preferred their party. And if Alex Padilla went around ripping up a signs that said “Mimi Soltysik – Socialist – California Assembly” or crossed out “Socialist” and wrote in “No Party Preference” he would be enjoined, and perhaps arrested. Any judge would laugh at Padilla’s claim that the Socialist Party was not qualified to campaign.
Just because Leland Yee preferred the Democratic Party does not imply that Alex Padilla or Kamala Harris are gunrunners simply because they also preferred the Democratic Party. Harris and Padilla apparently do not understand the concept of candidate’s personal expression of political beliefs.
The California Constitution is quite clear that the state may not have regard for the party preference of a candidate or voter. If a voter has a preference for a particular party, and the State suppresses the party preference of a like-minded candidate, the State is having regard for or taking into account the party preference of both the voter and the candidate, not to mention violating the 1st Amendment.
There is absolutely no state interest in restricting candidates to expressing a preference for one of six qualified orthodox political viewpoints.
They ought to make Padilla testify at the trial:
Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Can you tell us when you became Secretary of State?
Padilla: In 2014, I was term-limited from the Senate.
Lawyer: And what are your duties as Secretary of State?
Padilla: To help Senator Feinstein pass the $15 minimum wage.
Lawyer: Can you explain the Top 2 primary?
Attorney General: Objection, the plaintiff’s attorney is badgering the witness about matters he has no personal knowledge or understanding of. The Secretary has already indicated that he has no interest in election laws and is just a political hack.
I see it is just a scam to confuse votes in California. The cabel just lost an attempted take over of the American Independent Party and turns around to try to form the Independent Party.
@Mark Seidenberg,
The State of California has no rational interest in requiring candidates to demonstrate that there is widespread support for their personal political views before they may be expressed on the ballot.
Now that the statewide voter registry is running, it should be trivial to determine the number of voters who have indicated that they prefer the Independent Party.