California Files Ninth Circuit Brief in Party Labels Case

On March 6, attorneys for the California Secretary of State filed this brief in the Ninth Circuit, in Soltysik v Padilla, 16-55758. The issue is the California law that lets some candidates for Congress and state office have their party of registration printed on the ballot, but does not let other candidates do this. The plaintiff is a registered Socialist.

The overwhelming bulk of the state’s lengthy brief is to make the point that the ballot is not a free speech forum. But that is irrelevant. The state has chosen to allow some candidates to have their party printed on the ballot. Nowhere in this brief does the state explain why the state allows party labels on the ballot for any candidates at all. If the state were to set forth why some candidates have a party label, whatever the rationale set forth surely would apply to all candidates.

The state’s brief also says that the November election in California is a “runoff”, which it is not. A “runoff” is not permitted for Congressional elections except after November of even-numbered years. If the California election for Congress were a true “runoff”, it would be illegal under a federal law that has existed since 1872. The U.S. Supreme Court clarified this in 1997 in Foster v Love, which stopped Louisiana from electing members of Congress in September.


Comments

California Files Ninth Circuit Brief in Party Labels Case — 3 Comments

  1. Could you have a runoff in a special Senate election in an odd year if the main special election were held then? And is there any federal law about when it should be held in such a case?

  2. There is no federal law about when special elections for Congress are held, except in catastrophic circumstances.

  3. Prior to Proposition 14, parties were qualified to have an exclusionary primary and party nominees. Proposition 14 extirpated that privilege. The AG seems to think that certain parties were “qualified” to “do stuff” After Proposition 14 they must somehow be “qualified” to do stuff.

    California law makes no distinction between the party preference of Padilla for the Democratic party and Soltysik for the Socialist Party USA. It is simply what the indicated on their affidavit of voter registration.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.