On June 14, the California Assembly Elections Committee passed SB 568 by 4-1. It moves the primary for all office, in presidential years, from June to March. If enacted, it would mean that no one could get on the November ballot for Congress or state partisan office unless he or she filed in the year before the election. The California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, testified in favor of the bill. But he did not focus attention on the part of the bill that affects congressional and state office elections. Court precedents are unanimous that states cannot close off all routes to the November ballot with a filing deadline that early. When California had a March primary for all office in the past, that was at a time when it was still possible for independent candidates to petition onto the November ballot as late as mid-August of the election year.
It seems clear that the bill will pass the Assembly, because the Assembly this year already passed a similar bill, AB 84. The only difference between AB 84 and SB 568 is that SB 568 calls for a primary in late March, with the provision that the Governor has the power to move it to an earlier date (but not to a later date). AB 84 sets the primary in early March but has no provision for the Governor to shift the date.
Could this be a good thing to take down the horrible Top-2 system, yea!
This is the “Kamala Harris bill,” am I correct?
I think the bills were introduced before there was any discussion of Senator Harris running for president.
The California Constitution requires use of Top 2, it does not require a March primary. If a federal court were to find against an early primary, the primary would be moved. Since this would split the presidential primary, California could switch back to an August or September primary.
The lawsuit would not allege that the early primary is constitutional. The lawsuit would allege that there must be some way for a candidate to get on the November ballot during the election year itself. The idea of moving the primary would not be even considered in court.
Takes California at least two months to count ballots, so they’ll have an official tabulation by the time all other states complete their primaries.
The proximate cause of the alleged constitutional infirmity is the change in the date of the Top 2 primary from June to March. Any remedy ordered by the court would take that into account, just like happened in ‘Foster v. Love’.
Which offices are you going to complain about: (1) county supervisor; (2) state assemblyman; (3) governor; or (4) US Representative. For (1) pretend that one of your co-plaintiffs lives in an other county where they would have standing.
How are you injured? What right are you attempting to vindicate?