The Ninth Circuit hears Soltysik v Padilla in Pasadena, California, on Thursday, February 8, at 9:30 a.m. The issue is the California law that won’t let members of non-qualified parties list their party on the ballot for partisan office, even though the law does permit members of qualified parties to have their party label on the ballot. The U.S. District Court had upheld the law.
The three judges are Stephen Reinhardt (a Carter appointee); William Fletcher (a Clinton appointee); and John Owens (an Obama appointee). This is an ACLU case. The plaintiff, Emidio Soltysik, is a registered Socialist, but when he ran for the legislature, he was forced to have “party preference: none” on the ballot.
NOT even —
Party Preference: None
???
first capital letters for Donkeys and Elephants on ballots ???
A content-neutral ballot would not print the names of any parties on the ballot nor would the state advertise the names of candidates on the ballot nor bar the voter from writing-in any party name or name on the ballot for any office printed on the ballot.
How many States do NOT permit write-ins ???
Note 14 Amdt, Sec. 2 in 1868 — added before govt *official* ballots in all/most States.
The preamble to Proposition 14 said that it was the intent that it and the implementing SB 6 would comply with Washington Grange decision. The key finding in Washington Grange was that a candidate’s party preference was a personal political expression (1st Amendment Protected).
SB 6 did not say a political party preference had to be for a “qualified” political party. It said it had to be expressed on the candidate’s affidavit of voter registration. The SOS sent a directive to county registrars prior to the June 2010 primary at which Proposition 14 was approved, explaining the distinction between a Declined To State voter, and one who had indicated their intent to affiliate with a political party at the next primary. Under California statute prior to Proposition 14, there was no difference between an intent to affiliate with the Democratic Party (or any other member of the hexopoly) and the Socialist USA or any other political party.
In both cases, the intent was aspirational. If their party held a primary, they intended to affiliate with that party. The Democratic Party might be abandoned, or decide not to make nominations. The Socialist Party might qualify and make nominations.
A distinction was made at the time of the primary. Certain parties, based on their number of registrants, could make nominations. Candidates affiliated with the party for a sufficient period of time could seek to become the nominee of their party (other persons could seek nomination, but only as a write-in candidate, which is a formidable barrier). Voters affiliated with the party could vote in the primary, acting as nominators.
A party was qualified to make nominations based on its size. This was justified on the basis of the state expense of conducting the partisan primary, and a modicum of support basis. There were enough registrants affiliated with the party to qualify it to make nominations.
The purpose of Proposition 14 was to extirpate partisan nominations, and replace them with nominations made by the electorate as a whole. All voters and all candidates were free and equal to participate in all phases of the election regardless of their political beliefs. Candidates could have their political beliefs be expressed on the ballot. They continued to be able to more full explain their beliefs during the campaign. Voters could organize in political parties or ad hoc groups, to recruit, support, and finance candidates.
If parties are no longer qualified to make partisan nominations, since there are no longer partisan nominations, then what is the purpose of being “qualified”?
Could it be that California needs to protect voters from being exposed to unpopular beliefs on the ballot? If Soltysik could say that he preferred the Socialist Party could it result in voter confusion? “I’ve never heard of that party. I’m so confused”. Could it be to reduce ballot crowding? If we forbid certain candidates of expressing their actual beliefs on the ballot, perhaps they wouldn’t bother to run. There is absolutely no rational reason to suppress and censor political speech in this manner.