On September 20, Rocky De La Fuente notified the Ninth Circuit of last month’s decision in Graveline v Johnson. De La Fuente is currently challenging the California petition requirement for independent presidential candidates in the Ninth Circuit. The California requirement in 2016 was 178,039 signatures, to be collected in 105 days. In 2020 it will probably be approximately 200,000 signatures.
Last month, a U.S. District Court in Michigan enjoined Michigan’s statewide independent petition, which was exactly 30,000 signatures, and which had to be completed in 180 days. The Michigan decision relies on the fact that only twice since the law was created in 1988 had any statewide petition succeeded (Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2004). The Michigan court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s teaching that if a petition requirement is seldom used, it is probably too difficult.
The California independent presidential petition has not been used since 1992. Nevertheless, a U.S. District Court in Los Angeles upheld it, without even permitting a trial. The new filing by De La Fuente informs the Ninth Circuit about the Michigan decision. Here is De La Fuente’s filing with the Ninth Circuit, concerning the Michigan decision.
What genius lawyer is capable of detecting
— SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL
— regarding the zillion UNEQUAL ballot access laws in the States ???
BROWN V BD OF ED 1954 —
1954-1868 = A MERE 86 years after 14 Amdt ratified.
2018-1868 = A MERE 150 years and counting.
MONSTROUS corruption and insanity.
@DR,
You’re saying that the the courts should impose Top 2 as a remedy – that there is no rational purpose of state-operated political parties?
Justice JR —
NO primaries.
EQUAL ballot access tests — IE EQUAL PETITIONS AND/OR EQUAL FILING FEES.
PR AND APPV – PENDING CONDORCET.
Jim Riley, you say over and over that you like top two. But you never explain why. Your comments would be more interesting if you would try to explain why you like that system.
Top 2 in ALL legislative bodies —
1/2 votes x 1/2 rigged districts = 1/4 minority rule
= OLIGARCHS — of the truly EVIL type.
PR
I have explained over and over, but you never seem to understand.
(1) With partisan nominations, the state has to determine which parties are entitled to nominate. Parties may be forced to demonstrate they have a modicum of support before they may nominate. There are barriers to party qualification. In some states there may be barriers to nominations of candidates by qualified parties. With partisan nominations, there must be a separate process for independent qualification.
Under Top 2, qualification of all candidates is the same, and is not based on previous events. Qualification tends to be relatively easy, because the legislators making the laws don’t want to make it hard for themselves to qualify.
(2) Segregated partisan primaries interfere with the right of voters to support the candidates of their choice. Voters may be forced to publicly declare their political beliefs, merely to vote. Even when affiliation is anonymous (e.g. Michigan) voters may choose their affiliation based on opportunity to vote).
While a voter may contribute financially to a candidate, provide visible support such as bumper stickers or yard signs, phone bank and block walk, they may be denied the opportunity to actually vote for the candidate. Under Top 2, a voter may both contribute and vote for their favored candidate.
(3) Under s system of segregated partisan primaries. Voters may have no effective voice in the choice of their elected officials. If a voter supports a weaker party generally, the winning candidate will be determined in the other party’s primary. Under Top 2, there is an opportunity to vote for the elected officials.
(4) Partisan segregated primaries may discourage participation by less partisan voters. Told that the purpose of the primary is to make party nominations, they may stay home. Meanwhile local contests and propositions may be on ballot.
Opponents of Top 2 in Oregon argued that the primaries were dominated by old white voters. A reasonable interpretation may be that opponents preferred that old white Republicans and Democrats would choose the nominees that the young and minorities could choose between, and would not even have that opportunity for nonpartisan local offices.
Top 2 provides an incentive for candidates to get out the vote, encouraging less active voters to participate.
(4) Partisan primaries may result in local elections being overly partisan, particularly where partisan nominations are used to make nominations. Top 2 may ease a transition to nonpartisan elections for local and judicial offices.
(5) Segregated partisan primaries may result in interference by the state in the internal affairs of political parties. Elected officials may think of themselves as extensions of the parties, and the parties as extensions of the government.
Since under Top 2, the state does not provide government-funded primaries, political parties are free to shape their own organizational structure.
(6) Top 2 will result in less tooth decay. This is actually not true.
I do not claim that Top 2 will produce better elected officials. I regard it a strawman argument by opponents of Top 2 that Top 2 would result in less polarized legislatures or more moderate elected officials, or even more independents.
All of the problems you list can be solved without top two. Top two has the horrible disadvantage of restricting voter choice in the general election itself, a huge glaring flaw that you don’t mention above. I have told you that for the first time in my life, in November 2014 I didn’t vote. I didn’t vote because my choices were so horribly restricted. And many Californians felt the same way. California is the only state in which the turnout rate in November 2014 was less than 70% of the turnout rate in November 2010.
Who were the senatorial and gubernatorial candidates in 2010, and who were they in 2014? It is disingenuous at best to ignore that.
In 2010 5.4 million persons voted for Jerry Brown. In 2014, 4.4 million persons voted for Jerry Brown. Are you seriously arguing that 1.0 million persons stayed home because there was no choice?
You assert that the above problems can be solved without Top 2.
Be specific.
ps Do any of the 47 states that employ segregated partisan primaries use any of the procedures that you advocate?
Top 2 is bad for third parties.
Jim, it is your turn to answer my question. I asserted that restricting voter choice in the general election is bad. You have not responded to that statement.
The purpose of an election is to make a collective decision to choose who holds an elective office. It is sophistry to make a distinction between the primary and secondary stages of a multi-stage process.
While you might not have voted in 2014 because you did not like the choice between Neel Kashkari and Jerry Brown – it is quite unlikely that the one million fewer votes for Brown were because there was no choice. I will concede that you had no choice for US Senator in 2014.