The California Republican Party will choose a new state chair at its state convention in Sacramento, Feb. 22-24, 2019. Three candidates are running. One of them, Steve R. Frank, says he wants the California Republican Party to sue to overturn top-two. See this Politico story.
No federal court has ever upheld California’s top-two system. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Washington state’s top-two system does not violate freedom of association on its face, but it might as applied. That Supreme Court decision also said the Court was not deciding the ballot access issue.
A state court in California upheld the top-two system in Rubin v Bowen, but the decision of the State Court of Appeals is badly flawed, because the judges made three factual errors. (1) They said the purpose of the top-two system is to let independent voters vote in primaries. They did not know that the old California system in use 2001-2010 allowed independent voters to vote in all Democratic and Republican primaries for Congress and state office; (2) They said that California would be free to hold its general election in June and hold a run-off in November. They did not know about the 1997 unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Foster v Love that federal law does not permit this; (3) they said that the U.S. Supreme Court had already upheld top-two in 2000 in California Democratic Party v Jones. They did not notice that Justice Antonin Scalia wrote California Democratic Party v Jones, and yet when the U.S. Supreme Court partially upheld the Washington top-two law in 2008, Scalia dissented and said it violates freedom of association on its face.
Very good luck in getting SCOTUS 5 of 9 to write that ANY top 2 primary is unconstitutional —
partisan or nonpartisan.
Again- ANY FACTION of ALL Electors-Voters are NOT independent empires–
with ANY *empire* control whatsoever over nominations of candidates for PUBLIC offices.
The 2000 CA Dem op is one more on the list of MORON ops to be OVER-RULED.
—
NO primaries.
PR and AppV
When Abel Maldonado (R) was in the state senate he agreed to vote in favor of passing the state budget in exchange for putting top two primary on the ballot. He and Arnold Schwarzenegger thought top two primary would be advantageous to republicans.
ALL sorts of delusions in CA about politics stuff —
AM, AS, Pelosi, etc.
— way too many CA fires, droughts, floods, earthquakes
— affecting *brains* ???
CA is 1 of 18 States with voter petitions for State const amdts–
to get past the gerrymander MONSTERS in the CA legislature.
[No] Democracy on paper = [NO] Democracy chance in reality.
PR and AppV — esp in CA — possible LAST CHANCE for Western Civilization.
California is bringing the pure proportional representation (PPR) Electoral College to the California Libertarian Party Concord State Convention in April of 2019.
It’s notch lock, so should anyone be able to travel or to help support the team, that’s appreciated.
I know that PPR may not be a high priority but we are using it as a national unity tool.
We are also developing the Unity Platform USA starting 1/1/2019.
United Coalition USA
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc-p7-usa.html
Is there a case citation for Rubin v Bowen?
There must be, but there are no law libraries in my area that still subscribe to the West Law Book company law books that show the citations. If you know anyone who has Westlaw or Lexis Nexis, or if you have access to a law library with the books, you could get it that way.
Give me the citation and I can pull up the case.
google search —
Rubin v Bowen, No. RG11605301 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2013)
available at
http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/11-Order-Amended-Corrected.pdf
in
Voting Rights and Election Law
By Michael Dimino, Bradley Smith, Michael Solimine
—–
http://www.cagreens.org/action/stop-top-two
Legal case against the Top Two
• Green Party of California files amicus brief in Rubin v. Bowen against Top Two primary. August 7, 2014
• Rubin v. Bowen – a lawsuit to end Top Two elections in California. Filed November 22, 2011
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/A140387.PDF
Filed 1/29/15
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
RUBIN V PADILLA
Earlier-
google search —
Rubin v Bowen, No. RG11605301 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2013) [TRIAL COURT}
available at
http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/11-Order-Amended-Corrected.pdf
in
Voting Rights and Election Law
By Michael Dimino, Bradley Smith, Michael Solimine
http://www.cagreens.org/action/stop-top-two
Legal case against the Top Two
• Green Party of California files amicus brief in Rubin v. Bowen against Top Two primary. August 7, 2014
• Rubin v. Bowen – a lawsuit to end Top Two elections in California. Filed November 22, 2011
https://ballotpedia.org/Rubin_v._Padilla
CAL SUP CT declined Appeal.
SCOTUS declined Appeal.
VERY GOOD LUCK in any new case.
The SCOTUS said that the district court decision was an “extraordinary and precipitous nullification of the will of the people”. It did not say that it might as an applied challenge. Because of the district court’s precipitous nullification, it had never considered the as applied challenge to Top 2. After doing so, it upheld the Washington Top 2, except for a rather trivial part. The 9th Circuit upheld the decision. The SCOTUS chose not to take the case. I find it incredible, that the SCOTUS would not have looked at case a verified that it was a reasonable decision.
A runoff is a runoff even if one candidate received a majority in the initial phase. In ‘Foster v Love’, Louisiana not only did not hold a runoff, it cancelled the election, and issued writs of election. If a voter showed up, they might find the polling place shuttered. While the Love party apparently sought to overturn the Open Primary, the federal district court only modified the Open Primary date for federal elections so as to conform to federal law. This was upheld by the 5th Circuit in ‘Love v Foster’.
Even after the 1872 law, some states continued to hold congressional elections on another date. 100% conformity did not occur until 1960, 88 years later. If Congress was really concerned either House could refuse to seat a person elected in contravention of federal statute.
If a court were to decide that California did not choose its legislators on TFTATFMIN, it would not apply to election of state offices, and any remedy would have to be consistent with the California Constitution.
The old system did not permit DTS voters to vote in all exclusionary Democratic and Republican primaries. It did deny voters the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice regardless of their party affiliation.
In ‘Jones’ Scalia did indicate a general election with two candidates would be acceptable, though a state might have more. Scalia knew what the words ‘may’ and ‘might’ meant in a legal context. California does determine what qualifications a candidate requires for placement on the primary ballot. Justice Stevens in his dissent said that the majority (with Scalia as its muse) was suggesting the Louisiana system. Thomas in his Washington decision, said that the court had envisaged a system without party labels, perhaps like the Nebraska system. Scalia never explained what he meant, and it is unlikely that he ever will.
*as applied* stuff = one of many SCOTUS JUNK nonsense phrases.
Mere law is constitutional or UN-constitutional.
Act/Omission of govt official is constitutional or UN-constitutional.
Too many rotted evil law skooools producing MORONS — later to become SCOTUS HACKS.
—
RE- Even after the 1872 law, some states continued to hold congressional elections on another date. 100% conformity did not occur until 1960, 88 years later
Too many USELESS HACK USA Dist Attys NOT enforcing *BASIC* USA laws — for centuries/decades.