On November 19, a California trial court judge refused to issue an injunction in Boydston v Padilla. This is the case in which a group of California voters say the State Constitution requires the state to print up a presidential primary ballot that would contain the names of all candidates, from all parties. Any independent voter would be free to choose that ballot, or else choose a ballot from one of the three parties that lets independents vote in its primary.
The order says the injunction is denied because the plaintiffs have failed to establish that they are likely to prevail on the constitutional issue. The case is civ-ds-1921480, San Bernardino County Superior Court.
Any FED questions in the case ??? — for later SCOTUS stuff ???
@DR,
(1) The open primary provision of the California Constitution Art. II$5(c)
(2,3) Due process and equal protection under California Constitution. Art. I$7.
(4,5) Deprivation of civil rights, due process and non-association under 42 USC $1983
The judge misinterpreted the plaintiff’s claim. They weren’t asking to participate in any of the 6 established party’s primary. They wanted to be able to express a preference for a candidate without associating with any of THOSE groups.
The political parties are free to ignore the results of their subsidized primary, and are using it as a loss leader to draw partisans to vote in other contests.
One more bait and switch scheme ???
— due to MORONS writing the Const law language ???
Jim Riley
I can not see how one could come to the view “the judge misinterpreted the plaintiff’s claim.” I thought there were many claims and not just one. Also, all six political parties
were necessary parties with the AIP more necessary than the other five, based on all the claims. Younger vs Jordon
should of been followed here.