On January 29, a San Bernardino County, California Superior Court issued an opinion in Boydston v Padilla, civ-ds-1921480. This is the lawsuit in which some independent voters challenge the rules for who can vote in California presidential primaries. California law lets each party decide for itself whether to let independents vote in its presidential primaries. Generally the Democratic, Libertarian, and American Independent Parties allow independents to choose their own party’s primary ballot. Generally the Republican, Green, and Peace & Freedom Parties do not (although in 2004, the Republican Party did allow independents).
The court upheld the system. Here is the 14-page ruling. The plaintiffs argue that the California Constitution says the state will hold an “open” presidential primary, and therefore the state must print up a presidential primary ballot listing the candidates of all parties, and must offer this ballot to any independent voter who wants it. But the complete sentence in the California Constitution is, “The Legislature shall provide for partisan elections for presidential candidates, and political party and party central committees, including an open presidential primary whereby the candidates on the ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President.” As the decision says, “This Constitutional provision addresses which candidates must be placed on the ballot, not the procedures for voting for the candidates.”
The plaintiffs will appeal. Thanks to Chad Peace for the decision.
ANY *open primary* in any other State const ???
recognized — UNCON — VOID FOR VAGUENESS.
@DR,
If you were familiar with the history of that term you would realize that it is not vague in context.
recognized = one more arbitrary adjective.
—–
Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine 8 MAY 2020
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/
—–
Amdt1.2.2.2 Procedural Matters and Freedom of Speech: Vagueness
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_2_2_2/
—–
Amdt14.S1.6.2.2 Clarity in Criminal Statutes: The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14_S1_6_2_2/
may not be working see Cornell below
——
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/index.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/clarity-in-criminal-statutes-the-void-for-vagueness-doctrine
—
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness
——
U.S. v Davis, 588 US _ (24 June 2019)
Slip op p. 4
II
Our doctrine prohibiting the enforcement of vague laws rests on the twin constitutional pillars of due process and separation of powers. See Dimaya, 584 U. S., at ___–___ (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 4–5); id., at ___–___
Slip op p. 5
(GORSUCH, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 2–9). Vague laws contravene the “first essential of due process of law” that statutes must give people “of common intelligence” fair notice of what the law demands of them. Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U. S. 385, 391 (1926); see Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 634, 638 (1914). Vague laws also undermine the Constitution’s separation of powers and the democratic self-governance it aims to protect. Only the people’s elected representatives in the legislature are authorized to “make an act a crime.” United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34 (1812). Vague statutes threaten to hand responsibility for defining crimes to relatively unaccountable police, prosecutors, and judges, eroding the people’s ability to oversee the creation of the laws they are expected to abide. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 357–358, and n. 7 (1983); United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81, 89–91 (1921); United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 221 (1876).
—–
Way too many brainwashed lawyers who love vague laws — keeps them busy looting customers aka clients — esp in election law cases — the armies of JUNK lawyers looting the LP (national and States) since 1970 — mere 50 years plus.
@DR,
The law in question only applies to SOS, not the Village Idiot.
IN CA the SOS is the STATE Idiot.