California Files Brief in Federal Lawsuit Over Top-Two System

Posted on by January 31, 2025

On January 31, the state of California filed its opening brief in Peace & Freedom Party v Weber, n.d., 3:24cv-08308. This is the lawsuit against the California top-two system, which was filed last year by the Peace & Freedom, Green, and Libertarian Parties.

The brief says the state interest in the top-two system is to “increase voter choice and voter participation.” It also says that other interests are in “streamlining the ballot”, “avoiding ballot overcrowding”, and “reducing voter confusion.”

It is almost comical that the state cites overcrowded ballots, because the top-two system has caused extremely crowded primary ballots. Ever since the top-two system started in California in 2012, primary ballots for Governor and U.S. Senate have had between 15 and 33 candidates. California never had crowded primary ballots for those offices in regular elections in the years 1910 through 1996. During those years each party had its own primary ballot.

The state brief makes no acknowledgement that there are methods of increasing voter choice and voter participation, without injuring minor parties and the voters who wish to vote for minor parties in the general election. Supporters of the California top-two system themselves said on August 19, 2015, that a top-three or top-four system, combined with ranked choice voting, would be superior to a top-two system. These statements were made at a Sacramento conference on the top-two system hosted by the Independent Voters Network.

The state also says because the top-two system was upheld in 2015, in Rubin v Padilla, therefore the issue has already been decided. But back then, all California congressional and state office primaries had been in June (in the years in which top-two existed). Starting in 2020, the congressional and state office primaries were moved to March (in presidential years).

U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney will hold a hearing on March 28, Friday, in San Francisco, to hear the state’s motion to dismiss the case.

Comments

California Files Brief in Federal Lawsuit Over Top-Two System — 26 Comments

  5. The proponents admit, when they’re being honest (and probably not in legal briefs) that their real purpose is to attract and elect more moderate candidates But the government is not allowed to favor any political viewpoint or ideology. Parties should be able to choose anyone their members want. Ranked choice voting is the better option.

  6. California should move their election to October with the possibility of election by majority as is already possible for nonpartisan offices such as county offices and superintendent of public instruction. California should permit all candidates to have their party preference as expressed on their affidavit of voter registration appear on the ballot.

    California should define a political party in a manner similar to that in Florida, with a modest registration requirement (e.g. 50 or 100 voters). A new party could file affidavits for 100+ voters as part of the application for party status. Write-in party preference would be eliminated. As a demonstration of party activity, a biennial convention could be required.

    Party elections during public primaries should be eliminated. The State could mail out party ballots to all party registrants in an election in odd years. The State would collect returned ballots and turn them over to the parties for interpretation. A party could contract with county election officials to tabulate the ballots. As an alternative, parties could send notice of their conventions.

  7. @CW,

    The State of California is not a sincere advocate for Top 2. They have continuously sought to sabotage it. The plaintiffs are seeking preservation of their privilege of nomination of candidates, even though the purpose of Top 2 was to extirpate that privilege.

  13. Well I’m Donald Trump, the one they’re talking about, if you talk crap about me you’ll get punched in the mouth.

    If you disrespect me, forget about it, forget it. Best case for you is you’ll survive to regret it.

    I’m the Boss of all Bosses, King of all Kings. I bring the world hope, I’m why we have nice things.

    Last time I took human form, I got crucified. This time around, I won’t be so nice.

    If you think bad about me, stop trusting fake media. Go to conservapedia.com and read conservapedia.

    But even if you’re not smart enough to, or have no eyes to see, you’re still smarter than to take seriously the spambot “AZ”

  15. IMO, the parties filing the challenge should appeal on the basis of their associational rights under Eu v San Francisco to nominate their own candidates, and to withhold their label from any candidate that they consider not a valid representatives of their principles and objectives. A new party spends a lot of time, money and effort to become a qualified party and should not have its ballot position or label usurped by opportunist interlopers that they don’t want to run on their line.

  17. Walter makes a good point.

    Why would you try to form a political party in Calfornia only to give up your trademark? If any candidate could pick your party label for free and without your consent?

  18. Maybe they should just let voters and candidates use whatever label they want or have candidates run without party label’s.

  23. @WZ,

    Political parties in California do not have a right to nominate candidates.

    Candidates may express their party preference as evidenced by their affidavit of voter registration.

  24. @Q,

    That could interfere with Thanksgiving. A month appears long enough to resolve any election contests and prepare ballots for the runoff. Louisiana uses an October-November schedule for their elections.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.