Hearing on California Top-Two Case Will be on August 22

A U.S. District Court in San Francisco will hear Peace & Freedom Party v Weber on Friday, August 22. This is the California minor party lawsuit against the top-two system.


Comments

Hearing on California Top-Two Case Will be on August 22 — 12 Comments

  1. 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.

  2. Richard:
    Is this the lawsuit that went inactive when the proponent died?

  3. @Deemer,

    That was Emidio “Mimi” Soltysik.

    In California party preference is by write-in on an affidavit of voter registration. A voter must swear (or affirm) that the information on the affidavit is truthful and correct, subject to prosecution for perjury. There is no reason to presume that a voter is lying. Gavin Newsom might be lying about his preference for the Democratic Party, but it would be hard to prove, and especially hard to prove that he did so with intent to deceive.

    Under the California Constitution a candidate for a Top-2 office (all partisan office other than President) may have _their_ party preference appear on the ballot. Such label does not imply that the party endorsed or “nominated” the candidate, but rather is an expression of personal political beliefs. But California forbids candidates who have expressed a preference for so-called non-qualified parties on their affidavit of voter registration, to have that preference appear on the ballot.

    Imagine that Califtopia has a list of orthodox or more popular political beliefs: We’ve Always Been At War With Eurasia; We’ve Always Been At War With East Asia; Two Legs Bad; War is Peace; and Soylent Green is Human. But you want to say “Stop Fluoridation” or “Give Peace A Chance”. But the Government of Califtopia requires you to say, “I have no political opinions”, and cites the 1st Amendment as amended by the 22nd and 86th Amendment.

    Soltysik preferred Socialist Party USA, which he had expressed on his affidavit of voter registration, which California has never disputed. But they insisted that he had no Party Preference.

    Soltysik dismissed his case after his health declined. He later died.

    The ACLU (or maybe its California affiliate) was providing the lawyers. I’m surprised that they haven’t found another plaintiff, or that someone who has expressed a preference for the Common Sense Party hasn’t brought suit.

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.