On April 13, U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney mostly upheld the California top-two system. Here is the 26-page decision. The judge did find problems with (1) the state’s refusal to let members of unqualified parties have their party label on the ballot; (2) the early filing deadline in presidential election years, which is in December of the year before the election. So the plaintiffs are free to amend their Complaint with more details about how those two provisions are faulty.
For the main issues in the case, the judge simply relied on the fact that the State Court of Appeals upheld the top-two system in 2014, and the same plaintiffs in the current case were mostly in the 2014 case. The 2014 decision was deeply flawed and factually incorrect. It said that the state interest in a top-two system was to let independents vote in primaries, and stated erroneously that before top-two came into existence, independents could not vote in Republican and Democratic primaries. The reality is that there are many types of primary systems that let independents vote in primaries, and yet don’t restrict access to the general election ballot. But Judge Chesney did not delve into problems with the 2014 decision.
CA ASSEMBLY, NOV 2024 ELECTION, 2 YEAR TERM, V.2
SUMMARY ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE MATH
80 RIGGED CRACKED/PACKED GERRYMANDER DISTRICTS
LINE VOTES PCT TV * = MINORITY RULE PERCENTS
1 3,971,225 *24.6 41 LOW D*WIN- 32 D*R, 9 D*D
2 2,841,734 17.6 + 19 HIGH D WIN- 17 DR, 1 DO, 1 DU
3 6,812,959 *42.2 = 60 D WIN
4 2,360,979 14.6 + 20 R WIN- 14 RD, 5 RR, 1 RO
5 9,173,938 56.8 = 80 WIN
6 1,790,121 11.1 23 D LOSE- 14 RD, 9 D*D
7 3,589,522 22.2 + 54 R LOSE- 32 D*R, 17 DR, 5 RR
8 88,152 0.5 + 2 OTHER LOSE- 1 DO, 1 RO
9 5,467,795 33.9 = 79 LOSE- 1 DU
10 14,641,733 90.7 = 80 DIST- ALL CANDS
11 1,498,311 9.3 + NONVOTES- 6 NO D, 11 NO R- 17 OF 80- 21.3 PCT
12 16,140,044 100.0 = TOTAL VOTERS- TV
13 201,750 1.25 TV/80 = AVE, PCT AVE-PA = 100.0
14 SUM OF D/R VOTES AND PCTS NOT MEANINGFUL
15 DUE TO NO D/R IN 17 OF 80 DISTS – 21.3 PCT
16 ESP THE 9 D*D AND 5 RR DISTS
17 NO WIN VOTES OVER 201,750 PA 100.0
18 MAXWIN 184,605 / MINWIN 54,117 = 3.41
19 MAXLOSE 123,940 / MINWIN 54,117 = 2.29
20 53 LOSE ( 20 D, 32 R, 1 OTH ) GOT MORE VOTES THAN MINWIN 54,117
21 6,120,528 *37.9 41 LOW DIST- 7 D*D, 25 D*R, 1 DO, 1 DR, 1 DU, 4 RD, 1 RO, 1 RR
22 8,521,205 52.8 39 HIGH DIST- 2 D*D, 7 D*R, 16 DR, 10 RD, 4 RR
23 39 HIGH DTS 8,521,205 / 41 LOW DTS 6,120,528 = 1.39
24 MAXDT 280,973 / MINDT 88,623 = 3.17
25 MAXLOSE 123,940 / MINDT 88,623 = 1.40
26 15 LOSE ( 8 D, 7 R ) GOT MORE VOTES THAN MINDT 88,623
27 https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/prior-elections/
28 statewide-election-results/general-election-nov-5-2024/statement-vote
29 SUPER-WORSE EXTREMIST MATH IN CA TOP 2 PRIMARY
30 — ESP WHEN GERRYMANDER DISTRICTS ARE CHANGED.
31 *** SAVE DEMOCRACY REMEDY – PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION—
32 TOTAL VOTES / TOTAL MEMBERS = EQUAL VOTES TO ELECT EACH
33 ALL VOTES COUNT —– BOTH MAJORITY RULE [DEMOCRACY]
34 AND MINORITY REPRESENTATION.
Section $5100 only applies to the extent that a “qualified” political party is permitted to participate in a primary. No one would argue that the Democratic or Republican or Peace & Freedom parties have a statutory right to participate in the primary election for Superintendent of Public Instruction or county supervisor, beyond their First Amendment right to advocate for any candidate which is undifferentiated from that of any other individual or political organization.
When a _candidate_ says they prefer a political party, the political party is not an active participant in the transaction any more than a cow is when a child exclaims “I like cows”, no matter whether the cow appears to be thoughtful as it chews its cud or flicks its tail.
Under the California Constitution and statutes, qualified political parties are only permitted to actively participate in presidential primaries and nominations, elections of party officials, and making endorsements in the voter’s pamphlet.
A voter’s party preference is legitimate regardless whether the party is “qualified”, for example, to have its presidential nominee appear on the ballot. The SOS tabulates voter preferences for parties that are not “qualified” in the aggregate, and will tabulate the registrants for an individual party upon request. As of December 30, 2025, the SOS reported that 700 voters had declared a party preference for American Solidarity Party. These voters were among the 143,850 voters who had declared a party preference for a non-qualified party, and quite distinct from the 5,322,260 voters who had not declared a preference for any party, “qualified” or not.
On the candidate application for a Voter-Nominated office, a candidate is required to state their party preference based on their affidavit of voter registration. A candidate who prefers the American Solidarity Party, can not state that he has No Party Preference, just as a candidate who prefers the Republican party could not state that he has No Party Preference. But then the American Solidarity Party candidate must state that they have No Party Preference on the ballot. Yet a Republican Party candidate could not state that they have No Party Preference on the ballot (e.g. Kevin Kiley had to change his voter registration in order to run as having No Party Preference).
The Intervenor-Defendants do not have standing to oppose the American Solidarity challenge to the Party Designation. They supported Proposition 14, including its implementing statutes (SB 6, 2010). SOS Debra Bowen perverted the intent of Proposition 14, through regulations and then convincing the legislature to amend the statutes. Bowen was a congressional candidates in one of the earliest Top-2 elections and had a conflict of interest.