On May 21, four California minor parties filed an amended complaint in Peace & Freedom Party v Weber, n.d., 3:24cv-8308. See it here. It follows the judges instructions to focus on the constitutionality of the top-two system as it exists in presidential election years, when there is no route to the general election ballot for candidates who file later than December of the year before the election. Also it focuses on the issue of whether members of unqualified parties can have their party label next to their names on primary ballots.
California should try the top one system. I, President Trump, would send in the Marines and National Guard, along with the FBI, ICE, Border Patrol etc.
Pete Hegseth, Ka$h Patel, and Tom Homan would restore order and deport all deportables and family members, drop all the commies and libtards out of helicopters, execute all the felons, arrest all the misdemeanors, whip them, make them pick up trash, etc.
Then Steve Hilton would be appointed Governor by acclaim for a period of 12 years. The voter rolls would be cleaned up and purged and an honest election would be conducted with Federal supervision. The votes would get counted by Turning Point Action.
Thank you for your attention to the matter I just dropped in my toilet bowl!
Steve Hilton? Why not SPENCER PRATT?
The interests of the American Solidarity Party (ASP) are not aligned with those of Libertarian, Peace & Freedom, and Green Parties.
The ASP case would benefit with an individual plaintiff (e.g. Duane Loynes) seeking to have his party preference appear on the ballot next to his name. The electoral rights of the party are derivative of his candidacy.
The party preference of Duane Loynes for the ASP is legally indistinguishable from those of Tom Steyer for the Democratic Party; Steve Hilton for the Republican Party; or Ramsey Robinson for the Peace & Freedom Party. It is what they stated on their affidavit of voter registration. They could be prosecuted for perjury, just as if they gave a false address, citizenship status, date of birth (proof of intent to defraud might be difficult).
Prior to adoption of the Top-2 Primary reform, the party affiliation of an ordinary voter was virtually meaningless most of the time. It was legally defined as “party with which [the voter] intends to affiliate at the ensuing primary.” Prior to each primary, the Secretary of State would tabulate the number of voters who intended to affiliate with each party. Those with sufficient numbers were accorded the privilege of having a partisan primary. Party affiliation was (and is) aspirational. It is unknowable at this time whether the Democratic Party or American Solidarity Primary will have a presidential primary in California in March 2028. Democratic voters may have died or left the state or changed their party preference such that the Democratic Party will be deemed to be abandoned. Democrat voters who have not changed their party preference will continue to have the party as their party preference. Contrarily, the American Solidarity Party may have sufficient registrations to have a presidential preference primary in 2028.
It is not material that the Secretary of State tabulates Democratic and Peace & Freedom registrations as distinct categories, and aggregates other registrations as Miscellaneous Other registrations. Miscellaneous simply means mixed. On expense reports there may be a section for miscellaneous other expenses. That does not indicate that they are any less legitimate than expenses for lodging or transportation. It is like a box of miscellaneous chocolates, you never know what you are going to get.
The defendant in this case, Secretary of State Shirley Weber, herself a candidate in the June 2026 election, has used the Orwellian phrase, “No Qualified Party Preference” in the official Voters Information Guide to characterize the party preference of gubernatorial candidates Duane Loynes and Margaret Trowe. The Elections Code defines “party preference”, so I will hyphenate it in the phrase, “No Qualified Party-Preference”. The word “qualified” is modifying party-preference, not party. Effectively, Weber is asserting that the party-preference[s] of Loynes and Trowe are not qualified. A voter might infer that these party preferences are somehow illegitimate or even illegal or Bad Speak (sic).
Political parties in California are not “qualified” generally, but only for specified activities. Though the Democratic and Republican Parties are “qualified”, it does not indicate whether the party chairs Rusty Hicks and Corrin Rankin are qualified to fly a helicopter. The Democratic and Republican Party might support the candidacy of a person running for the non-partisan Superintendent of Public Instruction or County Supervisor. But so might the American Solidarity Party or a bunch of ne’er do wells at the local saloon. None of this support is sanctioned by the State of California. None of these groups are “qualified” to support candidates for non-partisan office. The 1st Amendment does not require qualification of speakers by the government, to the contrary it forbids the government from determining who is or is not qualified to speak.
The Democratic Party is not qualified to make nominations at the June 2026 primary. The Democratic Party is not electing party officers at the June 2026 primary. The Democratic Party is not holding a presidential preference primary in June 2026 the Democratic Party will not have a nominee for President, Vice-President, or presidential elector on the June 2026 or December 2026 ballot. Is the Democratic Party participating in the June 2026 primary? NO!. But somehow the Secretary of State is asserting that they are “qualified” to do so. The Democratic Party is qualified to do nothing, and the American Solidarity Party is not qualified to do nothing?
The SCOTUS in Washington State Grange accepted the assertion of Washington that the party preference of a candidate on the ballot in a Top 2 election is an expression of the candidate and does not indicate endorsement by the political party. In effect, the State of Washington had created a forum for 1st Amendment Speech (the limit on number of letters and limiting the expression to candidates for an office is content neutral). The issue on remand was whether voters would be able to distinguish between political beliefs of the candidate and the endorsement of the political party. The district court and 9th Circuit determined that voters could make the distinction, and the SCOTUS did not take the appeal, apparently satisfied with the resolution on remand.
Washington does not have partisan registration, and thus candidates are free to write-in their party preference. Louisiana and Alaska have similar systems with no party nominations. Both states have partisan registration, and the preference on the ballot must match that on a candidate’s voter registration. In Louisiana, voters may write-in a party affiliation. A party with sufficient registrants gets a letter next to a candidate’s name (R, D, L, etc.), a smaller party is recognized as ‘O’ for other, which is distinct from ‘N’ for no party, and not as pejorative as “unqualified”. In Alaska, a voter may register with a “political group” and as a candidate have that affiliation appear on the ballot. Recognition as a political group simply requires completion of an application form.
When California approved the Top 2 primary in 2010, voters were told that it was the intent to comply with the Washington Grange decision, and that the legislature had passed implementing legislation (SB 6 (2009)). That legislation clearly stated that a candidate could use the party preference as stated on a candidate’s affidavit of voter registration. There was no nonsense about “qualified party-preferences” or “qualified-party preferences”. The Secretary of State at that time, Debra Bowen, promulgated regulations to restrict party preferences. She in essence decided the legislature did not know what they were doing, or worse, that a candidate who said they were affiliated with American Solidarity Party or Socialist Worker Party did not know what they were doing or worse were unqualified to express that political belief on the ballot. Bowen herself was a candidate in one of the earliest Top 2 elections, a special election for Congress. Her regulation may have advantaged her. The regulation might have been created by the unionized staff of the Secretary of State. Labor unions, particularly government unions are vehemently opposed to Top 2 because they are able to control Democratic primaries. Random Democratic primary voters may choose candidates based on race, ethnicity, sex, a pleasant sounding name. Labor unions can concentrate their get out the vote effort on union members and families. A group with 20% of the electorate that votes 95% for a particular candidate will swamp the other 80% of the electorate divided among two or three candidates.
Since the Democratic Party is not participating in the June 2026 primary, how can they be said to be “qualified” to do so. Before 2012 the Democratic party was qualified to make nominations and have their candidate appear on the general election ballot. But the purpose of Proposition 14 was to extirpate that privilege. The Democratic Party was no longer qualified to make nominations for Top 2 offices because no party was. Voters and candidates could express their party preference. These are personal preferences and can not be subjected to state norms of orthodox belief.
Jim Riley: that was long even for you.
California statutes are contrary to the California Constitution Article II, Section 5(b).
(b) Except as otherwise provided by Section 6, a candidate for a congressional or state elective office may have his or her political party preference, or lack of political party preference, indicated upon the ballot for the office in the manner provided by statute. A political party or party central committee shall not nominate a candidate for any congressional or state elective office at the voter-nominated primary. This subdivision shall not be interpreted to prohibit a political party or party central committee from endorsing, supporting, or opposing any candidate for a congressional or state elective office. A political party or party central committee shall not have the right to have its preferred candidate participate in the general election for a voter-nominated office other than a candidate who is one of the two highest vote-getters at the primary election, as provided in subdivision (a).
Duane Loynes is a candidate for governor at the 2026 June primary. His political party preference is American Solidarity Party as certified by Loynes on his affidavit of voter registration (See Elections Code Section 2150 (a)(8)). He has the right to have his political party preference next to his name on the ballot for governor.
It does not matter that the American Solidarity Party is not qualified to have a nominee for governor. The Democratic Party is not qualified to have a nominee for governor. No party is so qualified.
A party becomes qualified to have a nominee for president by having sufficient registrants indicate that the party is their political party preference. The political party preferences do not become “qualified” by virtue of the party being qualified.
Was that the shorter version of the first one?