On June 23, California filed this brief in Peace & Freedom Party v Weber, n.d., 3:24cv-8308. This is the California minor party lawsuit against the top-two system.
The law is discriminatory because some candidates in the primary are permitted to list their party on the ballot, but other candidates are not. In defense, the state says, “The State’s interests in permitting candidates to identify on the ballots only political parties that have qualified to participate in an election include ensuring that candidates aooear on the ballot in an orderly manner, preventing misrepresentation, avoiding electoral confusion and deception, preserving the simplicity of the ballots, and assuring the efficiency, integrity, and fairness of the ballots.”
In this month’s primary, candidates who are registered in the American Solidarity, Constitution, Forward, Socialist Workers, and Working Class Parties all ran for partisan office. It is mind-boggling that the state can argue that if these candidates had their party of membership printed on the ballot, that would “cause confusion.”
Washington state, the other top-two state, lets candidates in partisan elections choose any label they wish, as long as it is not too long and is not obscene.
California has never restricted a voter’s party preference to that of a “qualified” political party. It was always aspirational, literally, an intent to affiliate with the party at the next primary. At this time, we don’t know whether the Democratic or American Solidarity parties, etc. will be qualified to have a presidential preference primary or presidential nominee in 2028. Voters may have abandoned the Democratic Party, or expressed a preference for the American Solidarity Party in sufficient numbers to qualify the party for a presidential primary.
The purpose of Proposition 14 (2010) was to extirpate the privilege of political parties to have a state-recognized nominee appear on the ballot. Political parties continue to have a 1st Amendment right to endorse or advocate for the election of any candidate, just as do other political parties or individuals. These endorsed candidates do not have to be affiliated with the party.
California Election Code 8002.5 has been amended since the voters approved Proposition 14. The original text for 8002.5 was in the enabling legislation for Proposition 14 (SB 6 (2009)). SOS Debra Bowen issued a regulation that contradicted the statute. This may have been an effort by heavily unionized staff in the SOS office to sabotage the Top 2 primary, or an effort by Debra Bowen to further her political ambitions. She was a candidate in one of the first elections conducted under Top 2.
Election Code 8002.5 is contrary to the California Constitution Article II, Section 5(b). Indeed, the application for candidacy recognizes this contradiction. A candidate states their personal party preference, and separately the party preference they want to have appear on the ballot which is restricted to so-called “qualified” parties. This discriminates against candidates who prefer a political party other than one of the six “qualified” party. This in an attempt to impose a state-approved orthodoxy on political speech which is contrary to the 1st Amendment, and article I, Section 2(a) of the California Constitution.
California might impose certain restrictions on a political party preference, to ensure it is indeed an expression about an actual political party.
California could adopt regulations similar to those in Florida or Alaska, where a party can easily obtain recognition, and voters are restricted to expressing a preference for one of these parties on their affidavit of party registration. California might require a minimum number of registrations (perhaps 50). A candidate could continue to express a preference for a party even if its formal structure is inactive or dormant.
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties/political-party-qualification
ca qualified party
—
NO. PRIMARIES
NO QUALIFIED PARTIES
CANDIDATE PARTY LABELS – LEGISLATIVE BODIES – GENL ELECTIONS / PR
[NONPARTISAN EXECS/JUDICS]
@AZ,
California Elections Code Section 338 is a definition of the word “party” as used in the Elections Code. It is NOT a grant of the privilege of qualified parties to “participate” in “any” primary election. That definition is subject to Section 4 of the Elections Code. The context of the words “party preference” requires that “party preference” does NOT mean a “preference for a qualified party”. A “party preference” is what the voter states on their affidavit of voter registration. If SOS Shirley Weber believes that a voter who stated on their affidavit of voter registration that they prefer the American Solidarity Party was somehow mistaken she should inform the voter. If SOS Shirley Weber believes that the voter committed perjury she should refer the matter to the Attorney General or District Attorney for prosecution.
If a child excitedly points their finger out the window at a cow, and exclaims, “I like cows”, the cow is not a meaningful participant in that transaction, no matter how thoughtful the cow appears as it chews its cud or swishes its tail. If a voter on their affidavit of voter registration states they prefer the American Solidarity Party it means exactly that. If that voter should seek office, their preference does not disappear.
Way too complicated. Make elections simple again.