The California Supreme Court will hear the Proposition 60 case on March 8. Californians for an Open Primary v McPherson, S126780. This is the lawsuit over whether Prop. 60 is really part of the California Constitution. The voters passed it 3-1 in November 2004. However, its opponents claim it should be cancelled, because they feel the legislature had no right to put it on the ballot.

Prop. 60 says “A political party that participated in the partisan election shall not be denied the ability to place on the general election ballot the candidate who received, at the primary election, the highest vote among that party’s candidates.” Prop. 60 enhances the ability of California’s qualified minor parties to nominate anyone they wish for public office. Currently, no one can have his or her name placed on a primary ballot if that person has been a member of another party during the 23 months before a general election. This prevents minor parties from recruiting desirable candidates, in many cases. Individuals such as Cindy Sheehan who might want to run in a minor party primary are disqualified because they have been major party members in the past period. However, a loophole exists for write-in candidates in a partisan primary. Anyone, regardless of past or even present party membership, can be a write-in candidate in a partisan primary.

However, this loophole for minor parties has been blocked by another law that requires a write-in candidate in a partisan primary to receive about 100,000 write-ins for statewide office, or 2,000 for U.S. House. Qualified minor parties seldom have enough members to meet these thresholds. But under Prop. 60, by the literal language, a party that desires a lower threshold ought to be able to demand one. Assuming the California Supreme Court rules that Prop. 60 is indeed part of the California Constitution, the Libertarian and Peace & Freedom Parties are likely to sue to exercise their ability to adopt their own lower primary threshold.

The California Supreme Court must issue its opinion no more than 90 days after the hearing, so a decision is likely in May or early June.