On March 8, the California Supreme Court heard arguments in Californians for an Open Primary v McPherson. The issue is whether Prop. 60 (passed overwhelmingly by the voters in November 2004) is validly part of the California Constitution. The legislature put it on the ballot. It says that political parties have a right to have the person who receives the most votes in their primary, placed on the November ballot. The problem is that the legislature put it on the ballot with an unrelated subject, providing that if the state sells surplus property, the proceeds should be used to reduce state debt. Before the November 2004 election, the State Court of Appeals cut the proposal into two ballot questions, one on political party rights, and one on the sale of surplus property.

The attorney for foes of Prop. 60 asked the Court to invalidate it. The State Constitution does not require that legislative constitutional amendments only deal with a single subject. But the Constitution does require the legislature to write a separate ballot measure for every section of the Constitution that is being amended, a provision that has been ignored for decades.

At the hearing, most members of the California Supreme Court seemed inclined to disagree with the State Court of Appeals. However, it is far from clear that the California Supreme Court will invalidate Prop. 60, even if the Supreme Court finds that it was a mistake to have put it on the ballot in the first place.