On September 27, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 568, which moves all partisan primaries, in all years, from June to the first week in March. It takes effect after 2018.
He didn’t act on other interesting election law bills: (1) AB 469, which eases petitions in lieu of filing fee; (2) AB 837, which provides that independent voters must be fully informed about which primary they can vote in; (3) SB 149, which requires presidential candidates in primaries to releases their tax returns. He has until mid-October to act on those bills.
Good luck losing to Donald Trump, bastard. (sorry anyway)
Lets see how long it takes for someone to file a lawsuit over Top-2 being used n March, effectively barring anyone entering the race after that date.
@BL,
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would recognize that the conflict would be with the date of the primary, and not the type of the primary.
There is nothing unconstitutional about a state putting on March primaries for qualified parties. Your state does, and so does Illinois.
The problem with California is locking the door for any new candidates to enter during the election year.
What is the magic EARLIEST day before a general election day for having a primary, a caucus or a convention — to be *constitutional* for the SCOTUS morons???
The whole mess is a mindless perversion since the SCOTUS MORONS do not know what *EQUAL* in 14 Am, Sec 1 means regarding ballot access (and many other things) — since 1968 — namely, EQUAL ballot access tests for ALL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME area.
The CA top 2 primary is a perversion part of the system of rigged gerrymander districts – esp USA Reps, CA state senators, CA Assembly (state reps) and a special perversion for the USA Senate.
—
NO primaries.
PR and AppV
@RW,
California since 2011 has not had segregated partisan primaries. If it is unconstitutional to have a Top 2 primary in March, it is not because it is unconstitutional to have a Top 2 primary per se, but rather that the date was too early.
The intent of ‘Foster v Love’ was not really to change the date of the primary, but rather to get rid of the Open Primary.
The purpose of having earlier and earlier primaries is to subvert Congress’s intent in setting the uniform November election date.
The Congress should repeal the uniform November election date, and require all elector phases to be within the six months prior to beginning of the term.