On June 6, 1972, the California voters passed Proposition 4, which appeared on the ballot in this way: “Presidential Primary. Requires primary election wherein all recognized candidates for president are on ballot unless affidavit declaring non-candidacy is filed.”
The state legislature had placed that proposition on the ballot because it wanted the voters to be able to vote for all presidential candidates who were plainly seeking the nomination of one of the ballot-qualified parties. Before Proposition 4, sometimes leading presidential candidates would abstain from running in the California primary for political reasons. For example, John F. Kennedy did not file for the 1960 California Democratic presidential primary because he did not want to offend then-Governor Pat Brown, who was on the Democratic presidential primary ballot as a “favorite son”, meaning he could control the California Democratic delegation and make deals with the bona fide candidates at the convention.
On July 22, 2019, the Independent Voters Project, a leading proponent of the California top-two system, filed a lawsuit in Superior Court in San Bernardino County, arguing that Proposition 4 really means that California cannot hold a presidential primary unless all presidential candidates are on a single ballot, including independent candidates; and that all voters must be able to vote on that ballot, regardless of how they are registered. Boydston v Padilla, civ-ds-1921480.
Here is the portion of the California Constitution that Proposition 4 added. See section 5(c). The attorneys for the Independent Voters Project have seized on the accident that the legislators who wrote Proposition 4 used the words “open primary”. However, if one reads the full sentence that contains those two words, it is obvious that to the authors of Proposition 4, “open primary” was just the term to use for a primary that included all candidates. The term had nothing to do with who can vote in any particular primary. The Independent Voters Project complaint avoids quoting the full sentence in section 5(c). Instead, it only quotes the first half of the sentence.
The Independent Voters Project complaint says, “The presidential primary is an important stage of the public election process. It is the method through which voters decide which presidential candidates will appear on November’s ballot.” This is obviously untrue. In 2008, Hillary Clinton won the California Democratic presidential primary, but her name did not appear on the November ballot.
One more rotted primary case in rotted RED communist Donkey CA
— being done by usual suspect MORON lawyers.
*recognized* = void for vagueness.
NO primaries, caucuses and conventions.
EQUAL ballot access via Nom petits / filing fees.
—
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
Here’s a compromise:
1. List all candidates of all parties on one ballot.
2. Each voter will received the same ballot as every other, EXCEPT that each ballot will be marked with the voter’s party registration, if any.
3. Each party will decide on its own whether or not to accept votes cast by independents, or even members of select other parties.
4. The winners accepted by the parties will appear on the November ballot, or, if for President, will receive a number of delegates per party rules.
5. Any independent candidate who receives a majority of independent votes will be listed on the November ballot.
California had a presidential primary like that (except as relating to independent candidates) in 2000, under the blanket primary. But the leaders of the Independent Voters Project have no interest in bringing back the blanket primary. I have suggested it to them many times, but they don’t even respond.
The plaintiff is Boydston, with a ‘d’ rather than an ‘l’. You can also search for Padilla but he gets sued a lot. I could not figure a way to search by case number on the San Bernardino superior court website.
They have a better case that the semi-closed primary violates equal protection, due process, appropriation of public funds for private purposes.
Arguably, the California Constitution requires a direct presidential primary. In 2004, the Constitution was amended to protect political parties right to nomination. Literally, this says that California could not force a party to nominate other than the winner of its primary. “Alex Padilla, you can’t make us nominate the 9th place finisher, we can nominate the winner if we want to (but not the second, eighth, etc.).”
This is nonsensical. Instead it must be interpreted to mean that the winner of a partisan primary be placed on the general election ballot.
In 2010, the Top 2 reform eliminated all partisan offices except president. If there is only one partisan office, then surely it must comply with the requirement that the winner appear on the general election ballot
Were John Anderson and Ross Perot generally recognized candidates for the office of President of the United States?
When the MORONS add constitutional language BUT do not repeal ALL prior conflicting language the courts go more nuts than usual —
courts generally try to keep the earlier language somehow surviving.
The provision has an odd history. It was instigated as a result of the 1968 primary in which neither Richard Nixon or Hubert Humphrey were on the California primary ballot.
It was voted on at the 1972 primary. By that time the McGovern-Fraser commission had dictated greater use of primaries, which reduced the utility of favorite-son candidacies. By the time of the 1976 primary, when the provision was first used, this was even more true.
The June 1972 proposition did not say anything about party presidential primaries. It required any recognized candidate to be placed on the ballot. If a recognized candidate is placed on the ballot, may election officials restrict those who may vote for thar candidate?
Alternatively, can California prevent a candidate from effectively seeking the presidency as a non-party candidate, or a California voter from voting for any candidste on the ballot.
In November 1972 voters approved a proposition that ripped out sections of language which were obsolete. Instead of details about primaries, it included: “The legislature shall provide for primary elections for partisan offices” Had the preasidential prtimaty language not been added 6 months earlier, it is likely that there would be a period after ‘offices’.
Instead, they proposed: “, including an open presidential primary …”
California permitted cross-nomination, and for the first half of the 20th Century permitted cross-filing. Since the intent of the June 1972 amendment was to eliminate filing, it is logical that all recognized presidential candidates should be placed on all party ballots, and that there be a nonpartisan ballot as well.
This would satisfy the interest of all the inddividual plaintiffs to vote for the recognized candidate of choice.
@RW,
See claim 81 of lawsuit.
Which several lawful ways has Alex Padilla, California, and the 1000 Doe’s refused to implement?
https://independentvoterproject.org/
website – lot of stuff