U.S. DISTRICT COURT MOSTLY UPHOLDS CALIFORNIA TOP-TWO, BUT KEEPS CASE ALIVE ON TWO POINTS
On April 13, U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney mostly upheld California’s top-two system as it affects minor parties. But, she wrote that two aspects of the law are perhaps unconstitutional, and she is permitting further activity in the case for those two points. Those two issues are: (1) members of unqualified parties can’t have their party labels on the primary ballot, whereas members of qualified parties may have their party label; and (2) the top-two system in presidential years requires all candidates to file in December of the year before the election, thus freezing the status quo during the election year itself.
The California top-two system operates differently in presidential years than it does in midterm years. In presidential years, the congressional and state office primary is in the first week in March; in midterm years it is in June. So, the filing deadlines are far more onerous in presidential years.
The case is Peace and Freedom Party v Weber, n.d., 3:24cv-8308. The plaintiff political parties are the American Solidarity, Green, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom Parties.
Judge Chesney said that the latter three parties already lost in the State Court of Appeals in Rubin v Padilla in 2015, and therefore they can’t relitigate the basic point about top-two. But the American Solidarity Party had not been in the earlier case, so Judge Chesney had to make a decision about the merits.
Disappointingly, all she said to uphold top-two is that the U.S. Supreme Court had already upheld it, inside the last few pages of its 2000 decision California Democratic Party v Jones.