The Associated Press has written this story about the December 3 opinion of the Ninth Circuit concerning party labels for candidates who are members of unqualified parties.
UPDATE: here is a longer story from the San Francisco Chronicle. FURTHER UPDATE: here is a story in the Metropolitican News-Enterprise, published in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Times still hasn’t covered this story, even though Soltysik lives in Los Angeles.
Missouri Representative Dan Stacy (R-Blue Springs) has introduced two bills to convert Missouri elections to ranked-choice systems. HB 27 applies to federal and state office. HB 28 applies to local office. Thanks to Ken Bush for this news.
Missouri Representative Dan Stacy (R-Blue Springs) has introduced HB 26. It would add a question on voter registration forms for an applicant to choose a party. It also provides that future primaries in Missouri would be closed. It says that parties that don’t wish to have closed primaries are free to nominate by convention, or by a primary with the election administration expenses paid for by that party.
Currently, Missouri has open primaries, and the voter registration form does not ask about party. Any voter is free to choose any party’s primary ballot. All qualified parties except new parties nominate by primary.
The bill does not say whether voters would be allowed to register into unqualified parties. And the bill drafter seems unaware that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that parties have a constitutional right to invite independent voters into their primaries. That case was Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut. Thanks to Ken Bush for this news.
On December 3, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Soltysik v Padilla, 16-55758. This is the case in which Emidio “Mimi” Soltysik, a registered Socialist, challenged the California law that forces him to appear on the ballot with the label “party preference: none.” By contrast, members of qualified parties have the label “party preference: (here insert the name of the party the candidate is registered into).” The Socialist Party has not been a ballot-qualified party in California since 1938.
Here is the opinion. The vote was 2-1. The opinion is by Judge John B. Owens, an Obama appointee, and signed by Judge William A. Fletcher, a Clinton appointee. The dissent is by Judge Johnnie Rawlinson, also a Clinton appointee. The opinion says that the case is to be remanded back to U.S. District Court, for evidence (the U.S. District Court had originally dismissed the case before allowing any evidence to be presented). The majority says that California must present evidence showing that the law is needed to prevent voter confusion. The decision says on page 16, “Indeed, it seems self-evident” that the existing law causes voter confusion rather than preventing it.
On remand, it will be possible for the plaintiffs to show that approximately half the states allow petitioning candidates to choose any short partisan label they wish (as long as it doesn’t mimic the name of a qualified party), and that there is no voter confusion in those states. The decision also says, “The lower court may also wish to consider whether California’s interest in policing the qualified-nonqualified distinction remains vital under the current top-two regime and thus whether that interest justifies the burden the statutes impose (see page 22).”
On November 29, the Ninth Circuit asked the attorneys in De La Fuente v Padilla if they are available to participate in oral argument at all times during March 2019. This is the case that challenges the California independent petition requirement for presidential candidates. Current law requires 196,964 valid signatures, to be collected in 105 days. No one has complied with the California law since 1992.
