On April 19, Emidio Soltysik filed his 28-page reply brief in Soltysik v Padilla, in the Ninth Circuit. The issue is the California law that says some candidates for Congress and partisan state office may have their party label on the ballot, but others may not.

Soltysik makes good use of the recent Fourth Circuit opinion Marcellus v Virginia State Board of Elections, 849 F.3d 169, which said, “if a law gives some candidates…a party identifier, but not other candidates for the (same office), it would impose a burden on the associational rights of the candidates left unidentified, even though no candidate has an absolute right to be so identified.”

Page 19 of Soltysik’s brief says, “By providing a space on the ballot in which candidates for voter-nominated office can indicate their political party preferences, the State has created a limited public forum and the Court should apply First Amendment forum analysis. Having created a limited forum, the State cannot discriminate on the basis of viewpoint by allowing the expression of some party preferences, but not others.”

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to hear Libertarian Party of Kentucky v Grimes, 16-1034, at its May 11 conference. The issue is the state’s definition of a qualified party, which makes it impossible for a group to become ballot-qualified unless it makes a certain showing in a presidential race.

The Los Angeles Times has this April 19 editorial in favor of moving California’s primary (for all office) from June to March, in presidential years. But the editorial warns against moving it to February. The bill sets the date in March but gives the Governor authority to move it to an even earlier date.