On March 6, attorneys for the California Secretary of State filed this brief in the Ninth Circuit, in Soltysik v Padilla, 16-55758. The issue is the California law that lets some candidates for Congress and state office have their party of registration printed on the ballot, but does not let other candidates do this. The plaintiff is a registered Socialist.

The overwhelming bulk of the state’s lengthy brief is to make the point that the ballot is not a free speech forum. But that is irrelevant. The state has chosen to allow some candidates to have their party printed on the ballot. Nowhere in this brief does the state explain why the state allows party labels on the ballot for any candidates at all. If the state were to set forth why some candidates have a party label, whatever the rationale set forth surely would apply to all candidates.

The state’s brief also says that the November election in California is a “runoff”, which it is not. A “runoff” is not permitted for Congressional elections except after November of even-numbered years. If the California election for Congress were a true “runoff”, it would be illegal under a federal law that has existed since 1872. The U.S. Supreme Court clarified this in 1997 in Foster v Love, which stopped Louisiana from electing members of Congress in September.

Republican writer Bruce Bialosky has this commentary about California’s top-two system, at Townhall. Thanks to Jack Dean for the link.

On March 6, the South Dakota Senate Local Government Committee passed HB 1035, which makes it illegal to pay circulators of a new party petition on a per-signature basis. The bill had already passed the House.