On January 31, the state of California filed its opening brief in Peace & Freedom Party v Weber, n.d., 3:24cv-08308. This is the lawsuit against the California top-two system, which was filed last year by the Peace & Freedom, Green, and Libertarian Parties.
The brief says the state interest in the top-two system is to “increase voter choice and voter participation.” It also says that other interests are in “streamlining the ballot”, “avoiding ballot overcrowding”, and “reducing voter confusion.”
It is almost comical that the state cites overcrowded ballots, because the top-two system has caused extremely crowded primary ballots. Ever since the top-two system started in California in 2012, primary ballots for Governor and U.S. Senate have had between 15 and 33 candidates. California never had crowded primary ballots for those offices in regular elections in the years 1910 through 1996. During those years each party had its own primary ballot.
The state brief makes no acknowledgement that there are methods of increasing voter choice and voter participation, without injuring minor parties and the voters who wish to vote for minor parties in the general election. Supporters of the California top-two system themselves said on August 19, 2015, that a top-three or top-four system, combined with ranked choice voting, would be superior to a top-two system. These statements were made at a Sacramento conference on the top-two system hosted by the Independent Voters Network.
The state also says because the top-two system was upheld in 2015, in Rubin v Padilla, therefore the issue has already been decided. But back then, all California congressional and state office primaries had been in June (in the years in which top-two existed). Starting in 2020, the congressional and state office primaries were moved to March (in presidential years).
U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney will hold a hearing on March 28, Friday, in San Francisco, to hear the state’s motion to dismiss the case.