The Los Angeles Times of April 15 has a story, “Top-two primary might be bad for small-party candidates.” It has a picture of Cindy Sheehan, a member of the Peace & Freedom Party who is running for Governor of California this year. The link may work for readers, or it might result in the reader being told to become a subscriber in order to gain access to the article. Try this link. The story does not mention any information about how top-two has worked in Washington state.

The story is noteworthy because it quotes an advisor to former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as saying, “Obviously, the need for third parties, smaller parties, to remain active participants is important; and as we implement this system, the need to make appropriate adjustments will become apparent as the system unfolds.” This is the very time when Governor Schwarzenegger or anyone associated with him has even acknowledged the existence of minor parties.

One of the most interesting U.S. House races in California in 2014 is the 33rd, where incumbent Henry Waxman is not running for re-election. On April 13, the first debate in that race was held by the Pacific Palisades Democratic Club. Not surprisingly, the Club, being an arm of the Democratic Party, only invited Democrats into that debate. There are 18 candidates on the ballot, including ten Democrats. The Club only invited the four Democrats who have raised at least $200,000: Ted Lieu, Wendy Greuel, Matt Miller, and David Kannoth.

Independent candidate Marianne Williamson has raised several hundred thousand dollars, but she was not invited because she is not a Democrat. This event illustrates one of the many faults with a top-two system held for a partisan office. Williamson has an uphill battle placing first or second in the top-two primary being held June 3; polls suggest the top two spots will go to Lieu and Greuel. Obviously, being excluded from debates does not help Williamson.

Here is the final brief in the Sixth Circuit in Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, 14-3230. It makes good use of the April 2 U.S. Supreme Court decision McCutcheon v FEC, and good use of a March 31 decision of a U.S. District Court in Delaware in another disclosure case, Delaware Strong Families v Biden. Also, it makes good use of the Ohio government’s recent brief in the pending U.S. Supreme Court case Susan B. Anthony List v Driehaus, where the issue is Ohio’s law criminalizing making false statements about a candidate or ballot measure that is designed to influence voters.