On August 1, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow ruled that the six plaintiffs in Field v Bowen must pay attorneys fees to the groups that intervened in the lawsuit in support of the top-two system. The amount is $243,279. The six plaintiffs include Rodney Martin, chair of the Reform Party of California; Jeff Mackler, leader of the San Francisco Bay Area branch of Socialist Action; Steve Chessin, president of Californians for Electoral Reform; and Richard Winger.

Field v Bowen attacked two particularly oppressive aspects of the California top-two open primary law: (1) the original law said write-ins in November for Congress or state office could never be counted, but the state continued to let candidates file as declared write-in candidates and continued to print write-in space on the ballot; (2) the law said that only candidates who are registered members of qualified parties could have their party mentioned on the ballot next to the names of that candidate. Nor can such candidates even have the word “independent” on the ballot; they can only have “no party preference”, which for many is an untrue statement. Earlier this month, a Washington state court ruled that it is unconstitutional to print “no party preference” for a Socialist Alternative candidate for the legislature, and ordered the Secretary of State to print the candidate’s party name on the ballot next to her name.

But the California state courts upheld the write-in and label provisions of the California law last year, and Field v Bowen is no longer an active case, except for the matter of attorneys fees.

California state courts judges are justifiably unhappy that the state budget crisis has meant reduced funding for the court system, which has created many severe problems with administration of the courts. Unfortunately, many, if not most, of the California state court judges believe that the top-two open primary will result in a legislature that will have fewer opponents of tax increases. Therefore, these judges appear to be biased in favor of the top-two system. This is best illustrated by Judge Karnow’s shocking and punitive decision that we six plaintiffs must pay $243,279 to the law firm Nielson, Merksamer, which represents the groups and individuals who intervened in the case.

The plaintiffs asked for reconsideration. In response, Nielsen Merksamer has argued that we had no right to ask for reconsideration, and a hasty acceleration of the matter, only set on Friday afternoon, September 14, has pushed a hearing forward to Monday, September 17, at 11 a.m. at the San Francisco Civil Superior Court at the northwest corner of McAllister and POLK Streets. Here is a FairVote story about the matter. UPDATE: the original post erroneously said the court is at McAllister and Larkin.

On September 14, the Michigan Secretary of State asked the U.S. Supreme Court not to act on the Libertarian Party’s ballot access case involving the interpretation of Michigan’s “sore loser” law. Here is the state’s brief, which has a picture of the ballot that Michigan intends to print, omitting any presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party. Here is the party’s rebuttal brief, which was submitted the same day.

Here is the short decision of the Oklahoma State Supreme Court in Lawhorn v Ziriax, 2012 OK 78. The decision implies, but not does explicitly say, that qualified parties in Oklahoma cannot nominate presidential electors unless their party holds a national convention. This is based on an incidental part of the election law that says presidential elector candidates must take an oath to support the candidate chosen at that party’s national convention.

The irony of this interpretation is that even if Americans Elect had gone ahead with its original plans, it never planned to nominate a presidential or vice-presidential candidate at a national convention. Instead, the party expected to nominate via an on-line vote of any registered voter in the nation who wished to participate.

The decision also mentions that the national Americans Elect rules do not authorize any state party organizations, which implicitly seems to say that the national rules of the Americans Elect Party take precedence over Oklahoma state election laws, which give state parties the authority to choose presidential elector candidates. Yet in 2000, the last year the Libertarian Party was a qualified party in Oklahoma, the Libertarians passed a bylaw saying all registered voters could vote in the Oklahoma Libertarian primary. The party said it had a First Amendment Freedom of Association right to decide for itself how to run its nomination process. The party actually won that case in the 10th circuit, but Oklahoma appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Libertarian Party did not have a constitutional right to invite all voters to vote in its primary. Yet now, Oklahoma’s highest state court seems to be saying that national party rules can supersede not only state election law, but the wishes of party members in the state. A majority of registered members of Americans Elect had participated in the nomination of Gary Johnson for president.

The decision mentions that national leaders of Americans Elect have a trademark on the name. The decision therefore implies, but does not say, that trademarks for political parties can overcome state election law. There is no authority for that idea in any other reported decision, and the 9th circuit ruled last year that trademarks for political party names cannot be used to overcome state election laws.