As had been previously reported, on May 20, the 9th circuit upheld the constitutionality of San Francisco’s version of Instant Runoff Voting. The time for IRV opponents to appeal that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court has passed, but no such appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed. The decision of the 9th circuit, Dudum v Arntz, 640 F.3d 1098, is the final decision in that case.

On August 23, U.S. District Court Judge Otis Wright ruled that California’s law, allowing some candidates to list a party label, but not allowing others to do so, nor even to use the ballot label “independent”, is constitutional. Here is the 17-page ruling. The legal analysis of the merits of the case is short and begins on page 11.

The opinion says that California has an interest in maintaining the distinction between qualified parties and unqualified parties, and cites various opinions from systems in which parties nominate candidates. This part of the opinion does not acknowledge that California’s law for congressional elections, and state elections, is not a system in which parties nominate candidates. Instead, the only purpose of labels on the ballot is to give the voters an inkling of the candidate’s partisan leanings. The opinion quotes the U.S. Supreme Court opinion Burdick v Takushi which says that nondiscriminatory ballot access laws are constitutional if they pass the reasonable basis test. But, the opinion does not mention that in Norman v Reed, issued the same year as Burdick v Takushi, the U.S. Supreme Court said discriminatory ballot access restrictions are subject to the more rigorous compelling interest test. The California law, letting some candidates use their preferred partisan self-description and not letting others do that, is discriminatory.

As to why the word “independent” should be barred, the decision only says, “The evidence shows that the restriction on the ability to state ‘independent’ on the ballot was institute for a legitimate state reason – namely, the State’s important regulatory and procedural interest in maintaining the distinction between ‘qualified’ and ‘non-qualified’ parties.” This conclusion does not follow; there is no connection between banning the word “independent” and making a distinction between qualified and non-qualified parties.

The opinion also upholds the restriction on counting write-in votes, equating a ban on counting write-ins with a ban on printing write-in space on the ballot. The opinion is not surprising, because Judge Wright had previously ruled in this same case that the challenged laws are constitutional. Notice of an appeal has already been filed. The case is Chamness v Bowen, cv11-01479. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.