On March 2, Allen D. Clark, a California union official, filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court, to require that the ballot description of Proposition 14, the “top-two open primary” measure, be altered. The case is Clark v Bowan, 34-2010-80000460.

The legislature wrote the ballot description for Proposition 14. It says, “Elections. Primaries. Greater Participation in Elections.” “Reforms the primary election process for congressional, statewide and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference.”

Clark proposes this language: “Changes primary election process. Changes primary election procedures for congressional, legislative and statewide races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Does not require candidates to disclose their registered political party preference. Eliminates political parties’ rights to be on the general election ballot. Ensures that only the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of their registered political party preference. Does not change primary election for President, party committee officers, and nonpartisan offices.”

The California Election Code says the description of ballot measures must be neutral.

Matt Monica, a member of the Palm Desert School Board and also a member of the American Independent Party, will run for the California State Senate seat in the 37th district, in an upcoming special election. The first round is on April 13. Because there are three Republicans and three Democrats in the race, along with Monica for the AIP, it is very unlikely anyone will poll as much as 50% on April 13. Therefore, a three-party run-off is likely on June 8. See here for more information about Monica. He was elected to the School Board in 1980 through 1998, and also 2004 through the present.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has set a hearing date for Nader v Seroty, 09-cv-906, for April 21, at 9:30 a.m. This case is over whether Ralph Nader’s bank in D.C. should turn over the money in Nader’s bank account to the people who challenged his Pennsylvania petition in 2004. The Pennsylvania state courts long ago said that Nader must pay the court costs of the proceedings that removed him from the ballot, but in order to enforce that, the D.C. courts must honor the judgment. After the Pennsylvania courts ruled, it was revealed that the people who challenged Nader’s 2004 petition had broken Pennsylvania law by using state resources, state employees, and state computers for their challenge. The D.C. hearing will be the first opportunity that Nader has had to present evidence and arguments that the earlier order should be reversed.