James P. Bradley is on the California primary ballot for two offices, under two party names. He is a registered Republican in Orange County, and so his party label in the U.S. Senate race is “Republican”.
But he is also the only name on the American Independent Party presidential ballot.
Thanks to Eric Wong for this.
If you are interested in filings in the U.S. Supreme Court on current lawsuits, including the Colorado lawsuit on Donald Trump’s ballot access, and if you have access to a computer, it is very easy to read the filings in the Court.
Go to supremecourt.gov.
Choose “Case documents” and from the drop-down menu, choose “docket search.”
For the Colorado Trump case, put 23-696 into the search box. Then you can read any filing. As of mid-day December 29, there are only four documents, but new ones will probably be added later today.
On December 22, a Louisiana voter Ashley Reeb, filed a state court lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the March 5 Republican presidential primary ballot. Reeb v Ardoin. See this story.
On December 29, the California Secretary of State’s office said it will appeal the December 28 ruling in Fong v Weber, which lets candidates run for two offices simultaneously.
However, the appeal will not be in time to remove Vince Fong’s name from the March 5, 2024 primary ballot. He is running for both Assembly and U.S. House. For Assembly, he is the only candidate on the ballot.
On December 28, a California Superior Court put Assemblymember Vince Fong on the March 2024 ballot to run in the Republican primary for U.S. House. See this story. Fong v Weber, Sacramento Superior Court, 23WM-000137.
The decision says that the only law barring a candidate from running for two offices simultaneously only applies to independent candidates. Therefore, as a result of the decision, there is no longer any barrier to someone filing for two offices in the same primary. The decision says, “The Court notes that it is concerned about the outcome of this Petition, as it may result in voter confusion and the disenfranchisement of voters if Fong is ultimately elected for both offices but does not retain one. Moreover, it somewhat defies common sense to find the law permits a candidate to run for two offices during the same election. However, as stated above, the Court is compelled to interpret the law as it is written.” Here is the decision.
