Home Uncategorized California Minor Parties File Reply Brief in Lawsuit that Challenges Top-Two Primary System
formats

California Minor Parties File Reply Brief in Lawsuit that Challenges Top-Two Primary System

On July 23, the Peace & Freedom Party, the Libertarian Party of California, and the Green Party of Alameda County filed this 31-page reply brief in Rubin v Bowen, A140387. The case is now fully briefed. In a few months, the State Appeals Court is likely to set a date for oral argument.

9 Responses

  1. It’s so sad to see so much ink, time and money devoted to division and conflict when everyone can clearly see that everyone in the world needs and desires unity.

    Are you tired of the continual fussing, fighting and are you ready for UNITY?

    Check out the unifying psychology of pure proportional representation (PR)! The 9th USA Parliament has been using it for 19 consecutive years and it works great!
    http://www.usparliament.org

  2. Demo Rep

    What is the LEGAL power of the so-called USA Parliament to enact ANY laws to govern the People of the USA ???

    How about a proper lawsuit to ATTACK the minority rule gerrymanders in CA ???

    • Thanks very much for your interest Demo Rep!

      To answer your questions, the 9th USA Parliament is like a small political party, probably 1/5oth the size of the California Peace & Freedom Party, but the 9th USA Parliament entity has used pure proportional representation (PR) in all her elections since day one on August 6th, 1995.

      As far as enacting any laws govern. We’re more a voluntary cooperative effort from people all over the world, and we’re too small to do enact laws, we’re still trying to grow one person at a time. We’re like a political party or super-PAC. (But we don’t need to file because we’ve raised less than $500.)

      You ask; “How about a proper lawsuit to ATTACK the minority rule gerrymanders in CA ???”

      My reply is that in California we’re organized to build unity and we’re not organized to attack.

      Should we be prepared to attack we’d certainly wait until we’re confident we have overwhelming superior firepower. But we’re more for unity with the 100% than us vs them type entity. We love everyone, even the gerrymanders – it’s not their fault that they don’t know better and we’re here to teach.

      We would certainly support a ballot initiative for pure proportional representation but again we’re too small. We don’t have many volunteer vote counters, those we do have are busy working at jobs, our company store isn’t selling products nor are our stocks/shares selling; The All Party System Co.

      But our political and business entities are highly organized, synchronized, dynamic and unified because we’re able to identify and attract the best team players.

      In sum, we’re still trying to lay foundation in the USA. The California Super-state Parliament is but a smaller entity barely 1/12th in size. And the International Parliament is filled barely 50% to capacity:
      http://www.international-parliament.org/

      Our edge is mathematical perfection in counting votes which generates the unity psychology. That in turn provides the content for our news service which we own exclusivity.

      We’d certainly love to have you (and anyone else) on our team and we have plenty of people playing only roles they love to play, as well as plenty of open seats for new people to play any role as part of our team.

      I hope that answers your questions. Again, we really appreciate your interest. Thank you very, very much!

  3. Demo Rep

    Newer folks – see the top 2 stuff in –

    Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008)

    How many more years until SCOTUS has the FINAL words on top 2 stuff ???

    i.e. ALL voters nominating candidates or merely SOME voters nominating candidates in an area – State, district, local govt ???

    • Richard Winger

      Footnote eleven of that US Supreme Court decision said the decision does not deal with the ballot access issue.

  4. Jim Riley

    What a disingenuous argument. The public sector labor unions were opposed to the Open Primary because it would limit their control over the Democratic Primary. They deliberately try to lower turnout in the primary, and then instruct their supporters to vote, and who to vote for.

    Of course they couldn’t come out and directly argue this. So instead they make up other arguments to put in the voter’s pamphlet.

    Now the plaintiffs are claiming the voters read “eliminates write-in votes” and then thought, “hmm… good idea, I’ll vote for it”, and claim that was the intent behind the voters approving Proposition 14.

    It is more likely voters saw that the unions were against, and either discerned their true motivations, or simply decided that if the unions were against it, that they would vote for it.

  5. “It is more likely voters saw that the unions were against, and either discerned their true motivations, or simply decided that if the unions were against it, that they would vote for it.”

    If the author of this statement lived in California and spent even a half hour listening to the radio during the campaign, he would know the real reason voters approved Prop. 14. Schwarzenegger’s and Maldonado’s backers spent millions saturating the airwaves with their “arguments” [sic] in favor of it. It’s opponents — including both major and minor parties — spent almost nothing. (The minor parties had nothing to spend.) Voters only heard one side of the story.

  6. Demo Rep

    http://www.restorevoterchoice.org/documents/

    Paperwork links in the top 2 case.

    How many more years until SCOTUS has THE FINAL FINAL FINAL word ???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>