On January 29, the California State Court of Appeals ruled that California’s minor parties are not entitled to a trial, to present evidence showing that the top-two system injures voting rights of voters who wish to vote for minor parties in the general election. The case is Rubin v Padilla. The decision came down only two weeks after the hearing. I haven’t see a copy of the decision yet but when I get a copy, I will do my best to create a link to the decision. The decision was written by Judge Margulies, who was the least favorable judge at the hearing. At the hearing, she said that the First Amendment isn’t violated by a system in which minor party candidates are off the general election ballot, because minor parties are free to advocate to their supporters that they vote for one of the two major party candidates.
At the hearing, Judge Margulies also referred to the general election as a “runoff”, which shows that she appears not to know that federal law, for congressional elections, mandates that the election itself is in November and any runoff must be afterwards. Judge Margulies also revealed at the hearing that she did not know that, before the top-two system started in California, independent voters were able to vote in all Democratic and Republican primaries for congress and partisan state office. Unfortunately, at the hearing, the attorney for the minor parties did not mention that she was wrong.
Last para —
Will the lawyer be sued for MALPRACTICE — aka being INCOMPETENT ???
Ballot access is a WAR event — needing WAR LAWYERS.
Before 2011, Californian voters were prevented from freely voting for their candidates of choice at all stages of the election. They could contribute money freely, they could display yard signs or bumper stickers, they could hold coffee klatches, or attend campaign rallies. It was only the ultimate act of support, voting for the candidate that was denied by California law.
Also, please read Footnote 5 of ‘Foster v Love’
Before 2011, all California ballots had write-in space on primary and general election ballots, so all voters could vote for anyone they wished in June and in November.
Foster v Love only has four footnotes; there is no footnote five.
Read Footnote 4. The version on Cornell’s LII had numbered the footnote denoted with a “*” as Footnote 1.
“This case thus does not present the question of whether a State must always employ the conventional mechanics of an election. We hold today only that if an election does take place, it may not be consummated prior to federal election day.”
The Top 2 election of representatives and senator in California and Washington were not consummated until November.
California ballots still have write-in space on primary ballots. One may only vote for declared write-in candidates. You may have perhaps made extraneous markings on your ballot paper.
And before 2011, even if a declared write-in candidate received the most votes in the primary, they might not advance to the general election.