The Independent View: Another CA Prop. 14 (Top Two) Challenge

Thanks to Ballot Access News for this post.

On May 6, Michael Chamness filed his motion for summary judgment in Chamness v Bowen, the federal case against two particular details of the California top-two system. The case attacks California’s discriminatory policy on ballot labels. It also attacks the new California law that says even though write-in space is to be printed on the ballot in Congressional and state office November elections, and even though the ballot doesn’t warn voters that any write-ins won’t be counted, in fact write-ins cannot be counted.

No declaratory judgment on either of these complaints has yet been issued by any California court, state or federal. The only action so far has been a denial of injunctive relief in various California special elections that have been held this year. Proponents of the top-two system, including almost all of California’s large daily newspapers, have generally not reported on these particular details about the top-two law, and have given little publicity to this lawsuit.

This is part of the motion:

1. Declares Senate Bill 6 unconstitutional and unenforceable, because it violates the U.S. Constitution.

2. Declares that Proposition 14 is not self-executing.

3. Declares Proposition 14 inoperative, because its implementing statute (SB 6) has been declared unenforceable.

4. Declares that Proposition 14 shall not become operative until a lawful implementing statute has been enacted and become operative.

5. Declares that Defendant Bowen violated Plaintiff Frederick’s fundamental rights under the First Amendment and Due Process
Clause.

6. Declares that Defendant Bowen violated Plaintiff Wilson’s fundamental right to have his lawfully cast vote counted under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Due Process Clause, and the Elections Clause.

7. Declares that Defendants Bowen and Logan imposed a severe burden on Plaintiff Chamness’ fundamental rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, by (a) stifling his core political speech, and (b) dictating electoral outcomes.

8. Declares that Defendants Bowen and Logan violated Plaintiff Chamness’ fundamental rights under the Elections Clause.

9. Declares that every citizen has the right to run as a write-in candidate for state or federal office.

10. Declares that every citizen has the right to cast a write-in vote and have that vote counted.

Use the above link to read the entire motion.