San Bernardino Superior Judge Wilfred Schneider correctly dismissed a case that said California’s semi-limited primary election system violates state law, an April 12 published appellate ruling said.
Plaintiffs argued that Elections Code Section 13102, which allows parties to limit votes to only members of the party, violates the California Constitution. They claimed a Republican Party decision to limit primary votes to party members in 2016 using that law resulted in voter disenfranchisement.
“On one hand, the right to vote freely for one’s candidate choice is the essence of the democratic society and restrictions on that right strike at the heart of the representative government. On the other hand, it is recognized a political party has the constitutional right to preclude non-party members from interfering with the rights of its members….”
San Bernardino Superior Judge Wilfred Schneider, in his ruling
Instead, they said, the state should create a public ballot that combines presidential candidates from all primaries and that all Californians could vote on regardless of party preference.
Not so, said both Schneider and the Court of Appeal.
The votes would only be symbolic, and would not be used to actually determine the result of the election, so no violation of a right to vote exists, both said. Additionally, state parties have a freedom of association that grants them the right to limit voters in the primary election, both said.
“(W)hen plaintiffs discuss a ‘right’ to cast an expressive ballot simply for the sake of doing so, rather than to affect the outcome of an election, they have ceased talking about voting. Indeed, the Supreme Court has rejected the notion that elections have some ‘generalized expressive function,’” the Court of Appeal wrote.
“To the extent that NPP voters feel disenfranchised by the primary system, they may simply join the party or request a crossover ballot (through which a voter can submit out-of-party votes),” the ruling continued.
The plaintiff’s attorney, Chad Peace of Peace & Shea, said that the judges reframed the legal issues.
The judges cited rulings about accessing a party’s presidential primary system, while the plaintiffs argued that the state should create a new primary ballot, Peace said.
A short-lived election law
The plaintiffs also argued that the primary system violates Proposition 198, which in 1996 changed California’s partisan primary from a closed primary to a blanket primary.
That proposition was invalidated by the United States Supreme Court in the 2000 case California Democratic Party v. Jones, the ruling said.
Complaint
The Independent Voter Project brought the case with several California voters.
The plaintiffs argued the primary system violates the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, and violates the voters’ federal due process and non-association rights.
“The consequences of Defendants transferring control; of the publicly funded and administered presidential primary from the voters to the private decision making authority of political parties has resulted in widespread voter confusion and the disenfranchisement of millions of California voters,” their complaint said.
The expansion of no party preference voters in California combined with the primary system resulted in de facto voter suppression, and violates the First Amendment and 14th Amendment rights to association, the plaintiffs argued.
The state is essentially forcing voters to join a political party to participate in elections, said Peace.
Case dismissal
Schneider dismissed the case without leave to amend because the plaintiffs failed to correct issues that led to an earlier dismissal.
Schneider found that the section of the California Constitution referenced by the plaintiffs addressed candidate placement on the ballot, not the procedure for voting for them.
“On one hand, the right to vote freely for one’s candidate choice is the essence of the democratic society and restrictions on that right strike at the heart of the representative government (citing Moore v. Ogilvie). On the other hand, it is recognized a political party has the constitutional right to preclude non-party members from interfering with the rights of its members, i.e., preclude non-party members from voting in its primary election (citing Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones and Tashjian v. Republican Party). The apparent contradiction of these holdings is rectified by every citizen has (sic) the right to freely vote in general type elections but as to presidential primary elections, which the vote is not the means by which the presidential nominees are chosen, as they are chosen by delegates of the political parties,” Schenider wrote.
Case information
San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. CIVDS1921480
Appellate Case No. D080921.
Cory Briggs and Janna Ferraro of Briggs Law Corp. and Chad Peace of Peace & Shea represented the plaintiffs.
Deputy Attorneys General Nelson Richards, Megan Richards and Anya Binsacca defended.
Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, Justice Martin Buchanan wrote the opinion, which acting Presiding Justice Joan Irion and Justice Truc Do joined.
Read the complaint here.
Read Schneider’s dismissal here.
Read the appellate ruling here.
