Field v. Bowen
131 Cal. Rptr. 3d 721
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Proposition 14 replaced partisan primaries with an open top-two primary for voter-nominated offices, with qualified parties remaining for some offices.
- Senate Bill 6 implements Prop. 14 and includes Elections Code sections 13105(a) (ballot party labeling) and 8606 (write-in votes not counted).
- Plaintiffs include voters and prospective candidates seeking to vote for or list nonqualified-party affiliations on the ballot.
- Interveners (former senator Maldonado, affected organizations) intervene to defend Prop. 14 and SB 6 implementations.
- Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction; court analyzes constitutional challenges as pure questions of law, no material factual disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nonqualified party label ban violates rights? | Mackler/Martin contend it violates speech/association/equal protection. | Secretary and others urge that Libertarian Party controls and supports constitutionality. | Constitutional; Libertarian Party controls. |
| Does 'party' on ballot mean only qualified parties? | Plaintiffs argue broader meaning including nonqualified parties. | Court adopts interpretation that 'party' means qualified party. | Term refers to qualified parties; nonqualified labels are permitted only as No Party Preference. |
| Write-in ban for voter-nominated offices violates rights? | Plaintiffs claim write-ins should be allowed and counted. | SB 6 prohibits counting write-ins consistent with Prop. 14 structure. | Ban constitutional; write-ins not counted. |
| Do ballot-space provisions for write-ins override the ban? | Argue spaces imply write-ins may be counted. | Interpretations harmonize with 8141.5 and 8606 to avoid disenfranchisement. | Statutes interpreted to avoid misleading ballots; no write-in spaces for voter-nominated offices. |
Key Cases Cited
- Libertarian Party v. Eu, 28 Cal.3d 535 (Cal. 1980) (balancing test for ballot labeling; distinguishes qualified vs nonqualified parties)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1997) (ballot integrity; governments may regulate to preserve two-party stability)
- Edelstein v. City & County of San Francisco, 29 Cal.4th 164 (Cal. 2002) (write-in voting restrictions analyzed under California Constitution; rights balancing)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1971) (state interest in ballot integrity; requirements for qualifications of parties)
- Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2001) (elections clause; label restrictions cannot dictate outcomes)
- Schrader v. Blackwell, 241 F.3d 783 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholds nonqualified-party ballot restrictions; rejection of broader right claims)
- Rosen v. Brown, 970 F.2d 169 (6th Cir. 1992) (disfavored for analogies to Independent labeling; weighs ballot cues)
- Bachrach v. Secretary of Commonwealth, 382 Mass. 268 (Mass. 1981) (disallowed independent designation; contrasts with No Party Preference)