Michael Chamness v. Abel Maldonado
722 F.3d 1110
9th Cir.2013Background
- California adopted Prop. 14 and implementing SB 6 to create a “top-two” nonpartisan primary: the two highest vote-getters (regardless of party) advance to the general election.
- Under the SB 6 version at issue, candidates on the primary ballot could list a "party preference" (only for a "qualified party"), state "No Party Preference," or (prior to a later amendment) leave the party-preference space blank; Secretary of State Bowen determined a candidate could not list "Independent" if that group was not a qualified party.
- SB 6 permitted write-in votes in the primary but (as interpreted then) barred write-in candidacies and write-in votes from being counted in the top-two general election; the Elections Code was later amended to prohibit casting write-ins in top-two general elections.
- Plaintiffs Chamness, Frederick, and Wilson challenged SB 6; Chamness sought to label himself "Independent" on the primary ballot, Frederick and Wilson challenged the write-in counting rule; Julius Galacki moved to intervene asserting write-in and ballot-label claims.
- The district court granted defendants summary judgment and denied Galacki’s motion to intervene as untimely; on appeal the panel (1) dismissed as moot the write-in/counting claims now foreclosed by statutory amendment, (2) affirmed that the ballot-label restriction did not severely burden Chamness’s First Amendment rights, and (3) affirmed denial of intervention as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 6’s prohibition on listing "Independent" (forcing "No Party Preference" or blank) on the primary ballot violates the First Amendment | Chamness: forbidding "Independent" burdens his political speech/associational rights and affects voters’ perceptions | Bowen/State: restriction is viewpoint-neutral, minimally burdensome, and justified by important state interests (ballot integrity, preventing confusion, manageable ballots) | Held: No severe burden; regulation is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory restriction justified by important regulatory interests (lesser scrutiny applies) |
| Whether the law violated the Election Clause by dictating ballot labels (e.g., coercive or outcome-determinative labeling) | Chamness: ballot-labeling scheme impermissibly dictates electoral outcomes akin to Cook v. Gralike | State: SB 6 does not impose derogatory or outcome-determinative labels; it is neutral and administrative | Held: Claim fails — SB 6 is not analogous to Cook and does not dictate electoral outcomes |
| Whether plaintiffs’ write-in vote/counting claims remain justiciable on appeal | Frederick/Wilson: ballot-counting of write-ins in top-two general elections was illegal/unconstitutional | State: Elections Code was amended to prohibit write-ins in top-two general elections; plaintiffs concede state may prohibit write-ins | Held: Moot — statutory amendment resolves the claimed injury; appeals dismissed as to those plaintiffs |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying Galacki’s motion to intervene as of right | Galacki: had distinct, as-applied write-in and Elections Clause claims arising from the July 12, 2011 general election; needed to join to protect his interests | Defendants/Plaintiffs: intervention was untimely and existing parties adequately represented similar interests | Held: Denial affirmed — timeliness prong failed (Galacki knew of the issue before the filing deadline but waited until after key case developments) |
Key Cases Cited
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (establishes balancing test for election-related First Amendment burdens)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (upholds neutral ballot restrictions that modestly burden speech to protect electoral integrity)
- Rubin v. City of Santa Monica, 308 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2002) (applies balancing test and upholds neutral limits on ballot occupational/status designations)
- Rosen v. Brown, 970 F.2d 169 (6th Cir. 1992) (invalidated prohibition on "Independent" label where evidence showed severe prejudice to candidate)
- Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001) (Election Clause prohibits state-imposed ballot labels that dictate electoral outcomes)