233 Cal. App. 4th 1128
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiffs: three California "minor" parties (Green Party of Alameda County, Libertarian Party of California, Peace & Freedom Party) plus party members and prospective candidates challenged California’s "top-two" (Proposition 14) system for statewide and legislative offices.
- Top-two system: open nonpartisan primary (June) listing all candidates; the top two vote-getters (regardless of party) advance to November general election; minimal filing/signature requirements for primary.
- Plaintiffs alleged that minor-party candidates, though sometimes showing measurable primary support, are ordinarily eliminated in the primary and thus denied meaningful access to the general election (when voter participation and attention are greatest).
- Claims: (1) constitutional right to appear on the general election ballot upon showing a "modicum" of support; (2) associational and expressive rights burdened by relegation to the lower-turnout primary; (3) equal protection violation because the reform withdrew an established privilege of general-election placement from minor parties; and (4) trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer without allowing factual development.
- Trial court sustained demurrer without leave to amend; Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the top-two system provides full, equal opportunity in the primary and does not unconstitutionally burden plaintiffs’ rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether minor parties have a constitutional right to appear on the general-election ballot upon showing a "modicum" of support | Top-two denies a historic right to general-election placement when modest public support exists | No such right attaches to the November general under top-two because the primary is the meaningful access point | No constitutional right to general-election placement; access to primary satisfies ballot-access precedents |
| Whether relegation to the primary (lower turnout, months earlier) severely burdens associational/expression rights | Exclusion from November prevents reaching larger audience, limiting parties’ expressive opportunities | Parties retain equal primary access and many expressive avenues in November even without a candidate on the ballot; burden is modest | Burden is at most modest; state interests (including expanding participation to independents) justify it |
| Equal protection: whether withdrawing guaranteed party placement on the general election ballot unlawfully discriminates | Removing a previously-available protection (general-election nominees for each qualified party) discriminates against minor parties | Proposition 14 treats all parties identically; any disparate impact stems from parties’ weaker electoral support, not invidious classification | No equal protection violation — law is neutral and rationally related to legitimate state interests |
| Procedural: whether demurrer was improperly sustained without permitting factual record development | Plaintiffs needed opportunity to develop historical/statistical/ expert evidence before dismissal | Complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to state an as-applied claim; plaintiffs offered no viable additional facts they could have pled | Demurrer properly sustained without leave to amend; plaintiffs could not cure pleading defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (recognizes constitutional interests in ballot access and association)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (primary restrictions evaluated by balancing burden and state interests)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (states have broad authority to regulate elections; regulation must be weighed)
- Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (upholding reasonable, nondiscriminatory ballot regulations)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (states may require a preliminary showing of public support for ballot access)
- Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (states may condition general-election access on showing of support in primary)
- California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (invalidating blanket primary; contrasting top-two as a viable alternative)
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (validated nonpartisan top-two system against associational challenge)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (lesser burdens on associational rights upheld where regulation is nondiscriminatory)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (equal protection: forbids singling out a disfavored class for withdrawal of protections)