Rubin v. Padilla
|
|
 |
| Select a state from the menu below to learn more about its election administration. |
Rubin v. Padilla was a case decided by the California First District Court of Appeal in 2015. The case was brought by a group of California's minor parties, minor party candidates, and minor party voters, alleging that California's top-two primary system "substantially burdened voter rights of political association, as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments" to the United States Constitution.[1]
Background
- See also: Primary elections in California
A top-two primary is a type of primary election in which all candidates are listed on the same primary ballot. The top two vote-getters, regardless of their partisan affiliations, advance to the general election. Consequently, it is possible for two candidates belonging to the same political party to win in a top-two primary and face off in the general election.[2][3]
On June 8, 2010, voters in California approved Proposition 14, establishing a top-two primary system for California's elective offices. The top-two primary system was first utilized in California in 2011.[4]
Case history
On November 21, 2011, a group of California's minor parties, minor party candidates, and minor party voters filed suit in the Alameda County Superior Court, alleging that California's top-two primary system violated their associational rights as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The trial court ruled against the plaintiffs, and they appealed the decision to the California First District Court of Appeal. On January 29, 2015, the appellate court ruled against the plaintiffs, affirming the decision of the trial court. The court wrote the following in its ruling:[5]
| “ | We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the action. Given the structure of California's "top-two" electoral system, minor party candidates have no right to appear on the general election ballot merely because they have made a showing of significant public support. The role played by the general election under the former partisan system is fulfilled by the primary election in the top-two system, and there is no material barrier to minor party participation in the primary election. Further, the failure of minor party candidates to appear on the general election ballot does not substantially burden their members' rights of political association and expression, and California's interest in expanding participation in the electoral process is adequate to justify any burden that may occur. Lastly, because California's electoral system treats all political parties identically, plaintiffs' claim that they are denied equal protection of the laws is groundless.[6] | ” |
The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the California Supreme Court, which declined to take up the case. On July 23, 2015, the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, Daniel Mark Siegel, the counsel of record for the plaintiffs, described the plaintiffs' argument:[1]
| “ | California's top-two primary system denies general election ballot access to candidates who receive well more than what the Court defines as a 'modicum' of support. In the June 2012 primary,
nine candidates from the Green, Peace and Freedom, and Libertarian parties received five percent or more of the vote. Many other minor party candidates received over two percent of the vote, and a candidate from the Green Party received 18.6 percent of the vote for a seat in the United States Congress. But none of those candidates was permitted to advance to the general election ballot.[6] |
” |
On October 13, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to take up the case, letting the decision of the state appellate court stand.[1]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Supreme Court of the United States, "Rubin v. Padilla: Petition for a Write of Certiorari," July 27, 2015
- ↑ Taegan Goddard's Political Dictionary, "Jungle primary," accessed January 13, 2016
- ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "State Primary Election Types," accessed September 11, 2017
- ↑ Redondo Beach Patch, "Feb. 15 Set for Special Election to Fill Oropeza's Seat," December 17, 2010
- ↑ California First District Court of Appeal, "Rubin v. Padilla: Opinion," January 29, 2015
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
