Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Prop. 14 Complaint

Prop. 14 Complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 40,452 |Likes:
Published by tvanoot

More info:

Published by: tvanoot on Nov 22, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/15/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8910
11
12
13
14
]5
16
]7
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DANSIEGEL,S'BN56400MICHAELSIEGEL,SBN269439SIEGEL&YEE49914thStreet,Suite220Oakland,California94612Telephone:(510)839-1200Telefax:(510)444-6698
END01:;;.
SED
NOV21·
2011
AttorneysforPlaintiffsMICHAELRUBIN,MANJAARGUE,STEVECOLLETT,MARSHAFEINLAND,CHARLES
L.
HOOPER,KATHERINETANAKA,C.T.WEBER,CATWOODS,GREENPARTYOFALAMEDACOUNTY,LIBERTARIANPARTYOFCALIFORNIA,andPEACE
AND
FREEDOMPARTYOFCALIFORNIASUPERIORCOURTFORTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIACOUNTYOFALAMEDAMICHAELRUBIN,MANJAARGUE,STEVECOLLETT,MARSHAFEINLAND,CHARLES
L.
HOOPER,KATHERINETANAKA,C.T.WEBER,CATWOODS,GREENPARTYOFALAMEDACOUNTY,LIBERTARIANPARTYOFCALIFORNIA,andPEACEANDFREEDOMPARTYOFCALIFORNIA,.Plaintiffs,v.
DEBRA
BOWEN,inherofficialcapacityasSecretaryofStateofCalifornia,Defendant.
VERIFIEDCOMPLAINTFORDECLARATORY,INJUNCTIVE,ANDOTHERRELIEF
PlaintiffsMICHAELRUBIN,MANJAARGUE,STEVECOLLETT,MARSHAFEINLAND,CHARLES
L.
HOOPER,KATHERINETANAKA,C.
T.
WEBER,CATWOODS,GREEN
PARTY
OFALAMEDACOUNTY,LIBERTARIANPARTYOF
Rubinv.Bowen,
No.VerifiedComplaintforDeclaratory,Injunctive,andOtherRelief
1
 
1
2
3
4
5
67
8
9
10
11
12
13141516
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CALfFORNIA,andPEACEANDFREEDOMPARTYOFCALIFORNIAcomplainofdefendantDEBRABOWEN,SECRETARYOFSTATEOFCALIFORNIA,andallege:
PRELIMINARYSTATEMENT
1.
TheSupremeCourthasdeclared,"Therighttovotefreelyforthecandidateofone'schoiceisoftheessenceofademocraticsociety,andanyrestrictionsonthatrightstrikeattheheartofrepresentativegovernment."
Reynoldsv.Sims
(1964)377U.S.533,555·Unfortunately,inJune2010CaliforniavotersapprovedProposition14,anelectoralschemewhichpreventsgeneralelectionvotersfromselectingtheircandidateofchoice.UnderProposition14,votersinageneralelectionmayselectfromonlytwocandidatesformostpoliticaloffices.BecauseProp.14effectivelydeniesvoterstheirfundamentalrightofchoicebyprecludingsmallpartycandidatesfromthegeneralelectionballot,theActviolatestherightsofvotersundertheFirstandFourteenthAmendmentsoftheU.S.Constitutionandshouldbeoverturned..2.Toprotectvoters'fundamentalrightofchoice,electionofficialsarerequiredtograntaccesstothegeneralelectionballottosmallpoliticalparties.
SeeMunro
v.
SocialistWorkersParty
(1986)479U.S.189,193.Althoughstatesmayconditionasmallparty'saccesstothegeneralelectionballotuponashowingofa"modicumofsupport,"thethresholdmaynotexceedfivepercentoftheelectorate.
Jennessv.Fortson
(1971)403U.S.431(upholdingafivepercentrequirement);
Lee
v.
Keith
(7thCir.2006)463F.3d761(rejectingatenpercentthreshold);
SocialistLaborParty
v.
Rhodes
(S.D.Ohio1970)318F.Supp.1262(rejectingasevenpercentthreshold).Under
Rubin
v.
Bowen,
No.VerifiedComplaintforDeclaratory,Injunctive,andOtherRelief
2
 
34
5
6
78
9
10
11
12
1314
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
3
Prop.14,however,defendantBowencandenyba1lotaccesstocandidateswho-receiveas
2
muchas
33
percentofthevotescast.'3.Bylimitingaccesstothegeneralelectionballot,Prop.14effectivelybarssmallpoliticalparties,theircandidates,andtheirmembersfromeffectivepoliticalassociation,preciselyatthemomentwhenthehighestnumberofvotersareengagedintheelectoralprocess.Thus,likeotherunconstitutionalelectoralschema,Prop.14"deniesthedisaffectednotonlyachoiceofleadershipbutachoiceontheissuesaswell."
SeeAndersonv.Celebrezze
(1983)460
U.S
780,792;
Williamsv.Rhodes(1968)
393
U.S.
23,33.
BecauseProp.
14
severelyburdensvoter,candidate,andpartyassociationalrights,andbecauseProp.
14
failstofulfillanycompellingorevensignificantstateinterest,Prop.14violatesvoters'rightsundertheFirstandFourteenthAmendmentsoftheU.S.ConstitutionandArticleI,
§§
2
and3oftheCaliforniaConstitution.4.TheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStateshasconsistentlyupheldtheprinciplethat,"Statesmaynotuseelectionregulationstoundercutpoliticalparties'freedomsofspeechorassociation."
U.S.TermLimits,Inc.v.Thornton
(1995)514
U.S.
779,833-834.
Buttoday,asaresultofthepassageofProp.
14,
defendantBowenpermitscandidatesforvariousstateandfederalofficestoself-designatea"preferred"politicalpartyontheelectoralballot,withoutsuchparty'sapproval.Cal.Const.
Art.
II.
§§
5,6.
Thus,individualcandidatesareallowedto"appropriatetheparties'trademarks...at
1
Thiscalculationisbaseduponahypotheticalscenario,inwhichthreecandidatesrunforaparticularoffice.UnderProp.14,ifCandidateAreceives33.5percentofthevotes.castinaprimaryelection,andCandidateBreceives33.5percentofthevotescast,CandidateCcouldreceive
33
percentofthevotescastandstillnotadvancetothegeneralelection.
Rubinv.Bowen,
No.
VerifiedComplaintforDeclaratory,Injunctive,andOtherRelief

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Nancy Hanks liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->