Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

California’s presidential primary challenged in court as unfair to independents

Alex Padilla

A lawsuit alleges California Secretary of State Alex Padilla is ignoring a state constitutional requirement that presidential primaries be open to all voters regardless of party.

Amanda Edwards/Getty Images

California's presidential primary system violates the constitutional rights of those who don't belong to either major party, an advocacy group for independent voters alleges in a lawsuit filed Tuesday.

The Independent Voter Project — which steered the nation's most populous state to adopt a nonpartisan "top two" primary system for state and congressional elections a decade ago — is now hoping the California courts will to strike down rules permitting the Democratic and Republican parties to control next year's presidential nomination contests.

Federal courts have said the parties have broad latitude to set the rules for their own contests. But the lawsuit filed in San Bernardino Superior Court alleges that California's top election official, Secretary of State Alex Padilla, is ignoring a state constitutional requirement that presidential primaries be truly "open" to voters regardless of party.


He has done so, the suit maintains, by permitting the two parties to set rules for their primaries that require partisan independents to jump through special administrative hoops. Democrats, for example, have allowed independents to vote in person on primary day but have decreed that those wishing to vote by mail must request ballots well in advance. California's Republicans have gone further and generally require voters to register as party members before voting in the GOP contest.

It is unclear how far the litigation will proceed before March 3, Super Tuesday, when Californians will vote to allocate more delegates for next summer's Democratic convention in Milwaukee than any other primary. A candidate who does particularly well in the state could receive a significant catapult toward the nomination.

Kamala Harris, a senator from California since 2017 and before that its attorney general, has been leading in statewide presidential polling and is currently in the top four in almost all national surveys.

Independents and absentee voters, who are disproportionately young and people of color, have been making up an ever larger share of the California electorate, according to Chad Peace, the Independent Voter Project's legal counsel. Peace says his group has calculated the current Democratic system could effectively disenfranchise as many as 1 million of the state's estimated 5 million independent voters.

The lawsuit also alleges that, under the state constitution, its government is illegally spending taxpayer dollars on the primaries because they "benefit wholly private political parties."


Read More

Members of a women's softball team cheerfully join hands during practice on a sunny day, showcasing team spirit, cooperation, and enthusiasm for the sport.

Do trans women have a strength advantage? A look at studies on hormone therapy, muscle mass, and why it should determine eligibility in women's sports.

luza studios/Getty Images

Trans Females Are Not Biological Males - Let Them Play on Female Teams

Most Americans, Democrats as well as Republicans—many following the lead of President Trump—feel that it is not right for trans females to participate in women's sports. But the trans community, supported by those on the left wing of the Democratic Party, insists that this is part of ensuring the rights of trans people. The issue has been divisive among Democrats.

This is a complex issue. On the one hand, boys are boys, and girls are girls. That's the basic fact behind male and female sports, other than some intramural school sports that have boys and girls on the same team. Because boys are biologically stronger and faster than girls, separate leagues have been developed for both. This has nothing to do with gender identity; it is just a reflection of biological fact.

Keep ReadingShow less
An aerial view of a Flock camera

An aerial view of a Flock camera in Burbank, California. U.S. President Donald Trump expressed support for Flock cameras, saying he likes the AI-powered surveillance technology because of its use by law enforcement, despite concerns that it infringes on privacy.

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Flock Cameras Are Coming Down – but We Need More To Dismantle the Surveillance State

Chances are, you’ve seen one in your neighborhood. Flock cameras have become a major flashpoint for voters in the leadup to the midterms. The concept sounds straight out of 1984 — a network of government-owned cameras that track your movements — it’s no wonder that Americans across party lines are demanding their states and towns sever ties with the controversial company. Surveillance fears are only getting stronger as we enter the AI era.

But the problem isn’t just Flock. These cameras, Automated License Plate Readers or ALPRs to be exact, are a symptom of a larger “surveil first, ask questions later” attitude that has been adopted by local and federal government for decades. In recent years, the federal government has been dramatically expanding the nation’s surveillance infrastructure. This has taken many forms, from facial recognition technology at the airport, to law enforcement monitoring your mail, to the government watching what you’re posting on your personal social media pages. Since April, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress have united to stop what would effectively be a blank check for surveillance via FISA reauthorization, demanding surveillance reforms such as closing the “data broker loophole”, which allows the government to buy Americans’ personal data without a warrant.

Keep ReadingShow less