CES – Election Law & Litigation

Election Law & Litigation

Proposition 14 (2010), the Top Two Candidate Open Primary Act: served as counsel to the campaign for the measure and, since its adoption by the voters in June 2010, has successfully defended the measure against five separate lawsuits seeking to block implementation of the measure, including:

Rubin v. Padilla, 233 Cal. App. 4th 1128 (1st Dist. 2015), rev. denied, 2015 Cal. LEXIS 2395 (Cal., Apr. 29, 2015), cert. denied, 577 U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 320, 193 L. Ed. 2d 229 (Oct. 13, 2015) (rejecting First Amendment and Equal Protection challenges by “minor” political parties based on alleged difficulty in reaching the general election ballot);

Chamness v. Bowen, 722 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2013) (rejecting constitutional challenge based on rules governing write-in voting and ability to identify with non-qualified political parties);

Field v. Bowen, 196 Cal. App. 4th 346 (1st Dist. 2011) (same);

Brown v. Bowen, No. 2:12-cv-05547-PA-SP (C.D. Cal. 2012) (rejecting challenge based on Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act); and

Milonopoulos v. Bowen, No. 2:14-cv-05973-DOC-VBK (C.D. Cal. 2014) (rejecting challenge based on unsuccessful primary candidate’s inability to appear as a write-in candidate on the general election ballot).

Citizens to Save Cal. v. Fair Pol. Pract. Comm’n, 145 Cal. App. 4th 736 (3d Dist. 2006): represented a ballot measure committee in a case that unanimously enjoined an FPPC Regulation seeking to apply campaign contribution limits to such committees in violation of the language of the Political Reform Act and the First Amendment.

Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes v. City of Richmond, Case No. 3:12-cv-04545-CRB (N.D. Cal. 2012): successfully represented a ballot measure opposition committee in obtaining a preliminary injunction against enforcement of burdensome disclaimer requirements on campaign mailings; the City’s ordinance was then amended to remove the offending provisions.