Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/419488972/Independent-Voter-Project-Files-Lawsuit-Against-CA-Secretary-of-State
Timestamp: 2019-08-21 19:38:15
Document Index: 342063903

Matched Legal Cases: ['arty\n15', 'arty\n17', 'arty\n1', 'art 2', 'arty\n26', 'arty\n1', 'arty\n20']

Independent Voter Project Files Lawsuit Against CA Secretary of State | Primary Election | Voting
The Independent Voter Project (IVP), author of California’s nonpartisan statewide primary system, is one of 7 plaintiffs suing the California Secretary of State, claiming that the State is violating the state’s constitution by failing to conduct an open primary for Presidential elections. The complaint alleges 6 distinct violations of state and federal voting rights laws.
saveSave Independent Voter Project Files Lawsuit Against CA... For Later
standard sufficeint test.docx
PEACE SHEA LLP
1 S Chad Peace State Bar No 290274
2700 Adams Avenue Suite 204
2 San Diego CA 92116
Tel 619 255 4461
3 Fax 619 255 4462
4 BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION file 1351 03
Cory J Briggs State Bar no 176284
Anthony N Kim State Bar no 283353
99 East C Street Suite 111
6 Upland CA 91786
Tel 909 949 7115
Fax 909 949 7121
g Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Petitioners J M BoY sTotv
STEVEN FRAKER DANIEL HOWLE JOSEPHINE PIARULLI
9 JEFF MARSTON AND INDEPENDENT VOTER PROJECT
10 Additional counsel on signature page
14 JIM BOYDSTON STEVEN FRAKER Case No D Z 1 8 O
DANIEL HOWLE JOSEPHINE PIARULLI
15 JEFF MARSTON LINDSAY VUREK AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
DEPENDENT VOTER PROJECT a non INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
16 profit corporation VIOLATIONS PETITION FOR WRIT OF
17 Plaintiffs and Petitioners y 1
1g v 1 California Constitution Art II 5 c
2 California Constitution Art I 7 Due
19 ALEX PADILLA in his official as Process
California Secretary of State STATE OF 3 California Constitution Art I 7 Equal
20 CALIFORNIA and DOES 1 through 1 000 Protection
4 California Constitution Art XVI 3
21 5 42 U S C 1983 Due Process
Defendants and Respondents 6 42 U S C 1983 Non Association
25 Plaintiffs and Petitioners Jim Boydston Steven Fraker Daniel Howle Josephine Piarulli Jeff
26 Marston Lindsay Vurek and Independent Voter Project a non profit corporation allege as follows
2 1 The Constitution of the State of California unambiguously requires that the Legislature
3 provide for an open presidential primary whereby California s registered voters are not required to
4 declare a party affiliation as a condition of voting for a presidential candidate in a primary election
5 2 Instead Defendants have provided for a closed or modified closed presidential
6 primary whereby private political parties decide based on party affiliation which voters can and
7 cannot vote for a presidential candidate in a primary election
8 3 The consequences of Defendants transferring control of the publicly funded and
9 administered presidential primary from the voters to the private decision making authority of political
10 parties has resulted in widespread voter confusion and the disenfranchisement ofmillions of California
12 4 In 2020 due in part to the rapid increase in voters registering no party preference if
13 this Court does not intervene there will be a level of de facto voter suppression that will render the
14 most important underpinning of the California Constitution that all political power is inherent in the
15 people meaningless
16 5 The public election process is the principal method through which citizens peacefully
17 express their power And the need to protect our representative democracy from the power of more
18 selfish interests has long been known As our first president George Washington said in his farewell
19 address the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the
20 interest to discourage and restrain it Yet in 2016 the California Secretary
duty of a wise people
21 of State made it his duty to use his office and the State of California to magnify the mischiefs of the
22 increasingly partisan spirit of government by ignoring the California Constitution and denying the
23 wise people of this state oftheir nonpartisan right to vote
24 6 To discourage and restrain the common and continual mischiefs of party spirit it is
25 paramount that the voters of California regardless of political party preference are able to express
26 their values aspirations and interests at every stage of the public election process Otherwise we lose
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CNIL RIGHTS
1 the democratic foundation of our republic and replace the public interest in our election process with
2 the private interests of widely unpopular and nationally controlled political parties
3 7 While California law recognizes that general elections are held on the Tuesday next
4 after the first Monday in the month ofNovember this Election Day is only the end of a long process
5 by which we select our representatives The election cycle begins months or even years before the
6 election through public discourse political campaigns and the primary elections It should be
7 unsurprising therefore that our state and federal constitutions protect individuals throughout the
8 various stages of our election process as vigorously as they protect citizens on election day
9 8 In California the presidential primary is an important stage of the public election
10 process It is the method through which voters the true sovereign power within the state decide which
11 presidential candidates will appear on November s ballot It also affects the discourse the candidates
12 the issues and the voter turnout for state and local races up and down the ballot That is why the
13 California Constitution is clear The State shall provide the people with an open presidential
15 9 California voters adopted an open presidential primary by way of initiative in 1972
16 to free the voters of California to choose their own candidates for President ofthe United States and
17 take the decision out of the smoke filled rooms Section 5 c of Article 2 of the California
18 Constitution states that t he Legislature shall provide for an open presidential primary Yet
19 more than 40 years later the voters of California are not free to vote for the presidential candidate
20 of their choice Instead private and nationally controlled political parties in the smoke filled rooms
21 decide which voters can and cannot vote Further non partisan candidates are excluded from the
22 presidential primary election altogether
23 10 In an open presidential primary all qualified voters regardless of party preference
24 have the right to participate by casting a vote for the candidate of their choice An open presidential
25 primary can be conducted in many ways subject to certain constitutional limitations An open primary
26 however is distinguishable from any form of a closed primary by a simple and defining
27 characteristic In an open primary the state guarantees every qualified voter regardless of his or her
1 party preference the right to participate In a closed primary private political parties determine
2 whether a voter can or cannot participate based on the voter s party preference or non preference
3 11 On its surface the requirements for an open primary appear to come into conflict
4 with the constitutional right ofprivate political parties and their members to select their own nominees
5 However open primaries do not inherently create this conflict Rather an open primary election only
6 conflicts with a party s private rights when the state creates the conflict in the first place
7 12 In 2016 in conflict with the clear language of the California Constitution the Secretary
8 of State administered a semi closed presidential primary Most simply a semi closed primary is not
9 an open primary This abrogation of the Secretary s responsibility to the public resulted in widespread
10 voter confusion substantially greater administrative costs and millions of disenfranchised voters
11 including the nearly half million California voters who were mistakenly registered as preferring the
12 American Independent ballot as
Party and were often not provided with a no party preference
13 described below
14 13 Another 4 7 million no party preference NPP voters nearly 25 of the electorate
15 had their right to vote subjected completely to the whims of private political party decision making
16 In 2016 three major political parties including the American Independent Libertarian and
17 Democratic Parties chose to allow NPP voters to participate in their primary election Three major
18 political parties including the Green Peace Freedom and Republican Parties chose to allow
19 only their own members to participate In 2020 the voters of California will not even know what
20 parties allow or disallow NPP voters to vote far a presidential candidate in the primary election until
21 October 20 2019 all because Defendants have given private political parties the power to make and
22 change that determination up until that date
23 14 Importantly the results of California s presidential primary have no legally binding
24 authority over the ultimate determination of a political party s presidential nominee In fact the
25 Libertarian Party in 2016 chose its presidential nominee before California had even conducted its
26 primary election In contrast the publicly funded and administered presidential primary is the sole and
27 exclusive opporiunity for the public to express its will to influence the public debate and to inform
1 the political parties of popular sentiments In other words the presidential primary is the only
2 component of a long and complicated presidential nomination process that is regulated by Defendants
3 Every other decision including the ultimate selection of candidates is governed by the private
4 rulemaking processes of nationally controlled political parties
5 15 In transferring power from the voters to the political parties Defendants have infringed
6 and continue to infringe on important rights protected by state and federal law Indeed one of the
7 Defendants has referred to the right to vote as T he fundamental right in our democracy the one
8 that makes all others possible Therefore by Defendants own admission even the slightest
9 infringement on the right to vote should be considered with the strictest of scrutiny
10 16 As the United States Supreme Court recognized in Gray v Sanders when it first
1 1 articulated the one person one vote standard most regularly cited from its decision in Reynolds v
12 Sims the right to vote applies to all integral stages of the public election process including the primary
13 election In this case Defendants are not only infringing on state and federal constitutional protections
14 concerning the right to vote but they are taking the right to vote out of the hands of the voters
15 delivering it to private organizations and then asking the voters to have faith not in California s
16 election process but in the private rulemaking and enforcement of privately and nationally controlled
18 17 California s semi closed primary also infringes on the right of non association
19 protected by the United States Constitution under the First Amendment As recognized by the United
20 States Supreme Court in California Democratic Parry v Jones the right to not associate is a necessary
21 corollary of the right to associate
Yet California s semi closed primary conditions a voter s
22 participation on affiliating himself or herself with ideologically driven private organizations with
23 whom he or she may have profound disagreement distaste andlor distrust A voter should not be
24 deprived of the right to vote as a consequence of exercising the right not to affiliate with a political
25 party any more than a citizen should be denied the right to practice religion outside of a state
26 sanctioned church
1 18 Finally California prohibits the private use of public funds To add insult to the non
2 partisan voters injury the semi closed presidential primary is financed by taxpayers and administered
3 by public officials Thus non partisan voters have to bear the tax burden for an election that serves
4 private political parties not the public While taxpayers often have to pay for programs that they may
5 not support taxation should never be levied in a manner that creates inequitable representation In this
6 case it should go without argument that a semi closed primary gives private political parties and their
7 loyal members a decided advantage in the public election process
8 19 No taxation without representation was the battle cry for freedom that fueled the
9 American Two hundred and later we the people must remain vigilant against
revolution fifty years
10 private interests that usurp the public treasury for their own gain And when our legislators are so
11 overwhelmingly and unabashedly affiliated with those private interests that they play politics with the
12 clear mandates sets forth in our state constitution this Court must intervene
13 20 Most importantly California and the Judiciary have recognized that the fundamental
14 right to vote derives from citizenship alone There are many ways to conduct an open presidential
15 primary that serves every California citizen without compromising the private rights of political
16 parties and their members For six years Plaintiff and Petitioner Independent Voter Project has
17 presented Defendants with multiple options far respecting the rights of political parties while also
18 protecting every individual s right to vote in the presidential primary
19 21 Defendants refuse to protect the right to vote
20 22 Without this Court s intervention political parties and their members will continue to
21 implement the public s presidential primary out of conformance with the California Constitution and
22 in a way that offends fundamental notions of individual liberty equality and self government that as
23 Defendants themselves recognize can only be secured by protecting the fundamental right to vote
24 23 Plaintiffs therefore seek an order declaring California s semi closed presidential
25 primary unconstitutional on its face and as applied under the state and federal constitutions
26 Furthermore Plaintiffs seek an order preventing Defendants from using taxpayer funds to administer
27 an illegal presidential primary election and mandating that they take all actions necessary to
1 implement a presidential primary election that conforms with the state and federal constitutions this
2 order would apply to the March 2020 presidential primary
5 24 The Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
6 Sections 526a 1060 et seq and 1084 et seq the United States and California Constitutions and other
7 provisions oflaw
8 25 Venue is proper in this Court because Defendants violations have taken place and in
9 the absence of appropriate relief from his Court will continue to take place in San Bernardino County
10 Indeed the violations occur throughout California
13 26 Plaintiff and Petitioner Steven Fraker is a registered voter in San Bernardino County
14 Plaintiffs and Petitioners Jim Boydston Jeff Marston Daniel Howle Josephine Piarulli and Lindsay
15 Vurek are registered voters elsewhere in California These Petitioners Plaintiffs pay at least one form
16 of tax to the state
17 27 Plaintiff and Petitioner Independent Voter Project IVP is a non profit non partisan
18 501 c 4 corporation dedicated to better informing voters about important public policy issues and to
19 encouraging non partisan voters to participate in the electoral process At least one of IVP s members
20 pays some form of tax to the state
21 28 Defendant and Respondent Alex Padilla is the duly elected California Secretary of State
22 and is being sued in his official capacity As the California Secretary of State he is California s chief
23 election officer and is responsible for ensuring the state s elections conform to the California
24 Constitution See 52 U S C 20509 At all times relevant to this lawsuit he acted under color of
IV SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
2 29 Plaintiffs and Petitioners Daniel Howle Jim Boydston and Steven Fraker are registered
3 as NPP preference and have otherwise been qualified voters in California for more than four years
4 preceding this lawsuit Each of them was California qualified to vote in the 2016 presidential primary
5 30 Plaintiff and Petitioner Daniel Howle would like the opportunity to vote for a
6 presidential candidate of his choice in 2020 including NPP candidates without being forced to
7 associate with a political party or disclosing his ballot choice to anyone
8 31 Plaintiff and Petitioner Jim Boydston would like to vote for a presidential candidate
9 running for the Democratic Party nomination in 2020 without being forced to associate with the
10 Democratic Party or disclosing his ballot choice to anyone
11 32 Plaintiff and Petitioner Steven Fraker would like the opportunity to vote for a
12 presidential candidate of his choice in 2020 including NPP candidates without being forced to
13 associate with a political party or disclosing his ballot choice to anyone
14 33 Plaintiff and Petitioner Jeff Marston is registered as preferring the Republican Party
15 and is otherwise qualified to vote in California He would like the opportunity to vote in the primary
16 election for a presidential candidate other than a Republican without being forced to change his party
17 preference
18 34 Plaintiff and Petitioner Josephine Piarulli is registered as preferring the Democratic
19 Party and is otherwise qualified to vote in California However she would prefer to be registered as
20 NPP but has remained affiliated with the Democratic Party to ensure that she has the fizll opporiunity
21 to vote for a presidential candidate in 2020
22 35 Plaintiff and Petitioner Lindsay Vurek is registered as preferring the Green Party and
23 is otherwise qualified to vote in California He would like to vote for a presidential candidate running
24 for the Democratic Party nomination in 2020 without being forced to associate with the Democratic
26 36 Each of the individual Plaintiffs Petitioners was unable to vote for the candidate of his
27 or her choice in the 2016 presidential primary election unencumbered by a condition of party
1 preference and without this Court s intervention none of them will be able to cast an unencumbered
2 vote for the candidate of his or her choice in March 2020
3 37 In California a qualified registered voter must meet these requirements 1 be a U S
4 citizen living in California 2 be registered where the voter currently lives 3 be at least 18 years old
5 and 4 not be in prison or on parole for a felony There is no requirement that a registered voter identify
6 a political party preference in order to exercise the right to vote Instead registered voters who do not
7 wish to identify a political party preference may register as NPP voters
8 38 Under the California Constitution the Legislature shall provide for an open
9 presidential primary Cal Const art 2 5 c
10 39 However in 2016 California conducted a modified closed primary Cal Elec Code
11 21 s 1 131 o2 b
12 40 In California to qualify for a state funded presidential primary election a political
13 party must either a have voter registration equal to one percent 1 of the votes cast in the
14 preceding gubernatorial election b file a petition with signatures of registered voters equal to ten
15 percent 10 of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election or c at the gubernatorial
16 election it must garner votes equal to at least two percent 2 of total votes cast Cal Elec Code
18 41 In California the Secretary of State is responsible for determining which candidates
19 6041 6340 6520 6720
will appear on each party s presidential primary ballot Cal Elec Code
20 6851 Candidates not selected by the Secretary of State for inclusion may petition for placement on
21 the ballot Cal Elec Code 6061 6343 6523 6725 6853 5
22 42 However a presidential candidate who is not a member of a qualified party cannot
23 participate in the primary election In order to become a qualified party the party must demonstrate
24 sufficient support of voters to the Secretary of State through prior election votes or party registration
25 Cal Elec Code 5100
26 43 In 2016 by default NPP voters received a nonpartisan ballot which did not include an
27 option to vote for any candidates for President of the United States Cal Elec Code 2151 b 1
1 44 In 2016 voters registered with a party preference could vote only in the primary of the
2 political party for which they were registered Cal Elec Code 2151 c
3 45 NPP voters are allowed to participate in presidential primaries only if authorized by a
4 private political party Cal Elea Code 2151 c In 2016 only the Democratic American
5 Independent and Libertarian parties allowed unaffiliated voters to participate Padilla Re
6 Presidential No Preference Voters
7 ccrov pdf 2016 16036em Jan 25 2016 These parties
http elections cdn sos ca ov a nuarv pdf
8 however may change their rules to preclude unaffiliated voters from participating by changing their
9 private party rules Cal Elec Code 2151 b 1
10 46 In 2016 three major political parties including the American Independent Libertarian
11 and Democratic Parties chose to allow NPP voters to participate in their primary election See Padilla
12 45 NPP voters could choose to vote in one of these three primaries Three major political parties
13 including the Green Peace Freedom and Republican Party chose to allow only their own members
14 to participate Id NPP voters if they wanted to vote for a candidate from one of these three parties
15 could not Cal Elec Code 2151 b 1
16 47 To vote in the American Independent Libertarian or Democratic Parties presidential
17 primary an NPP voter had to ask their county elections office or poll worker at their polling place for
18 a crossover ballot far just one of the above three parties Secretary of State No Party Preference
Information http www sos ca gov elections political parties no party preference as of
20 2017 Alternatively if voting by mail NPP voters could request one of the three party ballots only
21 by submitting an application that indicates their choice by May 31 2016 Id
22 48 To vote in the Green Peace Freedom or Republican Parties presidential primary
23 an NPP voter had to register to vote with the respective party by indicating a preference for that
24 political party by May 23 2016 Id Cal Elec Code 2152
25 49 The ultimate selection of each party s nominee is conducted according to private party
26 rules not the presidential primary Cal Elec Code 6002 b 6300 b 6461 c 6002 b 6461 a
27 Dem Nat 1 Comm Charter Art IX 10 Cal Rep Party Bylaws Art VI 6 01 A Accordingly the
1 California presidential primary is in effect a state sponsored straw poll for the exclusive and private
2 benefit of the political parties
3 50 California s elections are paid from the county treasuries Cal Elec Code
4 13001 A 2012 study by the National Association of Secretaries of State estimated that the cost of
5 a statewide presidential primary in California is approximately 96 million Open Primaries
6 Taxpayer Cost of Closed Primaries Map of Primary Costs by State
7 http www openprimaries org taxpayer costs of closed rimaries Oct 15 2017
8 51 According to the California Secretary of State s Office in the state s 2016 presidential
9 election 44 8 of California voters were registered Democrat 27 3 of registered voters
10 were Republican 46 of registered voters were affiliated with a third party and 23 3 of voters
1 1 registered as NPP voters
12 52 As chief election officer Defendant and Respondent Padilla under Elections Code
13 10 has the powers and duties specified in Section 12172 5 of the Government Code which include
14 the power to adopt regulations to assure the uniform app ication and administration of state election
16 Violation of California Constitution Art II 5 c
Failure to Conduct an Open Presidential Primary
53 This pleading s preceding allegations are incorporated into this paragraph
54 The California Constitution Art II 5 c requires that t he Legislature shall provide
for an open presidential primary
55 In an open presidential primary election any registered voter regardless of party
preference has the right to vote for a presidential candidate
56 Under Elections Code 13102 b however the Legislature has provided for closed
and or modified closed presidential primaries
57 On its face and as applied no form of closed presidential primary election is an open
58 Each of the individual Plaintiffs Petitioners was unable to vote for the candidate of his
or her choice in the 2016 presidential primary election unencumbered by a condition of party
1 preference and without court intervention they will not be able to cast an unencumbered vote for the
2 candidate of their choice in 2020
3 59 Defendants Respondents have administered and are likely to continue to administer a
4 form of closed presidential primary election in violation of Art II 5 c of the California
6 60 The individual Plaintiffs Petitioners and at least one of IVP s members have been
7 harmed and in the absence of relief from this Court will continue to be harmed by the illegal acts and
8 omissions of Defendants Respondents as alleged in this cause of action The individuals on whose
9 behalf Plaintiff and Petitioner IVP advocates have been and in the absence of relief from this Court
10 will continue to be equally harmed
11 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Constitution Art I 7
12 Denial of the Substantive Right of Due Process
13 61 This pleading s preceding allegations are incorporated into this paragraph
14 62 The California Constitution Art I 7 provides that a person may not be deprived
15 of life liberty or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
16 63 Defendants Respondents have administered and are likely to continue to administer a
17 form of closed presidential primary election in violation of the substantive due process rights of the
18 individual Plaintiffs Petitioners and in violation of the substantive due process rights of the individuals
19 on whose behalf Plaintiff and Petitioner IVP advocates
20 64 The individual Plaintiffs Petitioners and at least one of IVP s members have been
21 harmed and in the absence of relief from this Court will continue to be harmed by the illegal acts and
22 omissions of Defendants Respondents as alleged in this cause of action
23 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
24 Denial of Right of Equal Protection under Law
25 65 This pleading s preceding allegations are incorporated into this paragraph
26 66 California Elections Code 13102 b denies voters equal protection of the laws
27 guaranteed by the California Constitution by giving partisan voters an opportunity to nominate a
1 candidate for President of the United States without affording non partisan voters the right to do the
3 67 Defendants Respondents acting under color of state law have subjected have caused
4 to be subjected and are likely to continue subjecting Plaintiffs Petitioners and all unaffiliated voters
5 in California to the deprivation of rights privileges and or immunities secured by the California
6 Constitution s equal protection clause
7 68 The individual Plaintiffs Petitioners and at least one of IVP s members have been
8 harmed and in the absence of relief from this Court will continue to be harmed by the illegal acts and
9 omissions of Defendants Respondents as alleged in this cause of action
Violation of California Constitution Art XVI 3
Unconstitutionally Appropriating Public Funds for Private Purpose
12 69 This pleading s preceding allegations are incorporated into this paragraph
13 70 Subject to exceptions not applicable here the California Constitution Art XVI 3
14 provides that n o money shall ever be appropriated or drawn from the State Treasury for the purpose
15 or benefit of any corporation association asylum hospital or any other institution not under the
16 exclusive management and control of the State as a state institution nor shall any grant or donation of
17 property ever be made thereto by the State
18 71 The Elections Code as alleged throughout this pleading violates the requirement that
19 California not appropriate monies from the State Treasury for the benefit of a private party
20 72 Because the California s current semi closed primary serves a predominantly private
21 purpose to benefit wholly private political parties and is paid for by monies appropriated from the
22 State Treasury Elections Code 13102 b violates the California Constitution s prohibition against
23 appropriating public funds for a private purpose
24 73 Defendants Respondents acting under colar of state law have spent have caused to be
25 spent and are likely to continue spending public monies from the State Treasury on private partisan
1 74 The individual Plaintiffs Petitioners and at least one of NP s members have been
2 harmed and in the absence of relieffrom this Court will continue to be harmed by the illegal acts and
3 omissions of Defendants Respondents as alleged in this cause of action
Violation of Federal Civil Rights Act
5 Denial of Substantive Due Process under lst and 14th Amendments of Federal Constitution
6 75 This pleading s preceding allegations are incorporated into this paragraph
7 76 The right to vote is a fundamental right ensured by the U S Constitution This right
8 applies to all integral stages of the public election process including the primary election
9 77 Under California Elections Code 13102 b however the Legislature has provided
10 for closed and modified closed presidential primaries The result is that voters like the individual
11 Plaintiffs Petitioner and at least one of IVP s members have been denied the right to participate in the
12 presidential primary process
13 78 Each of the individual Plaintiff Petitioners and at least one of IVP s members were
14 unable to vote for the candidate of their choice in the 2016 presidential primary election unencumbered
15 by a condition of party preference and without court intervention they will not be able to cast an
16 unencumbered vote for the candidate of their choice in 2020
17 79 Any infringement on the fundamental right to vote demands a strict scrutiny analysis
18 80 Defendants Respondents acting under color of state law have administered and are
19 likely to continue to administer a form of closed presidential primary election in violation of the
20 federal constitutional rights of the individual Plaintiffs Petitioners and in violation of the federal
21 constitutional rights of the individuals on whose behalf Plaintiff and Petitioner IVP advocates
22 81 There are several ways to conduct California s presidential primary while protecting
23 the rights of political parties and voters Defendants refuse to implement any of them
24 82 The individual Plaintiffs Petitioners and at least one of IVP s members have been
25 harmed and in the absence of relief from this Court will continue to be harmed by the illegal acts and
26 omissions of Defendants Respondents as alleged in this cause of action
Violation of Federal Civil Rights Act 42 U S C 1983
2 Denial of lst Amendment Right of Non Association Guaranteed by Federal Constitution
This pleading s preceding allegations are incorporated into this paragraph
4 84 The First Amendment of the constitution protects the right of association According
5 to California Democratic Party v Jones a carollary of the right to associate is the right not to
7 85 Elections Code 13102 b deprives California voters the right ofnon association under
8 the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by requiring a voter to participate in the private
9 associational activity of a political party as a condition to voting during an integral stage of the public
10 election process
11 86 Defendants Respondents acting under color of state law have administered and are
12 likely to continue to administer a form of closed presidential primary election in violation of the First
13 Amendment right of non association of the individual Plaintiffs Petitioners and in violation of the
14 same right of the individuals on whose behalf Plaintiff and Petitioner IVP advocates
15 87 The individual Plaintiffs Petitioners and at least one of NP s members have been
16 harmed and in the absence of relief from this Court will continue to be harmed by the illegal acts and
17 omissions of Defendants Respondents as alleged in this cause of action
20 FOR ALL THESE REASONS Plaintiffs Petitioners pray for all of the following relief against
21 Defendants Respondents and any other persons who may in any way take their side in this lawsuit
22 as the Court deems appropriate
23 A A judgment or other order of the Court determining or declaring that California s
24 election laws with respect to the presidential primary election and or the implementation of those laws
25 by Defendants Respondents is illegal in some manner rending the laws and or their implementation
26 null and void
1 B A judgment or other order of the Court enjoining Defendants Respondents from
2 administering a presidential primary election that does not comply with all applicable laws
3 C A writ of mandate compelling Defendants Respondents to take any and all steps
4 necessary to bring their administration of the presidential primary election into compliance with all
6 D Any and all attorney fees and other costs incurred by Plaintiffs Petitioners in
7 connection with this lawsuit
8 E Any other reliefthat this Court deems appropriate
Date July 22 2019 Respectfully submitted
Cory J Briggs
S Cha eace
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Petitioners Jim
17 Boydston Steven Fraker Daniel Howle Josephine
Piarulli Jeff Marston and Independent Voter
WILLIAM M SIMPICH ATTORNEY AT LAW
Verified by PDFflller i
21 Z1 2 19
22 William M Simpich
23 Attorney for Plaintiff and Petitioner Lindsay Vurek
24 Additional Counsel
25 William M Simpich State Bar No 106672
1736 Franklin Street 9 Floor
26 Oakland CA 94612
Tel 415 542 6809
Attorneys for Plaintiffand Petitioner Lindsay Vurek
Documents Similar To Independent Voter Project Files Lawsuit Against CA Secretary of State
Princeton 0219
G16 Final Off Cumulative