Libertarian Party v. Eu

• Decision Date: 18 December 1980
• Citation: 620 P.2d 612,170 Cal.Rptr. 25,28 Cal.3d 535
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 620 P.2d 612 LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. MARCH FONG EU, as Secretary of State, etc., Defendant and Appellant. L.A. 31270.

Page 25

170 Cal.Rptr. 25

28 Cal.3d 535, 620 P.2d 612

LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. MARCH FONG EU, as Secretary of State, etc., Defendant and Appellant.

L.A. 31270.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Dec. 18, 1980.

George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Richard D. Martland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Henry G. Ullerich and Christopher C. Foley, Deputy Attys. Gen., for defendant and appellant.

Sills, Dougherty & Hendrickson and Ray Hendrickson, Newport Beach, for plaintiffs and respondents.

MANUEL, Justice.

March Fong Eu, Secretary of State, appeals from a judgment of the Orange County Superior Court granting a peremptory writ of mandate commanding her and the Registrar of Voters of Orange and San Diego Counties to certify respondents David Bergland and Jim Gallagher on the November 7, 1978, general election ballot and place their names on the ballot with the political party designation "Libertarian." At issue is the constitutionality of section 10210 of the Elections Code insofar as it requires that persons qualifying for the ballot by the procedure of "independent nominations" be designated on the ballot as "Independent." We conclude hereafter that section 10210 does not violate the equal protection clause of either the United States Constitution or the California Constitution.

Respondent Libertarian Party of California is an unincorporated association of citizens and voters organized to elect candidates to public office. David Bergland, a candidate for the office of State Senator for the 36th Senatorial District, and Jim Gallagher, a candidate for the office of State Assemblyman for the 73d State Assembly District, were chosen for the respective offices by the Libertarian Party of Orange County and the Libertarian Party of California.

The Libertarian Party did not qualify to appear on the ballot for the 1978 general election. Bergland and Gallagher each qualified to have his name placed on the November 7, 1978, general election ballot pursuant to the "independent nomination procedure" set forth in section 6800 et seq. of the Elections Code. ¹ Each candidate met the requirements of section 6831 by submitting nomination papers for the office sought, signed by voters in his district in excess of 3 percent of the entire number of registered voters in his district. ²

The nomination papers (petitions) circulated and submitted by each candidate contained a statement that "David Bergland (or Jim Gallagher) is registered as, and is a member of, the Libertarian Party of California. He has been nominated for this office by the Libertarian Party of California and seeks to have his name identified on the ballot as a Libertarian Party Candidate."

Bergland and Gallagher demanded that the Secretary of State certify their names on the November 7, 1978, election ballot as "Libertarian" rather than "Independent." Pursuant to section 10210, the Secretary of State refused, until ordered to do so by the Orange County Superior Court on September 6, 1978. ³ The trial court found that the candidates had qualified for the ballot pursuant to section 6831 and, despite section 10210, directed that they be designated "Libertarian" on the ballot.

Despite the final resolution of the issues as to the Libertarian Party and its candidates for the 1978 general election, the Secretary of State has appealed, seeking resolution of the important constitutional issue involved. It is urged that the validity of the system of candidate identification transcends the importance of the political race which gave rise to this dispute in 1978. We concur. "(I)f a pending case poses an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur, the court may exercise an inherent discretion to resolve that issue even though an event occurring during its pendency would normally render the matter moot." (In re William M. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, 23, 89 Cal.Rptr. 33, 473 P.2d 737.) We have frequently exercised such discretion to resolve constitutional issues pertaining to election laws raised by candidates in elections that were held before decision could be reached. (Johnson v. Hamilton (1975) 15 Cal.3d 461, 465, 125 Cal.Rptr. 129, 541 P.2d 881; Knoll v. Davidson (1974) 12 Cal.3d 335, 344, 116 Cal.Rptr. 97, 525 P.2d 1273; see also Storer v. Brown (1974) 415 U.S. 724, 737, fn. 8, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 1282 fn. 8, 39 L.Ed.2d 714.) The designation of parties and candidates on the ballot is a matter of continuing public importance, and a challenge to the validity of a statute governing such designations demands final resolution to permit the orderly conduct of future elections.

Section 10210 provides that candidates of qualified political parties shall be listed on the ballot as candidates of their parties, but that "If a candidate has qualified for the ballot by virtue of an independent nomination, the word 'Independent' shall be printed instead of the name of a political party " beside his name on the ballot. (Emphasis added.)

The Libertarian Party contends that the denial of the rights of its candidates to be listed as candidates of the Libertarian Party denies equal protection and due process. Although it would have us focus solely on the code section here in question and make the determination of the equal protection issue within the narrow confines of that section, we find it imperative that the question be placed in the framework of the nomination and election processes of which it is but a part.

Article II of the California Constitution vests the Legislature with plenary power over the conduct of elections in this state. Section 3 of article II declares, "The Legislature shall define residence and provide for registration and free elections." Section 5 states, "The Legislature shall provide for primary elections for partisan offices ...." Pursuant to this grant of power, the Legislature determined that political parties should be recognized only on a statewide basis and defined "party" as a political organization that has "qualified for participation in any primary election."

The Legislature provided a specific procedure whereby any group of voters may organize a new political party and file a notice of intent to qualify it for such participation. (§§ 9951-9956.) In section 6430 it adopted two alternate methods by which that new party can become qualified. On or before the 135th day prior to the primary, the party can either (1) achieve a total voter registration in its name equal to 1 percent of the statewide vote at the last gubernatorial election (§ 6430, subd. (b)), ⁴ or (2) file a petition of support signed by a number of voters equal to 10 percent of the statewide vote ⁵ at the last gubernatorial election (§ 6430, subd. (c)). ⁶

A party that qualifies by either of these methods becomes subject to state regulation of its structure, powers, and duties (Elec.Code, div. 7), and the candidates it chooses at the primary election become its official nominees at the general election (§ 6610) and are identified by their party affiliation on the general election ballot (§ 10210, 1st par.).

The Legislature also recognizes that an individual may have significant public support and yet not be affiliated with a qualified party. To permit such persons to appear on the general election ballot, the Legislature has provided the special procedure of "independent nomination," i. e., nominations by petition. (Elec.Code, div. 6, ch. 6). ⁷ If the person is seeking statewide office, his nomination papers must be signed by a number of voters equal to 1 percent of the voters registered for the last general election; if a local office, by a number equal to 3 percent of the voters registered in that area for the last general election. (§ 6831.) Such papers must be filed with the Secretary of State not more than 129 days nor less than 64 days before the general election. (§ 6833.) If a candidate qualifies for a general election by means of such an "independent nomination," the word "Independent" is printed on the ballot after his name instead of a party designation. (§ 10210, 3d par.) It is this last provision that is challenged here.

The Libertarian Party contends that denying its candidates the right to be listed on the ballot as "Libertarian" constitutes an unconstitutional impairment of the fundamental rights to associate for political activity and to vote. We reject this contention, for we conclude that the identification provision imposes an insubstantial burden on the rights to associate and to vote and that the statute serves a compelling state interest to protect the integrity and stability of the electoral process in California. ⁸

The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the electoral process involves two rights, different but overlapping-"the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs, and the right of qualified voters, regardless of their political persuasion, to cast their votes effectively." (Williams v. Rhodes (1968) 393 U.S. 23, 30, 89 S.Ct. 5, 10, 21 L.Ed.2d 24.) In most instances, the court has found the rights "fundamental," and abrogation of the rights or any substantial restriction of the rights has been closely scrutinized to determine whether the state has a compelling interest in the regulation. (Williams, supra.) Thus in Williams, the court struck down an Ohio election law which, by regulating petition signature requirements, made it virtually impossible for a new political party to be placed on the ballot. The court noted that the state "failed to show any 'compelling interest' which justifies imposing such heavy burdens on the right to vote and to associate." (Id., p. 31, 89 S.Ct. at 10.) In Dunn v. Blumstein (1972) 405 U.S. 330, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274, the high court applied the "compelling state interest" test to invalidate Tennessee's one-year residence requirement for registration to vote. Kramer v. Union School District (1969) 395 U.S. 621, 89 S.Ct. 1886, ...