a c PEACE 1 2 w SHEA LLP S Chad Peace State Bar No 290274 2700 Adams Avenue Suite 204 San Diego CA 92116 Tel 619 255 4461 3 Fax 619 255 4462 4 BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION file 5 Cory J Briggs State Bar no 176284 Anthony N Kim State Bar no 283353 i 99 East 6 C Street ih 1351 03 Suite 111 g Upland CA 91786 Tel 909 949 7115 Fax 909 949 7121 g 9 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Petitioners J M BoY sTotv STEVEN FRAKER DANIEL HOWLE JOSEPHINE PIARULLI JEFF MARSTON AND INDEPENDENT VOTER PROJECT Additional counsel on signature page 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 13 14 JIM 15 HOWLE JEFF MARSTON DEPENDENT 16 STEVEN FRAKER JOSEPHINE PIARULLI BOYDSTON DANIEL LINDSAY VUREK VOTER PROJECT Case No Z 1 8 O COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND a D non VIOLATIONS profit corporation PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 17 1g 19 Plaintiffs Petitioners y 1 v ALEX PADILLA California 20 and in his Secretary CALIFORNIA and of official State capacity STATE 1 California Constitution Art II 2 California Constitution Art I Process as OF 3 DOES 1 through 1 000 and California Constitution Art I 7 Equal Protection 21 Defendants 5 c 7 Due Respondents 4 California Constitution Art XVI 5 42 U S C 1983 Due Process 6 42 U S C 1983 Non Association 3 22 23 24 25 26 Plaintiffs and Petitioners Jim Boydston Steven Fraker Daniel Howle Josephine Piarulli Jeff Marston Lindsay Vurek and Independent Voter Project a non profit corporation allege as follows 27 28 1 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS L INTRODUCTION 1 2 1 The Constitution of the State of California unambiguously requires that the Legislature 3 provide 4 declare a party affiliation as a condition of voting for a presidential candidate in a primary election 5 for an open presidential primary Instead Defendants have 2 whereby California s registered voters are not required to 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 The consequences of Defendants 3 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 11 voters 12 In 2020 due in 4 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 15 people 16 important underpinning of the California Constitution that all political power is inherent in the meaningless 5 The public election process is the principal method through which citizens peacefully 17 express their power 18 selfish interests has long been known As our first president George Washington said in his farewell 19 address 20 interest 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 And the need to protect our representative democracy from the power of more the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the and 6 duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it Yet in 2016 the California Secretary 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 27 28 2 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CNIL RIGHTS 1 the democratic foundation of our republic 2 the private interests of widely unpopular and nationally controlled political parties 3 and replace the public interest in our election process with While California law recognizes that general elections are held on the Tuesday next 7 4 after the first Monday in the month ofNovember 5 by which we select our representatives The election cycle begins months or even years before the 6 election 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 through public discourse this Election Day is only the end of a long process campaigns political and the primary elections It should be In California the presidential primary is an important stage of the public election 8 10 process 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 14 primary 15 16 17 It is the method through which voters the true sovereign power within the state decide which The State shall provide the people with an open presidential California voters adopted an open presidential primary by way of initiative in 1972 9 to clear free the voters of California to choose their own candidates for President ofthe United States take the decision out of the smoke filled rooms Section 5 c and of Article 2 of the California Yet 18 Constitution 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 states In that an t he Legislature open presidential shall provide primary for an open presidential all qualified voters primary 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 27 characteristic In an open primary the state guarantees every qualified voter regardless of his or her is distinguishable from any form of a 28 3 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS closed primary by a simple and defining 1 party 2 whether a voter can or cannot participate based on the voter s party preference or non preference 3 the right to participate preference 11 In a closed primary private political parties determine 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 13 described below 14 13 Party and were often Another 4 7 million no party not provided with a preference NPP no voters party preference nearly 25 ballot as of the electorate 15 had their right to vote subjected completely to the whims of private political party decision making 16 In 2016 17 Democratic Parties 18 political parties 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 22 change that determination up until that date 23 14 three major political including the American Independent Libertarian and parties chose to allow NPP voters to participate in their primary election Three major including the Green Peace Freedom and Republican Parties chose to allow all because Defendants have given private political parties the power to make and 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 28 4 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 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 In transferring power from the voters to the political parties Defendants have infringed 15 6 and continue 7 Defendants has 8 that 9 infringement on the right to vote should be considered with the strictest of scrutiny 10 makes 16 to all infringe referred others on important rights protected Therefore state and federal law Indeed one of the T he fundamental right in our democracy the one to the right to vote as possible by by Defendants own admission even the slightest 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 17 political parties 18 California s semi closed primary also infringes on the right of non association 17 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 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 of the right to associate Yet California s semi closed primary conditions a voter s 27 28 5 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 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 9 American No taxation without representation revolution Two hundred and fifty years was the battle cry for freedom that fueled the later we the people must remain vigilant against 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 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 and their members For six years Plaintiff and Petitioner Independent Voter Project has 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 28 6 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 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 3 II JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4 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 9 10 Venue is proper in this Court because Defendants violations have taken place and in the absence of appropriate relief from his Court will continue to take place in San Bernardino County Indeed the violations occur throughout California 11 III PARTIES 12 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 25 law See 52 U S C 20509 At all times relevant to this lawsuit he acted under color of 26 27 28 7 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS IV SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS 1 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 9 10 31 Plaintiff and Petitioner Jim Boydston would like to vote for a presidential candidate running for the Democratic Party nomination in 2020 without being forced to associate with the 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 16 election for a presidential candidate other than a Republican without being forced to change his party 17 preference 18 34 He would like the opportunity to vote in the primary 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 24 for the Democratic Party nomination in 2020 without being forced to associate with the Democratic 25 Party 26 27 36 He would like to vote for a presidential candidate running 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 28 8 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CNIL RIGHTS 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 In California a qualified registered voter must meet these requirements 37 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 9 38 presidential 10 11 Under 21 s 1 12 However in 2016 art 2 Legislature the shall provide for an open Elec Code 5 c California conducted a modified closed Cal primary 131 o2 b 40 In California to qualify for a state funded presidential primary election a political 13 party 14 preceding 15 percent 10 16 election it 17 5100 must either 18 Cal Const primary 39 California Constitution the 41 a have registration equal voter gubernatorial election b to one percent 1 of the votes cast in the file a petition with signatures of registered voters equal to ten of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election or c at the gubernatorial must garner votes equal to at least two percent 2 of total votes cast Cal Elec Code In California the Secretary of State is responsible for determining which candidates 19 will appear on each 20 6851 21 the ballot party s presidential primary ballot Cal Elec Code 6041 6340 6520 6720 Candidates not selected by the Secretary of State for inclusion may petition for placement on 22 42 Cal Elec Code 6061 6343 6523 6725 6853 5 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 26 27 43 option 5100 In 2016 by default NPP voters received a nonpartisan ballot which did not include an to vote for any candidates for President of the United States 28 9 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS Cal Elec Code 2151 b 1 1 2 In 2016 voters registered with a party preference could vote only in the primary of the 44 political 3 party for which Cal were registered they Elec Code 2151 c NPP voters are allowed to participate in presidential primaries only if authorized by a 45 4 private 5 Independent 6 Presidential 7 http 8 however may change their rules to preclude unaffiliated voters from participating by changing their 9 private 10 11 political Cal party Libertarian and Cal Elec rules 46 ov 2151 Code parties allowed In 2016 only the Democratic American c unaffiliated No Primary elections cdn sos ca party Elea 2151 b to a nuarv Padilla participate Preference Party ccrov pdf 2016 Code voters 16036em pdf Jan 25 2016 Re Voters These parties 1 In 2016 three major political parties including the American Independent Libertarian 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 14 to participate 15 could not 16 the Green Peace Freedom and Republican Party chose to allow only their own members Id NPP voters if they wanted to vote for a candidate from one of these three parties Cal Elec Code 2151 b 1 To vote in the American Independent Libertarian or Democratic Parties presidential 47 17 primary an NPP voter had to ask their county elections office or poll worker at their polling place for 18 a 19 Information 20 2017 21 by submitting an application that indicates their choice by May 31 2016 Id ballot far just crossover 22 http one of the above three parties Secretary of State No Party Preference www sos ca gov elections political parties no party preference as of Oct 11 Alternatively if voting by mail NPP voters could request one of the three party ballots only 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 25 party 49 by May 23 2016 Id 2152 The ultimate selection of each party s nominee is conducted according to private party 26 rules 27 Dem Nat 1 Comm Charter Art IX not Cal Elec Code the presidential primary Cal Elec Code 10 Cal Rep Party 28 10 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 6002 b 6300 b Bylaws Art VI 6461 c 6 01 A 6002 b 6461 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 4 13001 a 6 Taxpayer 7 http statewide 8 presidential primary primary elections are paid Cost Cal from the county treasuries Elec Code Primaries Closed of org taxpayer costs Map of 96 approximately closed of Open Primaries million Primary Costs by State rimaries Oct 15 2017 According to the California Secretary of State s Office in the state s 2016 presidential election 44 8 of 10 were 1 1 registered as NPP voters Republican 52 in California is primary www openprimaries 51 12 s A 2012 study by the National Association of Secretaries of State estimated that the cost of 5 9 California 50 46 California voters were registered Democrat of registered voters were affiliated with a 27 3 third party of registered voters and 23 3 of voters As chief election officer Defendant and Respondent Padilla under Elections Code in Section 12172 5 the Government Code which include 13 10 14 the power to adopt regulations to assure the uniform app ication and administration of state election 15 laws has the powers and duties specified of FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 16 Violation of California Constitution Art II 5 c Failure to Conduct an Open Presidential Primary l 53 This pleading s preceding allegations are incorporated into this paragraph 54 The California Constitution Art II 18 5 c requires that t he Legislature shall provide 19 for an open presidential primary 20 55 In an open presidential primary election any registered voter regardless of party 21 preference has the right to vote for a presidential candidate 22 56 Under Elections Code 13102 b however the Legislature has provided for closed 23 and or modified closed presidential primaries 24 57 On its face and as applied no form of closed presidential primary election is an open 25 presidential primary election 26 58 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 2g 11 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CNIL RIGHTS 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 4 form 5 Constitution 6 of Defendants Respondents have administered and are likely to continue to administer a closed 60 presidential primary election in violation of Art II 5 c of the California 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 9 behalf Plaintiff and Petitioner IVP advocates have been and in the absence of relief from this Court 10 Defendants Respondents as alleged in this cause of action The individuals on whose will continue to be equally harmed 11 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation 12 of California Constitution Art I 7 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 15 16 7 provides that a person may not be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws 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 Violation of California Constitution Art I 24 7 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 27 13102 b denies voters equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the California Constitution by giving partisan voters an opportunity to nominate a 28 12 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CNIL RIGHTS 1 2 candidate for President of the United States without affording non partisan voters the right to do the same 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 The individual Plaintiffs Petitioners and at least one of IVP s members have been 68 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 10 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation 1 1 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 n o money shall ever be appropriated or drawn from the State Treasury for the purpose 14 provides 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 19 that The Elections Code as alleged throughout this pleading violates the requirement that 71 California not appropriate monies from the State Treasury for the benefit of a private party 20 Because the California s current semi closed primary serves a predominantly private 72 21 purpose 22 State 23 appropriating public funds for a private purpose 24 to benefit wholly private political parties Treasury 73 Elections Code and is paid for by monies appropriated from the 13102 b violates the California Constitution s prohibition against 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 26 elections 27 28 13 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 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 4 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation 5 1983 42 U S C Denial of Substantive Due Process under lst and 14th Amendments of Federal Constitution of Federal Civil Rights Act 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 The result is that voters like the individual 10 for 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 closed and modified closed presidential primaries 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 23 24 81 There are several ways to conduct California s presidential primary while protecting the rights of political parties and voters 82 Defendants refuse to implement any of them 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 27 28 14 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CNIL RIGHTS 1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation 2 of Federal Civil Rights Act 42 U S C 1983 Denial of lst Amendment Right of Non Association Guaranteed by Federal Constitution 3 83 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 6 associate 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 18 V PRAYER FOR RELIEF 19 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 27 28 15 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 1 2 B A judgment or other order of the Court enjoining Defendants Respondents from 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 5 applicable laws 6 7 D Any and all attorney fees and other costs incurred by Plaintiffs Petitioners in connection with this lawsuit 8 E Any other reliefthat this Court deems appropriate 9 Date 10 July 22 Respectfully submitted 2019 BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION 1 1 12 l BY Cory J Briggs 13 PEACE SHEA LLP 14 15 By S Cha eace 16 17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Petitioners Jim Boydston Steven Fraker Daniel Howle Josephine Piarulli Jeff Marston and Independent Voter I Project 19 WILLIAM M SIMPICH ATTORNEY AT LAW 20 r 21 Z1 19 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 Oakland CA 94612 Tel 415 542 6809 27 28 2 By 22 26 Verified by PDFflller i Attorneys for Plaintiffand Petitioner Lindsay Vurek 16 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CNIL RIGHTS