[EL] an invitation for anyone in the San Fran Bay Area

[Richard Winger]

Anyone who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, and who has the opportunity to come to San Francisco Superior Court on Wednesday morning, Oct. 24, at 9:30 a.m., is certainly welcome to come to courtroom 302 at that time.  The court is at 400 McAllister Street, at the corner of Polk and McAllister, just north of San Francisco City Hall.  The BART stop is Civic Center and there is a city underground parking garage very close, with reasonable rates.

Field v Bowen will be heard by Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow.  The issue is the reconsideration of his August 1 2012 order, requiring that I and my five co-plaintiffs (all individuals) must pay almost $250,000 in attorneys fees to the intervenors in that case, the California Independent Voters Project, and Californians for an Open Primary.

Field v Bowen was filed in state court in 2010.  Four voters (including me) and two potential candidates (including the state chair of the Reform Party and the state chair of Socialist Action Party) complained about (1) no party labels for candidates in California for congress and state office, unless the candidate is a member of a qualified party; (2) the ban on the word "independent" on the ballot for independent candidates; (3) the law at the time said write-ins could never be counted but the law left write-in space on the ballot and left in place the law that said individuals could file as declared write-in candidates.

Even though two State Supreme Courts, Minnesota and Massachusetts, had previously ruled unanimously that "independent" cannot be banned as a ballot label for independent candidates, we lost on the labels issue.  On the write-in issue, the court agreed with us that it is intolerable to leave write-in space on the ballot and yet provide that write-ins can never be counted (not even if a write-in candidate might have won).  But instead of declaring the law on that point unconstitutional, the court re-wrote the law to say that write-in space should not be on the ballot.

We should have won this case, but we lost in 2011.  Then, in 2012, Judge Karnow ruled that our lawsuit is so faulty, we must pay attorneys fees to the intervenors.  On September 17, we asked for reconsideration of his attorneys fee award.  At our request, he recused himself and the matter was sent to another judge, who set a new date with a new judge, which was to be October 22.  But on October 19, the new judge ruled that Judge Karnow cannot recuse himself.  So now we are back in front of Judge Karnow for Wednesday on whether he should reconsider the attorneys fees.

I am familiar with over 800 constitutional ballot access cases that have been filed in the United States over the past 44 years, and until this case along, I never heard of any such case in which the plaintiffs were required to pay attorneys fees to any intervenors.

Please consider attending this hearing.  Thank you.

Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121021/6f6e9163/attachment.html>