SACRAMENTO– A series of judicial decisions in both state and federal courts this week has reaffirmed California’s top-two primary election system, and also resulted in the practical exclusion of Green Party gubernatorial candidate Butch Ware from the upcoming June 2 primary ballot for governor.

On Friday, April 17, the California State Appeals Court issued a summary refusal to place Green Party gubernatorial candidate Butch Ware on the June 2 primary ballot. The case, Ware v Superior Court of Sacramento County (docket C106053), attempted to put Ware back on the ballot after he had partially misfiled his paperwork. The appellate court’s summary decision may effectively end Ware’s attempts to appear as a printed candidate on the official state primary ballot.

Despite the legal setback regarding ballot placement, Ware is maintaining an active campaign schedule across the state. Ware is now proceeding as a formal write-in candidate for the governor’s race. Ballot Access News confirmed that write-in votes cast for Ware during the June 2 primary will be officially tallied.

The state appellate court’s decision followed closely on the heels of a separate federal ruling. On Monday, April 13, U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney issued a 26-page decision that largely upheld the broader constitutionality of California’s top-two primary system. Under the voter-approved system, all candidates for state and federal offices run on a single primary ballot, and only the two candidates who receive the highest number of votes advance to the general election, regardless of their political party affiliation.

In adjudicating the main issues of the case, Judge Chesney relied heavily on a previous 2014 State Court of Appeals ruling that had already upheld the top-two framework. The judge noted that the plaintiffs in the current federal lawsuit were largely the same individuals and organizations involved in the 2014 state litigation.

The 2014 state decision concluded that California had a valid interest in utilizing the top-two system to allow independent, unaffiliated voters to participate in primary elections. Critics of the top-two system have argued that the 2014 ruling was based on factually incorrect premises. They contend that independent voters were not historically barred from primary participation, and that various other primary election structures exist that allow independent voters to participate without artificially restricting general election ballot access. However, Judge Chesney’s ruling did not look further into the underlying factual critiques of the 2014 state court decision.

While the core mechanics of the top-two system were upheld, Judge Chesney did identify two specific provisions of California election law that present legal vulnerabilities.

First, the federal court found problems with the state’s practice of prohibiting candidates belonging to legally unqualified political parties from having their specific party preference printed next to their name on the ballot. Second, the judge scrutinized the state’s early filing deadline for candidates during presidential election years, which requires candidates to file paperwork in December of the year preceding the election.

Because the court recognized these two distinct areas as potentially faulty, the plaintiffs have been granted permission to amend their legal complaint. They will be permitted to submit additional details and arguments focusing specifically on how the unqualified party label restrictions and the early December filing deadlines improperly burden candidate access and voter choice in California.