Federal Judge Considers Coffee Party Candidate's Request to Suspend New Election Rules

A federal judge in Los Angeles will determine if the May 17 primary election to fill a vacant seat in Congress should be held under new election rules after a Coffee Party candidate claimed in a lawsuit that his rights were being violated because he can't state his party affiliation on the ballot.

U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II heard arguments on the matter Monday and will decide if a temporary injunction should be issued to stop the new rules from being used in the upcoming election and any future state or federal elections until they are rewritten.

The election is being held to replace former Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) who resigned Feb. 28 to join a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. The 36th Congressional District includes Marina del Rey, Playa del Rey and Del Rey.

The lawsuit was filed by Venice resident Michael Chamness who is challenging the state's new "top two" election system that voters approved in June 2010 when they endorsed Proposition 14. As part of the new rules, if no candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote, then the top two finishers in the primary will face each other in a general election, even if they are from the same party. Under the provisions of Proposition 14, the state also recognizes only six official political parties: Democratic, Republican, American Independent, Green, Libertarian and Peace and Freedom. If a candidate does not choose to affiliate with any of the sanctioned parties, they must state "No party preference" on the ballot.

Chamness is affiliated with the Coffee Party, a 2-year-old political group that started out on Facebook. Under the old election rules, Chamness would be able to state that he was "Independent," which he prefers over "No party preference."

The lawsuit was filed against California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, a Democrat who also is running in the special election to replace Harman.

"Our chief argument is that the requirement that Michael Chamness be forced to say that he has no party preference is flat-out unconstitutional because it forces him to make a false statement that deprives voters of very important information about his political beliefs," said Gautam Dutta, an attorney representing Chamness.

Chamness also unsuccessfully competed in the recent special election to replace the late state Sen. Jenny Oropeza in the state Senate's 28th District and complained about having to state that he had no party preference. He received 0.55 percent of the vote in that election.

Deputy Attorney General George Waters urged the judge to deny Chamness' request for a preliminary injunction.

Chamness would prefer to use the term "Independent" instead of "No Party Preference." Waters said in court documents that Chamness "provided no evidence" that there is a significant difference between the two terms and hasn't shown that using either term will "gain or lose him even one vote."

He also noted in the document that previous rulings have found that a preliminary injunction is "an extraordinary and drastic remedy" and that federal courts should show restraint when intervening in matters involving state governmental agencies.

Waters also argued that candidates can explain their party affiliation in the 250-word statement in the sample ballot.

Wright did not immediately rule on whether or not a temporary injunction would be issued.

Editor's Note: Click on View Gallery above to the right to read court documents related to the lawsuit.