considering merits of direct equal protection claim
How later courts described this case
- considering merits of direct equal protection claim
- injunction sought by two registered voters against party’s announcement of opposition to justices at confirmation election
- “Candidates for the ‘judicial,’ ‘school’ and ‘county and township’ offices should be segregated from the partisan offices on the ballot.”
- Grodin, Acting C.J., concurring
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
(1d), (2c) I concur, albeit reluctantly, in the majority opinion. My agreement stems from my conclusion that Justice Mosk has correctly interpreted the scope of the existing restrictions imposed by the Legislature and the California Constitution. My reluctance flows from my concern about the effect of our ruling in light of important social and political policy considerations expressed by Justice Sims in his dissent. I think there is a strong state interest in preserving the nonpartisan nature of the offices involved and that this interest will be sorely tried if political parties engage in wholesale endorsement of and opposition to candidates for "judicial, school, county, and city offices. . . ." (Cal. Const., art. II, § 6.)
Because this interest is so important, I cannot join in Justice Grodin's approach. His conclusion that the First Amendment may well bar restrictions on political endorsements of candidates for nonpartisan office is premature. The Legislature may be able to fashion a permissible limitation on partisan involvement in nonpartisan campaigns after careful scrutiny of the various interests at stake. I do not think that at this stage we should sweepingly discourage such an attempt. The majority opinion, of course, does not take that path.