Filed Date: May 29, 2020
Closed Date: March 22, 2021
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about the constitutionality of California's voter registration requirements for new parties seeking ballot access during the COVID-19 pandemic.
On May 29, 2020, the Common Sense Party (“CSP”), along with a CSP representative and two individual CSP-registered voters, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against the California Secretary of State. The case was assigned to District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, challenged California’s voter registration requirements for new political parties under California Elections Code § 5151(c), alleging that the law imposed an unconstitutional burden on minor parties seeking ballot access, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, along with attorneys’ fees and costs.
The CSP, a “party-in-formation,” sought to qualify as a recognized political party in California and participate in the November 2020 presidential election. Under California Elections Code § 5151(c), new parties were required to register a number of voters equal to 0.33% of the state’s total registered voters by the 123rd day before the general election. For the November 2020 election, this meant gathering 68,180 voter registrations by July 3, 2020. Voter registrations could be collected in-person, by mail, or online.
On March 4, 2020, California’s governor declared a State of Emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 8, 2020, the plaintiffs suspended their in-person registration-gathering campaign. They had collected 19,038 signatures by this point. On March 19, 2020, California’s governor issued an executive stay-at-home order, but California explicitly classified elections as an “essential activity,” allowing signature gathering to continue despite the order.
The Plaintiffs claimed that enforcing the requirements of § 5151(c) during pandemic circumstances violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They argued that California’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic imposed a complete barrier to successful ballot access and that, absent injunctive relief, there would be no way for them to participate as an officially recognized party in the November 2020 election.
On May 29, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint. Shortly thereafter, on June 4, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and/or preliminary injunction requiring the Defendant to recognize the CSP as an official political party despite their failure to meet the voter registration requirement.
On June 26, 2020 the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO and/or preliminary injunction, finding that the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm sufficient to justify injunctive relief. The court found that California’s legitimate interest in requiring new political parties to demonstrate substantial voter support before gaining ballot access outweighed the burden imposed on the Plaintiffs by § 5151(c).
Further, the Court determined that the Plaintiffs were not subject to a severe burden under California’s voter registration requirements, as alternative methods of registration collection were available. Even if the stay-at-home orders had prevented the Plaintiffs from conducting in-person registration, it would only have done so for a very short period of time. During this time, voter registration could still be conducted through online, mail-in, and social media outreach efforts. Further, the court noted that the Plaintiffs had several months to collect the necessary registrations but failed to do so even before the pandemic. The Plaintiffs also did not resume in-person collection efforts when California reopened, undermining their suggestion that in-person registration gathering was essential to their success.
Following the District Court’s denial of injunctive relief, the Plaintiffs appealed the ruling (docket no. 20-16335). On August 20, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that the November 2020 election had already passed and that the Plaintiffs’ claims did not establish a reasonable likelihood of recurrence. Following the Appellate Court’s ruling, the District Court formally terminated the case.
As of March 22, 2021, the case is closed, with courts upholding California’s ballot access requirements.
Summary Authors
Dani Block (2/4/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17230453/parties/common-sense-party-v-padilla/
Callahan, Consuelo Maria (California)
England, Morrison C. Jr. (California)
Peterson, Jeremy D (California)
Hertz, Bradley W. (California)
Chang, Peter H. (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17230453/common-sense-party-v-padilla/
Last updated Aug. 10, 2025, 1:23 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Healthy Elections COVID litigation tracker
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 29, 2020
Closing Date: March 22, 2021
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The Common Sense Party, an individual both in his capacity as officially designated representative of the Common Sense Party and as a registered voter in the Common Sense Party, and two individuals both of whom are registered voters in the Common Sense Party.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: