Filed Date: June 26, 2012
Closed Date: Oct. 9, 2012
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about the legality of California's "top two" system for state and congressional office whereby all candidates for a particular office appear on the same primary ballot and only the top two, regardless of party affiliation, participate in the general election. On June 26, 2012, Plaintiff, an African American voter and lifelong member of the Democratic party, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California after two Republican party candidates were the top two finishers in the 8th Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives. Plaintiff sued the Secretary of State under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction. She claimed that the top two primary system violated her right to vote for a candidate from the political party of her choice in the general election and resulted in the denial or abridgment of Plaintiff’s voting rights on the basis of race, color, or linguistic minority status.
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction at the same time she filed her Complaint. The Court heard Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on shortened notice. After concluding that Plaintiff could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on July 7, 2011. Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint ("FAC") as a matter of right on July 31, 2012. In her Motion to Dismiss, the Secretary of State asserted that Plaintiff’s FAC failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that Plaintiff failed to join necessary parties. Interveners Independent Voter Project (“IVP”), Californians to Defend the Open Primary (“CADOP”), Abel Maldonado, and David Takashima (collectively “Interveners”) also filed a Motion to Dismiss and raised similar arguments to those asserted by the Secretary of State. Interveners also challenge Plaintiff’s standing to maintain her claims. In her Opposition to the Secretary of State’s Motions to Dismiss, Plaintiff abandoned her Fifteenth Amendment Claim.
California's top two system was modeled on a similar top two primary system adopted in Washington State. Washington’s top two primary system was subjected to a facial challenge brought by certain political parties that had alleged that the top two system infringed their associational rights in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court rejected the facial challenge to Washington’s top two system. See Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008). Following the Supreme Court’s rejection of the facial challenge to Washington’s top two system, the Ninth Circuit upheld Washington’s top two primary system against an as-applied challenge. See Washington State Republican Party v. Washington State Grange, 672 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2012). A petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision to that challenge was denied by the Supreme Court. Unlike the challenges to Washington’s top two primary system, which alleged violations of the associational rights of the political parties themselves, Plaintiff alleged that California’s top two primary system violated her personal associational rights to vote for a candidate from a political party of her choice in the general election.
The Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on October 9, 2012. The Court found that Plaintiff did not have a constitutional right as a voter to vote in the general election for a candidate of her preferred political party. Plaintiff had the opportunity to vote for a candidate from the party of her choice in the primary election, and she provided no support for her novel theory that she had a constitutional right to vote for a candidate from a party of her choice in a general election. Thus, there was no violation of her First or Fourteen Amendment rights. Similarly, the court found that the top two primary system did not violate section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiff did not allege any facts suggesting that there was a discriminatory purpose in the adoption of the top two system, nor did she allege any facts indicating that minority plaintiffs “‘have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice’” as a result of the passage of the system.
Because Plaintiff had already amended her Complaint once, and she failed to indicate that she possessed additional facts that might adequately state the claims she was attempting to assert, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice.
Summary Authors
(10/28/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5855514/parties/elise-brown-v-debra-bowen/
Anderson, Percy (California)
Conaway, Robert Dean (California)
Leoni, Marguerite Mary (California)
Skinnell, Christopher Elliott (California)
Waters, George M (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5855514/elise-brown-v-debra-bowen/
Last updated Aug. 11, 2025, 2:16 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 26, 2012
Closing Date: Oct. 9, 2012
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
An African American woman and lifelong member of the Democratic Party who resides within California’s 8th Congressional District.
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:
Voting Rights Act, section 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1973)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Amount Defendant Pays: None
Issues
Affected Race(s):
Voting: