NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
INDEPENDENT PARTY and WILLIAM No. 16-15895
LUSSENHEIDE,
D.C. No.
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 2:16-cv-00316-WBS-CKD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ALEJANDRO PADILLA, AKA Alex,
Secretary, State of California,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and GRITZNER,*** District
Judge.
The issue in this case is whether the district court correctly concluded that
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
Secretary Padilla did not violate plaintiff-appellants’ First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights when he denied them official political body status before the
2016 general elections. Plaintiff-appellants consist of the “Independent Party,” an
unofficial political party headquartered in California, and one of its members,
William Lussenheide. In 2015, plaintiff-appellants’ submitted an official notice of
intent to qualify as an official political party to California’s Secretary of State
Alejandro Padilla.
California Elections Code § 5001(a) provides that a group of electors
wishing to qualify a new political party may form a party by holding a caucus or
convention “at which temporary officers shall be elected and a party name
designated.” Section 5001(a) goes on to provide: “The designated name shall not
be so similar to the name of an existing party so as to mislead the voters, and shall
not conflict with that of any existing party or political body that has previously
filed notice pursuant to subdivision (b).” Relying on § 5001(a), Secretary Padilla
denied the Independent Party’s notice of intent to qualify because plaintiff-
appellants’ proposed name was too similar to that of an already existing official
political party named the “American Independent Party.” Plaintiff-appellants’ filed
suit, claiming that Secretary Padilla violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment
rights by applying § 5001(a) to deny their notice for official political party status.
2
State regulations “imposing severe burdens on plaintiffs’ rights must be
narrowly tailored and advance a compelling state interest.” Timmons v. Twin Cities
Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 358 (1997). “Lesser burdens, however, trigger less
exacting review.” Id. Indeed, a state’s “‘important regulatory interests’ will usually
be enough to justify ‘reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions.’” Id. (quoting
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992)).
Here, Secretary Padilla’s application of § 5001(a) did not severely burden
plaintiff-appellants’ rights. Section 5001(a) does not prevent plaintiff-appellants’
from organizing, it does not regulate their internal affairs, and it applies equally to
both major and minor political parties. See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780,
791–94 (1983); Timmons, 520 U.S. at 361. Because Secretary Padilla’s application
of § 5001(a) did not severely burden plaintiff-appellants’ rights, the court applies a
less exacting review to determine whether California’s interests justify Secretary
Padilla’s application of § 5001(a) in this case.
Secretary Padilla asserts that the name “Independent Party” is too similar to
an already existing official political party, the “American Independent Party.”
Moreover, California has reserved the label “Independent” for presidential and
vice-presidential candidates who qualify for the ballot through an independent
nomination process. See Cal. Elec. Code § 13105(c). According to Secretary
Padilla, California has an interest in avoiding confusion and deception at the polls
3
that justifies the application of § 5001(a) to prevent plaintiff-appellants’ from
officially registering as the “Independent Party” in this case. The Supreme Court
has recognized that avoiding confusion, deception, and frustration in connection
with the democratic process are important state interests. See Jenness v. Fortson,
403 U.S. 431, 442 (1971). Therefore, California’s interest in avoiding confusion
and deception in connection with the general election qualifies as an important
regulatory interest that justifies Secretary Padilla’s application of § 5001(a) to deny
the Independent Party official political party status in this case.
AFFIRMED.
4