Boden v. Secretary of State
The First Federal Defense of California’s Top-Two Primary
After Proposition 14 passed, partisan interests immediately challenged it in federal court. IVP led the legal defense to protect the nonpartisan primary from being struck down.
Passing a reform is only half the battle. Defending it is the other half.
When California voters passed Proposition 14 in June 2010, it represented the most significant structural election reform in modern state history. The nonpartisan Top Two primary replaced a system that locked millions of independent voters out of the most consequential stage of the election process.
The opposition didn't wait long. Almost immediately after Proposition 14 took effect, a coalition of political parties and candidates — including minor parties who argued the new system eliminated their path to the general election ballot — filed suit in federal court. Their claim: the Top Two primary violated First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, specifically the right of political association and ballot access.
This was exactly the challenge IVP had anticipated. From the beginning, Proposition 14 was drafted with constitutional durability in mind. IVP didn't just author the ballot measure — it prepared the legal defense before the ink was dry.
IVP built Proposition 14 to survive a courtroom.
IVP intervened in the case as a defendant, standing alongside the California Secretary of State to defend the constitutionality of the Top Two primary. The legal argument was straightforward: the state has a compelling interest in structuring its elections to serve all voters, not just those who belong to a political party.
The plaintiffs argued that the Top Two system unconstitutionally burdened their right to place candidates on the general election ballot and restricted party association rights. IVP's defense leaned on the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party (2008), which had upheld a similar nonpartisan primary system in Washington State.
The court agreed with IVP's position. The ruling upheld Proposition 14's constitutionality, finding that the state's interest in giving all voters — including the millions registered with no party preference — equal access to the primary process outweighed the partisan claims. The decision established the first federal court precedent that California's Top Two primary was constitutional.
States can adopt nonpartisan primary reforms without violating party association rights.
Key Milestones
Proposition 14 Passed by California Voters
California voters approve the Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act with 54% of the vote. IVP authored the ballot measure and anticipates legal challenges.
Federal Lawsuit Filed
A coalition of political parties and candidates files suit in U.S. District Court, arguing that the Top Two primary violates First and Fourteenth Amendment rights — specifically party association and ballot access rights.
IVP Intervenes as Defendant
As the author of Proposition 14, IVP intervenes in the case alongside the California Secretary of State. IVP's legal team builds the constitutional defense around the precedent established in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party (2008).
First Top Two Primary Election Held
While the case proceeds, California holds its first nonpartisan primary under Proposition 14. All voters — including more than 5 million registered with no party preference — participate on a single ballot for the first time.
Court Rules in IVP's Favor
The federal court upholds Proposition 14's constitutionality, ruling that the state's interest in opening elections to all voters outweighs the challengers' party association claims. The decision establishes the first federal precedent for California's Top Two system.
Precedent Holds — and Strengthens
The legal foundation established in Boden is reinforced two years later when a second challenge (Rubin v. Bowen, 2014) also fails. Together, these victories create durable constitutional precedent for nonpartisan primary reform nationwide.
What Boden v. Secretary of State Established
The court upheld the constitutionality of the Top Two system, establishing legal precedent that states can adopt nonpartisan primary reforms without violating party association rights. This ruling didn't just protect California — it created a legal foundation for reform efforts in every other state.
Constitutional Precedent Set
The first federal court ruling affirming that California's nonpartisan Top Two primary is constitutional — establishing the legal precedent every future reform can cite.
Voter Rights Over Party Rights
The court ruled that the state's interest in giving all voters meaningful primary access outweighs political parties' claims to exclusive nomination processes.
Reform Made Durable
By surviving its first federal challenge, Proposition 14 moved from a voter-approved ballot measure to a constitutionally tested law — far harder to undo.
National Playbook Created
The legal arguments and precedent from Boden became the foundation for IVP's legal strategy, giving other states a proven constitutional roadmap.
“Passing a reform is only the beginning. If it can't survive a courtroom, it's just a press release. Boden proved that Proposition 14 was built to last.”
— Independent Voter ProjectLegal reform is expensive. Your support makes it possible.
Every court case IVP fights protects the right of every voter to participate in every election. Donate to help us defend what we've won, and extend it to every state.
Related Cases
Proposition 14 — California Top Two Primary
IVP authored the ballot measure that replaced California's closed partisan primaries with a nonpartisan Top Two system — giving every voter access to every candidate on a single ballot.
Read the Full StoryNearly 40 million Californians now participate in a primary system that doesn't require party membership. Proposition 14 remains the most significant structural election reform in modern California history.
Rubin v. Bowen
A second federal challenge targeted the Top Two primary, arguing it unconstitutionally burdened minor parties' access to the general election ballot. The court ruled that voter participation rights outweigh partisan ballot access claims.
Read the Full CaseThe ruling reinforced that the Top Two primary serves a compelling state interest in opening elections and that the rights of voters to participate outweigh partisan ballot access claims.
Boydston v. Padilla
IVP challenged the state of California over the exclusion of independent voters from presidential primaries — arguing that taxpayer-funded elections must be open to all taxpayers.
Read the Full CaseThe court deferred to party autonomy for presidential primaries, and SCOTUS denied certiorari in October 2023 (144 S.Ct. 496). The case raised national awareness of the contradiction: voters fund elections they can't vote in.