Boydston v. Padilla
The Fight to Open California's Presidential Primary
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.
Proposition 14 opened the primaries — except for president. That contradiction couldn't stand.
When IVP authored Proposition 14, it transformed California's state and congressional primary elections into a nonpartisan system where every voter participates on a single ballot. But presidential primaries were explicitly excluded from the reform — they remained under the control of the political parties.
The result was a confusing, two-tiered system. For state races, California's 5.6 million No Party Preference (NPP) voters could vote for any candidate. For president, they were at the mercy of party rules. Some parties allowed NPP voters to request a "crossover" ballot — but the process was so confusing that in 2016, only 25,000 out of 400,000 eligible NPP absentee voters in LA County alone actually received one. The Republicans simply denied NPP voters access altogether.
IVP first raised this issue in 2015, proposing a simple solution: a "public ballot" option for NPP voters who didn't want to join a party. Despite support from registrars and reform organizations, neither the Secretary of State nor the legislature acted. The 2016 presidential primary was marked by massive voter confusion — and the same thing happened again in 2020.
If taxpayers fund the election, taxpayers should be able to vote in it.
On July 23, 2019, IVP and six individual plaintiffs sued the California Secretary of State, alleging six distinct violations of state and federal voting rights laws — including a state constitutional requirement that California conduct an open presidential primary. The National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers, representing more than 30 voter rights organizations, joined the effort.
The core argument was straightforward: presidential primaries are publicly funded elections, administered by the government, paid for with taxpayer dollars. Excluding millions of taxpaying voters because they choose not to join a political party violates both the California constitution and fundamental equal protection principles.
While the court ultimately deferred to party autonomy for presidential primaries, and SCOTUS denied certiorari in October 2023 (144 S.Ct. 496), the case accomplished something the legal ruling alone doesn't capture. It raised national awareness of a contradiction that millions of Americans experience: you fund an election with your tax dollars, but you can't vote in it unless you pledge allegiance to a political party.
The court deferred to party autonomy for presidential primaries. SCOTUS denied certiorari in October 2023 (144 S.Ct. 496). The core question — can the state exclude taxpaying voters from taxpayer-funded elections — remains unresolved at the federal level.
Key Milestones
IVP Raises the Issue
IVP proposes a simple 'public ballot' solution to the Secretary of State and state legislators — allowing NPP voters to vote for any presidential candidate without joining a party. Despite support from registrars and reform organizations, no action is taken.
Presidential Primary Causes Mass Confusion
California's semi-closed presidential primary disenfranchises and confuses hundreds of thousands of NPP voters. In LA County alone, only 25,000 of 400,000 eligible NPP absentee voters receive a Democratic crossover ballot.
Legislative Solution Derailed
IVP and the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers (30+ organizations) sponsor legislation requiring a public presidential ballot for NPP voters. The bill is derailed by national party opposition.
Lawsuit Filed Against Secretary of State
IVP and six individual plaintiffs sue California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, alleging six distinct violations of state and federal voting rights laws.
Voter Confusion Repeats
California's presidential primary causes massive voter confusion again. The same systemic problems that plagued 2016 go unresolved.
SCOTUS Denies Certiorari
The U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear the case (144 S.Ct. 496). The ruling stands, but the core constitutional question about taxpayer-funded election access remains unresolved at the federal level.
What Boydston v. Padilla Changed
The case raised national awareness of a fundamental contradiction: voters fund elections they can't vote in. That argument has become a central pillar of the open primary movement.
National Awareness
The case crystallized a simple, powerful argument that resonates with voters across the political spectrum: if you pay for an election, you should be able to vote in it.
Coalition Built
The lawsuit brought together 30+ nonpartisan reform organizations under the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers.
10,000+ Signatures
More than 10,000 registered California voters signed the petition supporting a public ballot option.
Unfinished Business
The underlying contradiction remains unresolved. Millions of NPP voters in California still face barriers to participating in presidential primaries.
“Voters shouldn't have to ask permission from a political party to participate in an election paid for with their tax dollars.”
— 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.
Boden v. Secretary of State
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.
Read the Full CaseThe court upheld the constitutionality of the Top Two system, establishing legal precedent that states can adopt nonpartisan primary reforms without violating party association rights.
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.