Joe Matthews, writing for Fox&Hounds, this week was the latest to cover the Independent Voter Project's lawsuit against California Secretary of State for failing to conduct an open presidential primary as the state constitution requires.
Read the lawsuit.
There is a misunderstanding in the article regarding the purpose of the lawsuit, specifically where it reads, "The policy on independents is being challenged in court, on the basis that the parties shouldn’t be able to set rules for their own primaries."
This is not accurate as IVP attorney Chad Peace notes in his response:
"Joe, appreciate the coverage, but just wanted to clarify that the suit does not say that the parties can't dictate how they run their primaries. The argument is that parties can (and have the constitutional right) to protect the private nature of the party primaries by saying that they can include and exclude who they want. But, the state also has a constitutional obligation to the voters. One remedy, is to include a separate "public ballot" for anyone (especially NPP's) whereby they can select any candidate of their choice. The parties can chose, or not chose, to consider these votes when nominating their candidate. It is a potential remedy that protects both party rights, and voter rights.
In fact, I think IVP's lawsuit and the remedy it has offered is in-line with your take. More here on IVP's potential remedy: https://independentvoterproject.org/.../presidential-primary."
Fox&Hound is just the latest in growing coverage over the lawsuit. Stay tuned for more updates.