Michael Chamness v. Abel Maldonado

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the “No Party 40 SOLTYSIK V. PADILLA Preference” listing or blank space imposed a “slight” burden outweighed by state interests
• explaining that, under Gralike , the Elections Clause prohibits state election regulations that \dictate political outcomes or invidiously discriminate against a class of candidates\
• concluding that, pursuant to Timmons, a state regulation prohibiting a candidate from using the ballot label “Independent,” and requiring him to either state he had “No Party Preference” or leave the space blank imposed “only a slight burden on speech”
• applying framework to California law requiring independent candidates to be described as having “No Party Preference”
• affirming denial of intervention as untimely when movant had two to four weeks’ prior notice of potential impairment and litigation was near its end
• noting possibility that “‘No Party Preference’ might . . . evoke a neutral or even negative view—that the candidate is apathetic to the views of the other parties; i.e., while he does not identify with them, he does not reject them.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).