## Facts

- Santa Monica’s city charter required that incumbent candidates’ names be placed first on the ballot in city elections.
- In a city council election, incumbents received the top ballot positions and nonincumbent challengers were listed below.
- Two nonincumbent candidates sued city election officials, alleging the incumbent-first rule violated equal protection by giving incumbents a systematic positional advantage.
- After a four-day evidentiary trial with expert testimony and empirical data, the trial court found that top ballot placement provides a significant and measurable electoral advantage, including in the election at issue.
- The city argued the ordering was within election administrators’ discretion and helped voters by reducing confusion and efficiently identifying incumbents.
- The trial court held the rule unconstitutional and granted relief; the city appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a charter provision that systematically assigns incumbents the top ballot positions violates equal protection under the U.S. and California Constitutions.
2. Whether the incumbent-first ordering burdens the fundamental right to vote such that strict scrutiny applies, and if so, whether the city’s asserted interests justify the classification.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment invalidating the incumbent-first ballot-order rule.
- The court held the rule unconstitutional because it confers a significant, state-created electoral advantage on incumbents, diluting the voting strength of supporters of other candidates.
- The court applied strict scrutiny and concluded the city’s asserted interests, including avoiding voter confusion, were not compelling and the means chosen were not necessary.
- The court indicated that neutral methods such as random drawing or rotation of ballot positions are permissible alternatives.

## Legal Principles

- A ballot-order rule that systematically advantages a class of candidates and affects election outcomes can constitute unconstitutional vote dilution and violate equal protection.
- When an election regulation materially burdens the fundamental right to vote by structuring the ballot to favor a preferred class of candidates, strict scrutiny applies.
- Administrative convenience or ordinary informational goals are insufficient to justify a state-created electoral advantage where neutral alternatives can achieve the same ends.
- Neutral, nondiscriminatory ballot-ordering methods (e.g., randomization or rotation) are constitutionally acceptable.

## Conclusion

The court held that Santa Monica could not reserve top ballot positions for incumbents because the proven positional advantage diluted votes for nonincumbent supporters and burdened the right to vote; lacking a compelling, necessary justification, the incumbent-first scheme violated equal protection.


Gould v. Grubb, 536 P.2d 1337 (Cal. 1975)