Challengers sue state Democratic Party

SACRAMENTO -- Democratic challengers to two of the state's most powerful politicians have sued the California Democratic Party, claiming illegally tactics were used to prevent them seeking the party's official endorsements.

Campaign attorney Bradley W. Hertz filed the lawsuits this week on behalf of Stephen R. Jaffe, who is running against House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and Maria Estrada, who is running against state Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood.

Hertz is partner with the Sutton Law Firm in San Francisco. He deferred comment to his clients in Jaffe v. California Democratic Party, 80002809 (Sac. Super. Ct., filed Feb. 21, 2018) and Estrada v. California Democratic Party, 80002811 (Sac. Super. Ct., filed Feb. 22, 2018).

Each of Hertz's clients claims they turned in enough signatures from people with votes in the party endorsement process, but that party officials lied and changed the rules in order to prevent challenges to the two powerful incumbents.

A challenger must get signatures from at least 20 percent of eligible voters to prevent the state Democratic Party from giving an automatic endorsement to the incumbent. These will be handed out at the state Democratic Party Convention in San Diego this weekend.

Jaffe, a San Francisco-based employment lawyer, said of the tandem lawsuits, "I believe each one strengthens the other because it shows a pattern of conduct by the California Democratic Party to protect the incumbencies of establishment Democrats and block the candidacies of progressive Democrats."

Of Estrada's suit, Jaffe said, "Like me, she wanted to challenge the automatic endorsement. Like me, she had enough votes to do it."

A spokesman for the California Democratic Party said Thursday it has not been served with any lawsuit. The party's communications director, John Vigna,added, "The party's bylaws are clear on the endorsement process, and we followed those procedures to the letter. The CDP's by-laws also provide a process for challenging and appealing endorsement decisions. The CDP has acknowledged Mr. Jaffe's timely appeal, and that process is still ongoing."

A spokesman for Rendon's reelection campaign declined to comment, deferring to the party. A Pelosi spokesman did not respond to an email by press time.

According to the complaint, the party gave Jaffe a list of 182 people eligible to vote in the nomination process, requiring him to get signatures of 37. But the party subsequently denied five of the signatures, and provided no explanation in one instance. The party also claimed there were 190 eligible voters, requiring 38 valid signatures, the complaint said.

"No list containing 190 voters was ever provided to Jaffe at any time prior to the January 17, 2018 due date," the complaint states.

Estrada is also challenging Rendon from the left, basing her campaign in part on Rendon's decision not to allow a vote last year on SB 562, a bill that calls for single-payer healthcare in California. She did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Her complaint alleges the party conspired directly with Rendon's campaign. She claims that shortly after she turned in her signatures, people on her list started getting calls from the Rendon campaign urging them to change their minds. She also said signatures were illegally removed after the deadline.

"In the one day between the time Estrada submitted her petition and the CDP 'determined' that she had failed to acquire the requisite number of signatures, the CDP staff provided Rendon with the names of signatories to Estrada's petition -- completely undermining the integrity of the process," her complaint stated.

Much of the complaints is taken up by Hertz arguing his clients have standing to challenge the party's processes in civil court. This includes sections citing the state elections code and other instances in which the California Supreme Court has upheld due process and equal protections rights in administrative cases outside of the public sector.

"While in some ways a political party is a private organization, actions taken by political parties that can fairly be attributable to the state are subject to due process. (Wilson v. San Luis Obispo County Democratic Committee (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 489, 499-500) ... the CDP acts in a public capacity and uses public resources when endorsing and nominating candidates," Jaffe's complaint reads.