The Supreme Court today agreed to hear on an expedited schedule Patterson v. Padilla, the writ petition challenging Senate Bill 27.  SB 27 is the new law barring presidential candidates from the state’s primary ballot if they do not make public their tax returns from the last 5 years.

Unlike other legal attacks, which are pending in federal courts and make federal constitutional arguments, the Patterson petition claims SB 27 violates article II, section 5(c), of the state constitution.

The court’s order includes this about the issues:

In addition to addressing issues relating to what relief, if any, this court should order, the parties are directed to address (1) the legislative history of Proposition 4 (Ballot Pamp., Primary Elec. (June 6, 1972), analysis of Prop. 4 by Legis. Counsel, pp. 9-10; id., arguments in favor of, and opposing, pp. 10-11; Sen. Const. Amend. No. 3, Stats. 1971 (1971 1st Ex. Sess.) res. ch. 274, p. 4868), as well as related legislation contemporaneous to SCA 3, and prior related legislation; and (2) any guidelines, including internal measures and protocols, that the Secretary of State has employed in the intervening decades to assess who is a “recognized” candidate for purposes of California Constitution, article II, section 5.

The court’s decision to hear the petition on its merits was fast, and so will be the future proceedings.  The petition was filed 15 days ago and the parties preliminary briefing was completed just last Friday.  The court has directed that the parties’ merits briefing be completed by September 11 with no extensions of time.  It won’t be surprising if the case is argued on the October calendar.

[August 22 update:

  1.  here is the Secretary of State’s preliminary opposition to the writ petition.
  2.  besides agreeing to hear the case, the court asked the California Attorney General to “update the court immediately concerning any developments in the pending federal litigation relating to the challenged statutes . . . , and that it keep the court updated concerning those and any other subsequently filed similar federal actions until the matter pending before this court is resolved.”]