Edelstein

I agree with the majority that the City and County of San Francisco’s (San Francisco) ban on write-in voting in its *184 December 1999 runoff election is constitutional. I arrive at that result through a different route. The majority would overrule Canaan v. Abdelnour (1985) 40 Cal.3d 703 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 710 P.2d 268 , 69 A.L.R.4th 915 ] (Canaan) “to the extent, but only to the extent, it is inconsistent with the views expressed” in the majority opinion. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 183.) The extent to which Canaan is overruled by the majority is unclear. I disagree that Canaan should be overruled and would instead distinguish it from the present case, as explained below.

As the majority recognizes, the United States Supreme Court’s holding that a complete ban on write-in voting does not contravene the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (see Burdick v. Takushi (1992) 504 U.S. 428 [ 112 S.Ct. 2059 , 119 L.Ed.2d 245 ] (Burdick)) does not compel the conclusion that such a ban, or even a more limited ban, would pass muster under the California Constitution’s free speech clause, article I, section 2, subdivision (a). The meaning of this clause is derived not only from…

The question presented by this case is whether former section 13.102 of article XIII of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco (repealed Mar. 5, 2000; hereafter section 13.102), by prohibiting write-in voting in runoff elections for municipal offices, violated the free speech clause of the California Constitution (art. I, § 2, subd. (a)). We conclude it did not.

*168 In Canaan v. Abdelnour (1985) 40 Cal.3d 703 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 468 , 710 P.2d 268 , 69 A.L.R.4th 915 ] (Canaan), this court struck down, as violative of the free speech clauses of both the state and federal Constitutions, San Diego’s prohibition on write-in voting in its municipal general elections. However, in Burdick v. Takushi (1992) 504 U.S. 428 [ 112 S.Ct. 2059 , 119 L.Ed.2d 245 ] (Burdick), the United States Supreme Court later upheld, against a federal constitutional challenge, Hawaii’s total ban on write-in voting.

The California free speech clause is broader and more protective than the First Amendment free speech clause. (Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 352, 366-367 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 993 P.2d 334 ].) However, the fact that our provision is…