The non binding lawsuit Spencer Pratt could file regarding the 2026 Los Angeles General Election.

It is important Spencer Pratt does more than go all in on a lawsuit challenging the 2026 Los Angeles Mayoral Primary election outcome. Below is what Alessandro Machi at DailyPUMA suggests should be an alternative, back up plan.

After an extensive back and forth with Grok.com, I was able to come up with "the question" regarding a possible lawsuit that would require Los Angeles to include a "None of the Above" option for the 2026 Los Angeles Mayoral General Election. The original question I asked Grok was answered incorrectly, However, because I had the chance to speak to an LA City Council member who explained The City Charter would have to be changed before anything else could be done, once I included this fact, Grok did a great job responding to the rest of my questions, resulting in the final conclusionary question...

"Which lawsuit is more plausible, attempt to have a non-binding write-in option for the LA Mayoral Race, or, request that a non-binding, "none of the above" option be included for LA Mayor ballot? Would offering both options give a judge more leeway to approve one or the other?"

The "none of the above" (NOTA) non-binding option lawsuit is more plausible than one seeking a non-binding write-in option for the LA mayoral general election, though both face steep odds of success due to the LA City Charter and top-two system.⁠Clerk.lacity

Why "None of the Above" Is Relatively Stronger

• Precedent and voter familiarity: California voters rejected a statewide Proposition 23 in 2000 (64% to 36%) that would have added NOTA for federal and state offices (excluding local/judicial). This shows the concept has been litigated/debated at the ballot level, and courts have addressed similar protest-voting mechanisms. Nevada's longstanding NOTA option (tabulated but non-binding, with the top candidate still winning) provides a real-world model that has withstood challenges.
• Framing advantages: A non-binding NOTA is easier to portray as a neutral, expressive tool for voter discontent (e.g., tied to fire impacts, turnout issues in Pratt's base, or leadership skepticism) without directly conflicting with candidate qualification rules. It doesn't require officials to recognize specific names or alter canvassing for individuals. Symbolic/First Amendment arguments (voter expression) may land better, especially with nominal damages ($1) for vindication.
• Lower disruption: Courts are more likely to entertain minimal administrative asks (adding one fixed option) than dynamic write-in tabulation, which could complicate ballot processing.

Write-In Option Challenges

• The LA City Charter (Sec. 312(h)) explicitly states: "There shall be no write-in candidates allowed for General Municipal Elections." This is a bright-line prohibition, upheld in the context of California's top-two system (Prop 14). Precedents strongly defer to such charter rules for finality in runoffs.
• Even non-binding/historical tabulation would require overriding this, making it a heavier lift.

Offering Both Options

Yes, pleading both in the alternative could give a judge more leeway. Courts often prefer narrower or less burdensome remedies when faced with constitutional claims (e.g., under First Amendment voting expression rights). A judge could:

• Grant NOTA as the "least intrusive" accommodation.
• Deny write-ins but allow NOTA (or vice versa).
• Use the dual request to frame the suit as reasonable and flexible, potentially improving chances of partial symbolic relief or surviving a motion to dismiss.

This "in the alternative" strategy is standard in declaratory relief suits and aligns with your documentation goals—creating a public record regardless of full success.

Overall Outlook: Neither is likely to prevail on the merits before November 2026 (due to laches, charter deference, and election stability interests), but NOTA has the edge for plausibility and media/historical impact. A well-drafted complaint tying in fire-related voter impacts could amplify the narrative.

Next steps (for documentation): Consult an LA election/voting rights attorney for drafting. Complement with CPRA requests for turnout data. This is not legal advice—professional counsel is essential for timing and standing. Let me know if you want sample language ideas or attorney search help!

 

Alessandro Machi combines Empathy and Simple Math Skills to come up with problem solving solutions, plus brand enrichment solutions for Fortune 2,000 companies. Alessandro may already have an idea for your Fortune 2,000 company. "Say Hello to Alessandro on LinkedIn".

DailyPUMA is predicting with 65.8% of the Vote counted, and trailing Spencer Pratt by 33,076 Votes, Nithya Raman will eventually overtake Spencer Pratt by 7,000 to 8,000 Votes for 2nd place in the 2026 LA Mayoral Primary Race.

Los Angeles City Limits only has 12% to 15% registered Republicans. With 65.8% of the 2026 LA Mayoral Primary Vote counted, and based on Thursday, June 4, 2026 DailyPuma Calculations by Alessandro Machi, Spencer Pratt will probably relinquish his 40,301 second place lead over third place Nithya Raman. Nithya Raman will probably end up with approximately 7,000 to 8,000 more votes than Spencer Pratt when all votes are counted in the next few weeks.

It just seems so wrong to have such a low percentage of Republican voters in Los Angeles City. One has to wonder if inaccurate voter rolls are over favoring Democrat Candiates in Los Angeles City, as the Democrat and Democrat Socialist Party of Los Angeles stranglehold over Los Angeles continues.

While it is acceptable for the U.S. Census to come knocking on one's door multiple times if the occupant was not available in prior visits (I know from personal experience as I intentionally refused to be counted in the 2020 census after the local ER medically manslaughteed my Mother. Why would I want to inflate California population numbers after California anti resident policies caused my Mother's ER manslaughtering in front of my eyes?), it becomes sadly ironic that attempting verify multiple people who have already voted from the same address, would be falsely labeled as post Votomng Intimidation, as if somehow verifying that multiple votes from the same address would reverse their already submitted vote. 

The Federal Government should step inn ala the Nick Shirlely Method and pleasantly visit ALL addresses that submitted 3 or more mail in ballots, and actually verify the mail in ballot votes were authentic and legitimate, at the actual registered address the multiple mail in votes came from. 

Karen Bass should do the right thing and bow out of the 2026 Mayoral Primary so there can be a fair Political discourse over the next 5 months between Spencer Pratt and Nithya Raman. 

The highly awkward pictured moment below as Karen makes the 2026 LA Mayoral Runoff is a picture worthy of a thousand words. She won the 2026 LA Mayoral Primary race, thus she. happitly gets to keep being the most dangerous, deceitful, corrupt Mayor Los Angeles has ever known. 

This is the Mayor that "bravely" stood up to ICE in MacArthur Park in July of 2025 because she wanted to protect the "family park", a park known for rampant drug use, addiction, and drug sales. Perhaps Drug families used the Park, maybe that is whom Karen was referring to? 

Instead, the Federal Government had to step in in 3 phases to do what Bass would not do, clean up the MacArthur Park so families could actually use it again. Bass now takes full credit for the drop in the murder rate that has occurred after ICE caused tens of thousands of gang members to leave Los Angeles, or be deported.

Bass actually bragged about protecting drug infested MacArthur Park in her 2026 Television Political ads. Meanwhile, Nithya Raman, who eventually will probably pass Spencer Pratt for second place with about 7,000 to 8,000 votes to spare, saw no difference between homeless encampments next to schools rather than at least 500 feet away, aka 1 and 2/3's football fields farther away, so she voted against a proposal that would require homeless encampments not be next to schools and libraries.

Bass truly believes as long as she defeats her Political opponents, she deserves to lead Los Angeles, irrespective of the 50,000 or greater Los Angeleeeenos who will have permanent PTSD over a declining emergency services situation she may have inherited, yet still ignored and deprioritized prior to the January 7th, 2025 fires that could have been mitigated, but were not. Bass chose to favor all the Non-profits and Foundations that support her Political Objectives in what appears to be an obvious, and unethical quid pro quo power grab.

Getting back to the 2026 LA Mayoral Primary Race, Spencer Pratt will apparently suffer the same fate that Rick Caruso experienced in the 2022 LA Mayoral Race, suffering dramatically decreased mail in vote total percentages than their Democrat Rivals from voters who remain faceless, and who vote from the shadows. 

 

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.