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".