The Center for Government Studies has issued this 102-page report on California’s Proposition 14, the “top-two” ballot measure on the June 8, 2010 ballot. The study, by Molly Milligan, studies whether Proposition 14 would create more moderate California politicians. The study suggests that the measure would tend to create more moderates in the State Senate.
The study also finds that campaign spending would increase, because many candidates who now have a completely safe primary process would need to spend enough money to win twice before the entire electorate. The study also says, on page 17, in footnote 11, that in the Massachusetts special U.S. Senate election of January 2010, if Massachusetts had used top-two, Scott Brown would not have qualified for the second round. In the real world, Brown won the election.
Finally, the study concludes that there would be a good share of legislative races, and some U.S. House races, in which the November election would be between two Democrats. However, the study does not believe there would be November elections between two Republicans.
The study does not mention that Proposition 14 makes it more difficult for ballot-qualified minor parties to remain ballot-qualified. It makes passing references to the aspects of the measure that eliminate write-in voting, and that make it very unlikely that any minor party or independent candidate would qualify for the November ballot, except in instances at which only one major party member is running. The study does not mention the adverse impact that Proposition 14, if passed, would have on Proposition 15, the public funding measure. Finally, the study does not mention the problem of no party labels for candidates who are members of unqualified parties.
See the number of super-majority ONE party safe seat party hack gerrymander districts in the report.
SOME of the gerrymander party hacks (mainly Donkeys) would have SOME real opposition SOME of the time in general elections IF Prop 14 passes.
P.R. and A.V. — NO primaries are needed.
In the report note the upside down staircase listings of the growing numbers of party hacks in de facto ONE party safe seat gerrymander districts in CA.
Same stuff in ALL States in the U.S.A.
Result – ARROGANT powermad control freak Donkeys / Elephants enacting their control freak leftwing / rightwing schemes.
Why do you see any adverse effect on Proposition 15, which applies only to the Secretary of State elections?
There are two ways to harmonize Proposition 14 and Proposition 15. One would be to simply continue the SOS office as a partisan office. Sure it would be a joke to have the only partisan office be that of chief elections officer and to requires a bazillion (173,000+) signatures for independent candidates, but it would be a legal reconciliation.
But because Proposition 14 makes the Secretary of State a Voter-Nominated office in the Constitution, a statutory funding scheme based around partisan elections may be void, even if it is approved by the voters.
The other would to be to modify Proposition 15 to apply to a Top 2 Open Primary. Proposition 15 defines a number of different classes of candidates. Under a Top 2 Open Primary system most of these would be empty (there for example would be no candidates seeking the nomination of a party, and none would be on the general election as a nominee of a party). All candidates would thus be non-party nominees. There is a flaw here, because Proposition 15’s definition is based on those who qualify directly for the general election ballot – which there would be none. Proposition 15 might then fail equal protection, because it denies the possibility of public funding to candidates who run in the primary, but are not seeking a party nomination.
The next SOS election is not until 2014, so there would also be time to craft a version that would work with Voter-Nominated offices. This would greatly simplify the overall scheme, since presumably all candidates could become participants by getting the same number of small-dollar contributions before the primary. I think this will require another vote of the people, but there will be three elections in 2012 to put the reconciled version on the ballot.
Nothing in Proposition 14 or SB 6 eliminates write-in voting. It maintains the statutory right of voters to cast a write-in vote in all elections. It maintains the statutory right of candidates to run as write-in candidates. It maintains the requirement that ballots contain a space for writing in names.
You do admit that it will increase the possibility of write-in candidates qualifying for the general election ballot because it eliminates the 1% requirement?
It maintains the procedure by which a write-in candidate files with the SOS in order to have write-in votes for him tabulated, and the procedure by which the SOS disseminates those names to the counties.
So that gets us to the malwritten section:
“8606. A person whose name has been written on the ballot as a write-in candidate at the general election for a voter-nominated office shall not be counted.”
If someone writes “Richard Winger” on the ballot what does it mean, that “Richard Winger shall not be counted”? Are you going to be dropped from the census? It sounds like it might violate due process for you “not to be counted” simply because someone anonymously writes your name on a ballot.
So let’s guess what the legislature might have meant.
Guess 1) Even if a write-in candidate receives the most votes he can’t be elected, even if he filed all the paper work, the SOS published his name as a valid candidate, and sufficient voters cast a vote for him in the space provided on the ballot for that purpose. There might be certain cases where a State might not be constitutionally required to permit write-in votes – but if they do provide for that opportunity, they have to accept the possibility of the write-in candidate winning. So if Guess 1 is correct, the law is void.
Guess 2) The votes for write-in candidates may not be tabulated. But this is contradiction with all the other provisions in Elections Code dealing with write-in votes. The State of California may no more deny you the possibility of being elected because of failure to count lawful votes for you, than to count the votes (as under Guess 1) and then deny you election even if you received the most votes. So Guess 2 is no better than Guess 1.
#4 Obviously the CA regime MORONS omitted some words at the start of 8606 — The votes for [a person whose name, etc.].
Latest law [if constitutional] applies.
14 Amdt, Sec. 2 is still around.
Under current California law voters who are registered with “non-qualified” parties are not permitted to vote in partisan primaries. If they wish to run for office, they have to gather a bazillion signatures (173,401 for statewide office) and then are not permitted to use the name of their party on the ballot.
Proposition 62 in 2004 included Elections Code 337.3 which would define voters who had registered with a non-qualified party as having “no party”. There were similar sections relating to candidates, so that a candidate who was registered with the Constitution Party for example, would have been required to run as an having “no party” under Proposition 62.
The authors of SB 6 could have copied the language of Proposition 62 if they had wanted to restrict party preferences to “qualified parties” but they chose not to do so. This omission must be considered to have been made deliberately.
Proposition 14 does not define “party preference”, which is a wise decision, since such details simply do not belong in a Constitution. But it is clearly the legislative intent of the People if they approve Proposition 14 that “existing voter registrations, which specify a political party affiliation, shall be deemed to have disclosed that party as the voter’s political party preference unless a new affidavit of registration is filed.”
California does not require voters to register with qualified parties (such as is required in Oklahoma). In fact, California’s whole (practical) scheme of qualifying new parties is based on voters first registering with an non-qualified party, and the State then counting those registrations to determine if there are sufficient numbers of voters to warrant holding a party primary and placing the winner of the primary on the ballot as the nominee of the party. Voters may register with a non-qualified party long before the State is ever formally notified of the organization of the party, and the counties are compelled to count those registrations, whether they had been made days, months, or even years previously.
So clearly it is the intent of Proposition 14, that voters who have registered a declaration that they intend to affiliate with the Constitution Party (as an example of an non-qualified party) at the next primary, should be converted in a “disclosure of a preference for the Constitution Party”. And if we examine SB 6, it is clear that the legislature simply recast party registration from “declaration of intent to affiliate with a party at the next primary” to “disclosure of party preference”. Under Proposition 14, primaries no longer serve to choose nominees of parties, so the concept of affiliating with a party by voting in its primary is meaningless, though one may still have a preference for a party, and a voter is free to disclose it.
Clearly, there is a statutory right of a voter to disclose a preference for a non-qualified party. And even if there weren’t, there is likely a constitutional right to do so.
It is the intent of Proposition 14 that it comply with the US Supreme Court decision regarding Washington’s Top 2 primary. The Supreme Court ruled that strict scrutiny does not apply in that case because a Top 2 Open Primary does not choose the nominees of a political party.
The case now before the federal district court in Washington is whether voters will be confused and perceive that a candidate who expresses a preference for a political party and had that preference printed by the State on the ballot is the “nominee” of that party.
If California were to say “the primary does not serve to choose the nominee of qualified parties, but rather merely to allow candidates to express a preference for parties that were heretofore qualified (wink wink nudge nudge)” it could well lead to voter confusion and be regarded by the courts as being subterfuge.
But SB 6 does not do this.
Elections Code section 8002.5 says “(a) A candidate for a voter-nominated office may indicate his or her party preference, or lack of party preference, as disclosed upon the candidate’s most recent statement of registration, upon his or her declaration of candidacy.”
Since a voter may disclose a party preference for a non-qualified party, then as a candidate may have that disclosed preference appear on the ballot. The candidate does have the choice to not have anything appear on the ballot.
If a voter had disclosed a preference for the Constitution Party on his voter registration, and then claimed on the ballot that he had “No Party Preference” it could be interpreted to mean that the voter had committed perjury when he registered to vote; or that he had sworn a false oath on his ballot application.
But let’s imagine that SB 6 did impose a restriction on party preferences that a candidate may express. What would be their rational reason for doing so:
(1) They wish to compel perjury;
(2) They wist to confuse or deceive voters;
(3) They wanted to prevent idea crowding on the ballot;
(4) They wished to suppress free speech.
None of those appear to be rational to me.
California may regulate the expression of party preference that appears on the ballot, in a manner similar to how they regulate the designation that appears on the ballot. They may require it to be truthful and correct. California requires the party preference to match that disclosed on the voter registration, requires it not to change through the primary and general election, and provides a 10-year registration history on the SOS website.
It could restrict the length of names, and require them to be rendered in Latin script. SB 6 does not actually do so, but this is likely something that the SOS could promulgate regulations for.
California could require a demonstration that the party that the voter prefers is actually “a political party”. It might use a regulation similar to that used in Canada, where the Pirate Party was recognized on the basis of a nationwide membership of 100; and is similar to that proposed by the highly esteemed Washington SOS, Sam Reed. California might require some organizational structure in terms of bylaws, officers, and member participation in the selection of those officers. While California could provide such regulation, it need not do so, and can simply rely on the disclosure of voters that the party they disclosed a preference for on their registration is actually a “political party”.
This brings us to the issue of “qualified parties”. California will continue to use the concept of qualified parties for presidential elections. Proposition 14 will have no effect on the qualification of parties until after the 2014 election, so there is plenty of time to make adjustments.
For example, it would make more sense to change the performance qualification to be based on the presidential election, rather than the gubernatorial or insurance commissioner election. If California is going to continue to have presidential preference primaries, it may be reasonable to demand some membership base. This qualification might be different than that needed for a party to place a presidential candidate on the general election ballot. After all, 67% of political parties in 2008 ignored the choice of their voters in the primary. 1/3 of parties nominated a candidate whose name did not even appear on the primary ballot.
Since Proposition 14 is designed not to change the presidential election process, it would be inappropriate for it to change the process by which parties qualify to have presidential primaries or place presidential candidates on the ballot.
Proposition 14 in absolutely no way inhibits the legislature from making changes and/or reforms in those areas.
#4 But they also rewrote Elections Code Section 13 to say:
“13 (b) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing or prohibiting any qualified voter of this state from casting a ballot for any person by writing the name of that person on the ballot, or from having that ballot counted or tabulated, nor shall any provision of this section be construed as preventing or prohibiting any person from standing or campaigning for any elective office by means of a “write-in” campaign. However, nothing in this section shall be construed as an exception to the requirements of Section 15341.”
It “appears” that the legislature may have left off a few words at the start of Section 8606. But the omission may not be construed in a manner that would prevent a voter from writing in a name of a candidate or having that vote counted or tabulated, or to prevent a candidate from running for office as a write-in candidate.
In a footnote, the CGS report compares turnout in the 3 legislative primaries that occurred in Washington in 2009, with the same 3 races in 2008.
It fails to note that these were special elections to fill the remainder of terms (in Washington, legislative vacancies are filled by appointment, but a special election including primary and general election are held the next August and November).
While it mentions that the 2008 general election was also a presidential election, it omitted the fact that the 2008 primary was a statewide primary for governor and other statewide offices, congressional races, and legislative races.
A median is not a particularly good measurement for a sample of 3. The county results are quite revealing. All 3-districts were multi-county districts in southeastern Washington.
In two rural counties Skamania and Garfield, turnout for the legislative special primary in 2009 was greater than the statewide primary in 2008.
And while turnout in Skamania was up 5%, it was down 39% in the same district within Yakima County. But the Yakima part of the district was only a small portion of the county (perhaps 20%) and did not include the city of Yakima.
Similarly, in another district, turnout in Benton County was down 41%, but only 4% in Walla Walla County. But only about 15% of Benton County was included in the district, and Richland and Kennewick were excluded, while all of Walla Walla was not included.
So it appears that the differential turnout may well be related to media coverage, and not to the election method.
Incidentally, the best relative performance was in LD 9, where turnout was 83% of 2008. In this district, the 4 Republican-preferring candidates received 75% of the vote with two advancing the general election. So it may be that voters liked actually participating in deciding who would represent them, rather than simply marking a ballot in the general election.
#6 “The case now before the federal district court in Washington is whether voters will be confused and perceive that a candidate who expresses a preference for a political party and had that preference printed by the State on the ballot is the “nominee†of that party.”
———-
No such thing as voter confusion.
Voters allegedly are aware of the law and what effect a CHANGE in the law WILL have.
Aka — Ignorance of the law is NO excuse.
— But of course the MORON lawyers and courts will likely screw up the basic stuff some more — with more work for the party hack Supremes (and their poor blind suffering clerks) on a later appeal.
#6: “Under current California law, voters who are registered with ‘non-qualified’ parties are not permitted to vote in partisan primaries.”
Is that correct?
In Arizona, other than for president, such registrants, along with independents, have their choice of either the Republican primary or the Democratic primary.
As to California: a voter may change his registration as late as 15 days before the primaries.
#10 See Elections Code 13102, 3006, 3007.5, and 3205.
There is perhaps wiggle room under 13102(b). It says that a voter not registered with a party participating in the primary shall be given a non-partisan ballot.
It then sets out an exception, that if the voter requests a party ballot, and the party has adopted a rule permitting “declined to state” voters to vote, he can be given the ballot of that ballot.
So one could parse that as saying someone who is registered with a non-qualified party could be given a party ballot if they requested it and the party had a rule authorizing some other group.
But 13102(d) would appear to preclude that interpretation.
In California, party registration is technically a “declaration of an intent to affiliate with a party at the next primary”, in essences which party’s primary you intend to vote in. A “declined to state” voter is someone who has declined to state what their intentions are.
You will also note in 13102 that California has a don’t ask, don’t tell policy with regard to DTS voters. If a DTS voter doesn’t ask for a party ballot, the election officials don’t tell them about that option. The CGS report also pointed that out as one reason that DTS voters participation rate is less than that of partisans.
By-mail voters for primaries are informed that they may request a party ballot if a party has adopted a rule permitting DTS votes. They are given a toll-free number to call where they can “access information regarding which political parties have adopted such a rule”. I don’t know if they will actually tell you over the phone what your options are.
Under Proposition 14, voters will continue to be able to change their registration before the primaries. They will still be permitted to vote for any candidate in the primary for a voter-nominated office.
Perhaps 10% of Green Party voters changed their party registration in early 2008, presumably so they could vote in the February Democratic primary. It appears that many missed the 15-day deadline, since there was a big decline after the 15-day report for the February primary, and the 60-day report for the June primary.
In the Libertarian case in Arizona, the federal court appeared to be more concerned that a few thousand Green Party and Natural Law Party members (both parties had been previously qualified in Arizona) might vote in the Libertarian primary, rather than hordes of unaffiliated voters.
Pingback: California’s Proposition 14: Open Primaries, Open Vote - Justin Gardner - Political Pulse - True/Slant
Pingback: Help urgently needed: Stop anti-democratic Prop 14 in California! « rossl