On the morning of May 10, KQED (the National Public Radio Station in San Francisco) held an hour-long discussion of California’s Proposition 14. The host was Michael Krasny. The first 12 minutes consist of an interview with political scientist Eric McGhee. The remaining 48 minutes is the debate between California’s Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado, who sponsored the bill that put Proposition 14 on the ballot, and Richard Winger.
I’m so proud of you Richard.
This issue concerns more than just people in California. Mr. Winger does an excellent job. Listen up.
P.R. and nonpartisan A.V. = NO primaries are needed.
Great job!
Good exchange. Prop 14 damages democracy by reducing voters’ choices in the much larger, more important general election.
Great Job Richard. It is obvious they want less competituion in the general election which is why the est. parties are pushing for this.
There are two ways to look at the elections – one is the voter-centric view presented by Abel Maldonado, and the other is the party-centric view presented by Richard Winger.
Winger suggests that there is such a thing as “political party voting rights” while Maldonado argues that the the voters should decide who holds office.
If one looks at races during the blanket primaries in 1998 and 2000 where there were no actual primary contests, so that voters were simply voting for the candidate that they preferred, minor party candidates received more votes in the primary, likely because it was a free vote. While in the general election, voters were more cynical and calculating, so as to not waste a vote on a so-called spoiler.
In cases where one party or the other had an actual primary contest, some voters would vote in that contest, rather than simply rubber stamping their party’s choice. Some of this may have simply been to be involved in voting for something that mattered; some may have actually preferred the candidates; and some may have been cynical interference.
Under a Top 2 Open Primary voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate that they wanted to be elected. For this reason, one should not assume that voter behavior under a blanket primary would match that under an open primary.
There has never been a Green Party candidate in AD 13, so we do not know whether or not such a candidate could finish first or second. And the opportunity may have passed as prominent candidates such as Matt Gonzalez and Ross Mirkarimi have left the party.
In the 2000 general election, Medea Benjamin did finish 2nd in AD 14 across San Francisco Bay to the east. She was within 1% of 2nd in AD 13. The Democratic candidate in that US Senate election was the former mayor of the city, and it is reasonable to assume that some less committed Green voters would have voted for the locally prominent candidate.
The primary is a selection process for the parties. I believe that each party should decide at conventions(at their own expense). Then let all parties and independents in the general election in the fall. The top two system is just a way to limit the choices in the fall, which is the real election. By the way the Pa state dept. is the one who told me that the primary is a selection process for the parties. Make access to the ballot FREE and EQUAL for all, do not have two seperate standards.
Unfairly limited the political rights of citizens, which is what this proposition seems to do, is bad for citizens as voters and as citizens expressing themselves through political organizations.
If the spoiler factor is a serious concern,then push for instant runoff voting. That would address most of the concerns citizens have who support major and non-major party candidates.
Good job, Richard, although you were much gentler than I would have been. For example, I would’ve asked (Dis)Abel why he isn’t running as an independent, since he despises political parties.
#9: Some states still use nominating conventions in some circumstances, with the November ballot limited to one candidate per party (along with any independents, of course). In this situation, grassroots citizens do not get to vote directly in nominating candidates.
In the “top two open primary,” parties are free to nominate//endorse candidates in advance of the first round of the “top two” (a party could even hold a primary, which is not likely, due to the expense). But there is no legal way for a party to prevent non-endorsed candidates from that party from nevertheless running against the party’s nominee in the “top two.” And a party is not guaranteed to have a candidate in the final election, where both candidates may be from the same party.
Richard Winger noted that the authors of Proposition 14 did not borrow the language from Proposition 62, that would have lowered the registration requirements to maintain a party’s qualification status for participating in presidential elections. But he failed to note that the authors of Proposition 14 also did not borrow the language from Proposition 62 that would define a candidate who had registered with an unqualified party would have “No Party”.
I believe he agrees with me that under current California law, a voter may register an affiliation with any party he chooses, qualified or not. Even some expression such as “Mickey Mouse Party” might be legal. It is doubtful that the State would prosecute a voter based on an allegation that the voter had perjured themselves when signing their voter affidavit, with respect to their party preference.
It is absolutely clear that it is the intent of Proposition 14 and SB 6 that current voter registrations that “declare an intent to affiliate with a party at the next primary” will be recast as a “disclosure of party preference”. SB 6 does not change the procedures for voter registration with respect to party affiliation other than this recasting. So under Proposition 14, California voters will have a right to disclose a preference for a non-qualified political party on their voter registration.
Proposition 14 does not define the meaning of a candidate’s party preference. However SB 6 defines that a candidate’s affiliation with a party is based on his preference disclosed on his voter application (Elections Code 300.5). It further states that when a candidates files for office, that he may indicate the party preference that he disclosed on his voter registration (8002.5). Only if the candidate had disclosed that he had No Party Preference on his voter registration may he have “No Party Preference” indicated on the ballot.
The stated purpose of the party preference on the ballot is for purposes of voter information. There is no rational state interest in having false or misleading information appear on the ballot. If a candidate had disclosed a preference for the Democratic Party on his voter registration, but then claimed that he had No Party Preference or preferred the Republican Party on his declaration of candidacy, he might be subject to prosecution that he had committed perjury when completing his voter registration affidavit, or that his sworn declaration of candidacy included false information.
And since a voter’s disclosure of a preference for the Constitution Party or Reform Party is just as legitimate as a disclosure of a preference for the Democratic Party, then if that voter seeks office he must be allowed to have his preference for the Constitution Party or Reform Party.
Proposition 14 provides that a voter may participate in a primary for a voter-nominated office, regardless of the voter’s party preference. California may make no distinction on the basis of a voter’s disclosed party preference. It can’t impose a poll tax. It can’t make the voter jump through hoops or stand on his head. The State may simply give the voter a ballot just as it does for any other voter who may have expressed a more popular party preference or no party preference.
California can’t make it harder for a voter to vote for certain candidates, especially those who had disclosed the same party preference. To do so would be to have regard for or to discriminate on the basis of party preference. So even if SB 6 did what it doesn’t, those provisions of SB 6 would be unconstitutional and severed.
It is also the intent of Proposition 14 that it comply with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Washington Grange case. The US Supreme Court ruled that the Top 2 Open Primary structure is constitutional because the primary does not serve to choose the nominee of the political parties. The ongoing litigation is whether voters will be confused by the appearance on the ballot of a candidate’s party preference in to thinking that the candidate is the nominee of the party or endorsed by the party or represents the views of the party. But if a candidate were restricted to only expressing a preference for parties which were heretofore qualified to hold primaries or nominate candidates, it would be more likely to lead to voter confusion.
If a Constitution Party voter shows up at a primary now, and asks for a Constitution Party ballot, he will be told that the party is not qualified. After Proposition 14, if he were to show up at the primary and request a Constitution Party ballot, he would be told that everyone gets the same ballot. If he then asks why there are no candidates who prefer his party, it would be a lie to say that none had filed (assuming that some had indeed filed). If instead he were told that the party was not qualified to nominate candidates under the old system, he would rightly be confused since the purpose of Proposition 14 was to eliminate party nomination of candidates.
If Proposition 14 is approved by the voters and then challenged in court, the State will surely argue that a candidate’s political party preference is simply his personal beliefs and is simply information for the voter’s similar to the designation. If a candidate is a haberdasher and has that designation on the ballot, it is not a State endorsement of haberdashery or that haberdashers are more qualified than optometrists. And if a candidate prefers the Constitution Party and has that preference appear on the ballot, it is not a State endorsement of the party. But if the State prevents the candidate from having his party preference expressed on the ballot, then the State is effectively endorsing other parties as being more worthy of support. So the Secretary of State and the Attorney General are not going to make up a restriction that does not actually appear in the law. If it did appear in the SB 6, Richard Winger could point to to the provision.
#9 A voter-nominated primary is not a selection process for the political parties. It is a process by which all voters, regardless of their party preference or lack thereof, determine which two candidates advance to the general election.
Political parties will be free to endorse candidates and otherwise provide support for candidates for voter-nominated offices or partisan or non-partisan offices.
#11 Where does Abel Maldonado say that he despises political parties? He expressed disdain for political bosses.
Remember that in Washington, the legislature approved the Top 2 Open Primary, it was only blocked by Gary Locke’s ill-advised veto. In Idaho, the Republicans in the legislature and even at the State convention have been opposed to eliminating the Open Primary. Or look at the speaker of the Tennessee House who expressed utter contempt for the leaders of his political party.
Mr. Riley,
I was saying that it Pa. we have closed primaries and the dept. of state told me that it was just for parties, unless there was a referendum. So my party(constitution party) can not vote for our candidates in the primary. We must have a convention and nominate our candidates. Only the two big parties vote in the primary, third parties and independents can not. I realize its different in Calif.
I wonder if the Ken from Saint Louis was Ken Bush? It sounded like him.
Richard way to kick some ass!
#13: What you call a “voter-nominated primary” is a preliminary general election, the purpose of which is to winnow the field to two candidates, both of whom may be from the same party.
Why should the voters be limited to just two candidates in the final, deciding election?
“Political parties will be free to [blah, blah, blah]…”
If the “top two open primary” is such a great thing for political parties, why are all of the parties– large and small– fighting this monstrosity?
#14: In his courageous veto message, Gov. Locke (now US commerce secretary) expressed concern for the small parties.
Idaho has true open primaries, in which each voter picks a party on primary day. Legislators and other politicians are usually opposed to changing the system by which they were elected to office. And there’s only been one Idaho Republican Convention which opposed the party’s lawsuit against the state-mandated open primary; the vote was 199-192 (the suit is Idaho Republican Party v. Ysursa). This suit was authorized by the GOP State Central Committee, the party’s governing body.
The Tennessee House speaker showed “utter contempt” for everyone in his (former) party, the Republicans. He made a backroom deal with the Democrats to get himself elected speaker of the closely-divided House– which is why he’s no longer a Republican.
See the gerrymander / plurality ROT in the U.K., Canada, etc. — and NOW in the U.S.A. ???
#17 Ordinary citizens aren’t fighting it. Party officials are.
#18 Gov. Locke’s ill-advised veto has cost his state years of litigation and uncertainty.
#18 Was the Idaho Republican Convention which opposed the lawsuit the last one that considered the issue?
#20: The party officials represent their rank-and-file party members, who have the power to remove them from office.
The political parties in Washington state would have brought litigation against the “top two” whether it was enacted by the legislature or by ballot initiative.
#21 Most voters don’t know who the leaders of their parties are.
After the legislature had passed Top 2 Open Primary in 2004, if the parties had sued, they might have been challenged by the legislative parties.
#22: The people who participate in the parties’ grassroots activities certainly do know who the party leaders are. And, in some states, at least some of the party leaders are chosen in party primaries.
Once the parties’ governing bodies in Washington state had authorized the lawsuit, the legislative parties did not oppose it. To do so would have put them on the popular side of the issue, since I-872 got nearly 60% of the vote.
Richard- Thank you for sounding intelligent and informed, in comparison with Maldonado’s “touchy-feely” arguments.
I would also like to congratulate the intelligent callers and emailers to Krazny’s show. They brought up a full spectrum of excellent points — which you addressed directly and Maldonado often seemed to dance around, forget about in mid-answer, or avoid outright. I hope this program finds a wide audience before the election. Thanks to KQED for making it available and to you for posting it here.
As there was some talk of ranked-choice voting, I would like to raise my own hand in support of that method. I, however, would hope that the ranked-choice ballots would be counted using Condorcet methods. The IRV approach has never struck me as all that great. I would also like to see “pre-election” software that would help voters rank their choices optimally, perhaps printing for them a pre-marked “sample” ranked-choice ballot based on what I call “optometrist” sessions: “Do you prefer candidate A or B? How about B or C? etc.”
Finally, as there was a lot of doubt expressed that Prop. 14 would actually do anything to solve the problems that Maldonado cited as motivations for putting it on the ballot in the first place, I wish someone had asked him, “what’s the hurry?” Maldonado himself pointed to gerrymandered districts, and to the Prop. 11 commission as an approach to address that problem. But the Commission hasn’t had time to do its work yet. Rather than pass a 3rd-party killer measure NOW, shouldn’t we wait until seeing whether a reduction in gerrymandering achieves beneficial results before trying something else? I say the same thing to those who clamor for a rewrite of the Constitution, or the repeal of Prop. 13. Maybe, down the road, such drastic steps might prove necessary, but let’s first see if the remedies in process right now have any good effect.
Wake-up please Mr. Maldonaldo ! His arguments are distorted and we should have no June primaries . As I said to the State Assembly Hearing (3/2/10) that . Voting is an first amendment right ! Prop 14 violates this !!! Go to facebook.com , click to search Gary Bryant for 3rd District State Assembly . Click to my testimony which is at the end of the whole video … Richard Winger rules !!!!
Gary Bryant
3rd District State Assembly candidate
Libertarian Party