Los Angeles Times Poll Shows Proposition 14 Supported by 52% of Voters

A poll conducted for the Los Angeles Times and for the University of Southern California shows that California’s Proposition 14 has the support of 52% of the voters. 28% oppose it. The other 20% is undecided. See this story. The poll was conducted May 19-26.

The previous poll, by the PPIC, showed support at 60% and opposition at 27%.


Los Angeles Times Poll Shows Proposition 14 Supported by 52% of Voters — 10 Comments

  1. Jim Riley wrote on a previous page:

    May 29th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
    #20 Proposition 14 reduces the number of signatures for a candidate to get on the statewide ballot to 65, from the current 173,000+. Candidates registered with small parties that are currently “unqualified” will be able to have that preference shown on the ballot.

    Obviously the current political parties, want to keep their monopoly on ballot access.

    Proposition 14 eliminates discrimination on the basis of party preference of both voters and candidates.

    Phil Sawyer responds:

    If that is really correct, it is good news. It would not be enough to convert me to being in favor of Propostion 14; however, it would definitely put some sugar coating on a very bitter pill if Proposition 14 passes.

  2. It’s good that third parties and groups on either side of the spectrum are uniting against Prop. 14, but if these polls are accurate, then there is still much more work to be done.

  3. What is the HOSTILITY poll / index towards the EVIL Donkey/Elephant party hacks in the gerrymander CA legislature ???

    80 percent ???

    90 percent ???

    How about a poll question —

    Do you want an election system (i.e. Prop. 14) to cause more and more party hack extremists to get wiped out in primaries and general elections ???

  4. #1 Proposition 62, which was defeated in 2004, was similar to Proposition 14. It however had an explicit provision that said if a candidate was registered with an unqualified party, it would be treated as if he had “No Party”, other than on his actual registration.

    There is no similar provision in Proposition 14. A voter’s political party preference is precisely as he stated it when he registered. Under Proposition 14, party registration is recast as a “disclosure of party preference”. You have a right to prefer a particular political party, even if that preference is not particularly popular. And you have a right to disclose or not disclose that preference.

    Proposition 14 says that regardless of your party preference you may vote for any candidate in the Top 2 primary. And when a candidate declares his candidacy for a Top 2 office, he has two choices: (1) have his party preference that he disclosed on his signed voter registration affidavit appear on the ballot; or (2) have a blank space.

    If your registration disclosed a preference for the Democratic Party, if you were to run for office, you could not claim that you actually preferred the Republican Party, or that you really had No Party Preference. You could either say “I Prefer The Democratic Party” or leave a blank on the ballot.

    If the State of California were to tell a candidate who preferred a “non-qualified” party that he had to say that “I Have No Party Preference”, they would be forcing the candidate to lie, and they would be discriminating on the basis of the popularity of the candidate’s personal beliefs. If they forced certain candidate’s to leave their preferences blank, voter’s might make a false inference that the candidate was hiding his beliefs.

    And any of these restrictions would interfere with the rights of a voter, on the basis of, or with regard to the party preference of a candidate.

    The same logic that was behind the term limit cases applies here. Arkansas attempted to require long-time incumbents to run as write-in candidates for Congress. This had the effect of making it harder for voters to vote for some candidates than others (US Term Limits Inc v Thornton).

    Then Missouri tried to require candidates to pledge to support a term limits constitutional amendment. Candidates who refused to make the pledge would have “DECLINED TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT TERM LIMITS” on the ballot next to his name. In Cook v Gralike the US Supreme Court ruled “[the Missouri law] is plainly designed to favor candidates who are willing to support the particular form of a term limits amendment set forth in its text and to disfavor those who either oppose term limits entirely or would prefer a different proposal.”

  5. The California poll is moving in the right direction.

    During the 2008 campaign in Oregon, a poll showed 70%-plus favoring M65, the “top two open primary.” And yet on election day, 66% voted “NO,” as the measure lost in every county in the state.

  6. Congressman Tom McClintock made a great statement on Proposition 14, which he called the “distorted primary”: “This was the result of the corrupt deal for the tax increase engineered by [Dis]Abel Maldonado that included this measure to by-pass party primaries in a manner Maldonado believed would enhance his future election prospects. Instead of voters of each party putting their best candidate forward, this jerry-rigged system is designed to disguise the difference between the parties and force those pesky third parties off the general election ballot entirely.”

    That $13 billion tax hike was, of course, the largest tax increase in any state in US history. In voting for it, (Dis)Abel broke a pledge he had expressly made not to support a tax hike.

    FLUSH 14!!

  7. Hello,

    Following are my endorsements for the California Statewide Direct Primary Election for the Democratic Party of California and the County of Sacramento; and the Non-Partisan races and issues (June 8, 2010).

    Governor: Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown

    Lieutenant Governor: Janice Hahn

    Secretary of State: Debra Bowen

    Controller: John Chiang

    Treasurer: Bill Lockyer

    Attorney General: Kamala D. Harris

    Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones

    Member, State Board of Equalization, District 2: Chris Parker

    United States Senator: Barbara Boxer

    United States Representative, Congressional District 3: Ami Bera

    Member of the State Assembly, Assembly District 5: Richard Pan

    Democratic County Central Committee, District 5 (Six Seats): Kerri Asbury, Karen Bernal, Matt Gray, Warren Harding, Owen Jackman, and Bruce Pomer

    State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Gloria Romero

    County Board of Education, Governing Board Member, Area 3: Jackie Levy

    Assessor: Kathleen E. Kelleher

    District Attorney: Jan Scully

    Sheriff: Scott Jones

    Proposition 13: Yes

    Proposition 14: No

    Proposition 15: Yes

    Proposition 16: No

    Proposition 17: No

    Yours truly,


    Philippe L. Sawyer, Member:

    Amnesty International USA
    Coalition for Free and Open Elections
    Democratic Party of the United States
    Democratic Socialists of America
    Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
    United Public Employees, Local #1

  8. May Maldonado rot in Hell for all time with little devils sticking pitchforks in his ass.

  9. http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/toptwo.aspx

    Top 2 case in WA State — see the WA State regime responses to the party hack claims near the bottom.

    IF Prop. 14 passes, then will the CA party hacks copy the WA party hacks — or claim some other stuff out of thin air ??? Stay tuned.

    P.R. and App.V. — NO primaries are needed.

  10. Pingback: California's Prop 14: Death Sentence for Third Parties? - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *