On February 15, California held its first elections under the Proposition 14 “top-two” system. Both elections were to fill vacancies in the State Senate, in districts within Los Angeles County (one district extends into neighboring counties as well). The semi-official results show that the 17th district had turnout of 12.6% of the registered voters, and the 28th district had a 10.5% turnout. When the official results are known, these turnout figures will rise slightly.
The 17th district is centered on Lancaster and Palmdale, and leans Republican. The results were: Sharon Runner, “My party preference is the Republican Party”, 65.6%; Darren W. Parker, “My party preference is the Democratic Party” 34.4%.
The 28th district is on the coast, in western Los Angeles County, and is heavily Democratic. The results were: Ted Lieu, “My party preference is the Democratic Party” 57.1%; Bob Valentine, “My party preference is the Republican Party” 25.1%; Martha Flores Gibson, “My party preference is the Republican Party”, 6.7%; Mark Lipman “No party preference” 3.4%; Kevin Thomas McGurk “My party preference is the Democratic Party” 2.5%; James P. Thompson, “My party preference is the Republican Party” 2.3%; Jeffrey E. Fortini, “My party preference is the Republican Party” 2.2%; Michael Chamness, “No party preference” .5%.
The same individuals who won these elections would have won the same elections if Proposition 14 had not been in existence.
If one compares these two recent special elections with the special elections held in California during 2009 and 2010 that were not combined with statewide elections, one finds three differences: (1) turnout in the special elections of 2009 and 2010 averaged 19.2% in the first rounds, which is far better than the average turnout in the two recent elections (the average of the two recent elections is 11.6%); (2) whereas independent candidates in the earlier special elections were permitted to have the word “independent” on the ballot, the independent candidates in the recent elections were stuck with the ballot label “no party preference”; (3) whereas six of the special elections held in 2009 and 2010 (i.e., the special-election-first-rounds that weren’t combined with a statewide election) had candidates from one or more of the qualified minor parties, there were no such candidates in the two recent elections. This is because Proposition 14 makes it more difficult for candidates of small qualified parties to get on the primary ballot.
None of the 2009 and 2010 special elections (first round) included here were held in conjunction with any additional elections. They were all “stand-alone” elections, so the comparison of turnout is fair. The first-round special elections in 2009 and 2010 that weren’t combined with a statewide election were: State Senate 26, 7.91% turnout; Assembly 51, 7.90%; US House 10, 29.39%; Assembly 72, 18.28%; State Senate 37, 20.39%; Assembly 43, 18.58%; State Senate 15, 31.78%.
Standard party hack results due to rigged party hack gerrymander districts.
Candidate/Incumbent rank order lists to fill vacancies.
P.R. and App.V. in ONE [general] election.
2012 and top 2 can not happen quick enough in CA.
It seems absurd and wasteful to make the top-voted candidates, both of whom got a majority, go through double jeopardy in another election.
Prop. 14, as interpreted by the California Secretary of State, does not require a 2nd round in special elections when someone gets at least 50%, even though if one reads Prop. 14 literally, it says that it does require a 2nd round in all elections for congress and state office, not just regularly-scheduled elections.
Richard Winger,
What do they base the 50 persent on? The number of total ballots cast or the number of ballots that have just recognized persons names?
Please state where the 2nd round in all elections are stated.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
The 50% is the total number of votes actually cast, not 50% of the number of people who show up to cast a ballot.
The Calif. Constitution, as a result of Prop. 14, says, “All candidates for a given state or congressional office shall be listed on a single primary ballot. The top two candidates, as determined by the voters in an open primary, shall advance to a general election.” It makes no exceptions for special elections.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » First Two California Elections Under “Top-Two” System Produce Low Turnout, Fewer Candidates -- Topsy.com
Richard Winger,
I just read the SOS website and found that it states majority
and not 50%.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
P.S. It now looks like a person winning the primary will
not be the nominee of the party so they will not be ex-offico
members of the AIP State Central Committee or AIP County
Central Committee from a primary election under Prop. 14.
1. UNEQUAL votes for each general/special election winner — old and with top 2.
2. UNEQUAL total votes in each gerrymander district — old and with the new gerrymander commission.
3. About 30 percent indirect minority rule in general elections – old and with top 2 — about 60 percent in a bare majority of the gerrymander districts.
Worse minority rule with special general elections – lower turnouts.
BIG difference — old or new ??? Duh.
How stupid is the know-it-all political media in CA — regarding EVIL BOGUS *reforms* — used to BRAINWASH the public ???
——-
P.R. and App.V = SAVE Democracy from the gerrymander robot party hacks — before it is too late.
See the pending regime shutdown noises in Deficit City.
MAD (as in CRAZY) Elephant party hacks vs. MAD (as in CRAZY) Donkey party hacks — both oligarchy gangs POWERMAD about controlling the U.S.A. economy.
Richard:
The 17th Senate District isn’t just within Los Angeles County. San Bernardino County has 27 1/2% of the registered voters and Ventura County has 4 1/2%. That leaves 68% for Los Angeles County not counting the 5 (yes Five) voters living in Kern County. Also, the Republicans have less than a 2 1/2% registration advantage in the District. Still, it’s currently the most reliably Republican area of Los Angeles County.
Thank you, #9; I amended the post.
Charles Deemer
You forgot to state that the only one person voted in Kern
County for that special election. The one vote went GOP
for S. Runner.
Now to the important question, You have been off the State
Central Committee of the American Independent Party since
the end of date September 2, 2008. You have not been the
Treasurer of the AIP since that date. When do you plan to
turn over the treasury of the American Independent Party to
the current AIP Treasurer?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
#7 Mark. You are correct. Future members of Central Committees will need to take out nomination papers and gather up to 20 valid signatures to be either placed on the ballot in contested contests or be declared winners when there are fewer candidates than seats to be filled. A majority is more than 50% of the vote. Before 2011, a candidate could and often did win with a plurality of the vote which is the person with the most votes.
#3 The Secretary of State is probably basing that on her interpretation of Elections Code 10705(a) which was not changed by SB 6. 10705(b) was modified to remove the provision where a candidate could be elected with a plurality if all candidates were from the same party.
The Constitution prior to Proposition 14 provided that if a party participated in a primary, they had a right to participate in the general election. But 10705(a) was just as contrary to that, as it is to new constitution.
Did you notice that the results in SD 28 were ordered by party. Do you think that the Secretary of State is merely incompetent, or is she actively trying to sabotage the Top 2 Open Primary?
#5 The California Constitution before Proposition 14 read:
“A political party that participated in a primary election for a partisan office has the right to participate in the general election for that office and shall not be denied the ability to place on the general election ballot the candidate who received, at the primary election, the highest vote among that party’s candidates.”
It made no exceptions for special elections.
Elections Code 10705(a) has remained unchanged despite Proposition 60 in 2004 and Proposition 14 in 2010.
#14, I guess California would have argued that the first election in a special election is a general election, and that there is no primary election in past special elections.
You left out State Senate 26. No fair cherry-picking the data.
The two top results were the CD 10 race when Ellen Tauscher resigned, and the then Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi was a candidate.
The other was SD 15 race when Abel Maldonado became Lieutenant Governor, and the Democrats thought they could pick up the seat. With no intra-party races, the only question was whether the Republican would get 50% or not. Remember that the objective was to prevent a 31st senator being seated, which would increase to 21 the number of senators required for a 2/3 majority for passing a budget. The SD 15 election would be covered by local news media (turnout in Santa Clara county was the lowest, where it would just be yet another district – San Jose doesn’t actually have its own TV stations).
The big key to special election turn out is vote by mail. In the previous special elections that were in Los Angeles, VBM was under 60% of turnout, compared to 75% in other parts of the state. In the November 2010 election, Los Angeles turnout was 3rd lowest in the state, trailing only Fresno and Merced, and VBM was only 28.55% of the turnout.
So I think the critical factor was the location (area where the media would focus on the race) and use of Vote By Mail. Los Angeles has the most districts and among the lowest VBM participation in the state (you wouldn’t happen to know of any statistics on permanent vote by mail registrants?)
#15 Pre-Proposition 14, Post-Proposition 60, California would argue that there is no right to a special general election, but that if there is, parties have a right to participate in it if they participated in the special primary.
Post-Proposition 14, California would argue that no special general election ensues when a candidate has a majority in a special primary.
Maybe you could add another claim to your lawsuit, not that it would be any more successful than the others.
Turnout by County:
Kern 20.0%
San Bernadino 15.0%
Ventura 14.2%
Los Angeles 11.5%
While Los Angeles has 68% of the registrants, it had only 62% of voters in the special election.
#11 The more important question is: why are there 5 registered voters in SD 17 within Kern County.
According to the redistricting reports done in 2001, none of Kern County was included in SD 17, and the census bureau shows none of Kern County.
The Kern County GIS maps don’t show any part of the county in SD 17. They do show an area north of Ventura County that is not in any senate district.
So were the 2000 census maps inaccurate, and placed part of Kern County in Ventura County. Or has the boundary between Kern and Ventura been changed?
When is your GIS course over?
#16, thanks for finding the State Senate 29 first round of March 24, 2009. I have added it into the blog post.
Also #16, California legislative rules say that a vacant State Senate seat is the same as a “no” vote on any bill. When there is a vacancy in the State Senate, an ordinary bill still needs 21 votes to pass the Senate, and a measure that needs two-thirds still needs 27 votes.
Jim Riley
Many years ago the census bureau place part of San
Barbara County in Ventura County in error.
In 2001 they used the wrong district numbers in creating districts (two in Number wrong). They
have not corrected the district numbers either.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Qualification for all candidates is the same for all candidates under the Top 2 Open Primary. It is of course substantially easier than it was for candidates who are not affiliated with a qualified party to qualify for the ballot.
How many of the 7 minor party candidates in 2009-10 used in lieu of signatures to offset at least half of their filing fee?
Libertarian Party v Eu said that the State of California could foist the label of “Independent” on unwilling candidates, because it meant that they were nominated by a body of electors independent of the auspices of a qualified party. The party label described who nominated the candidate, not the candidate themselves. A candidate could be nominated by more than one party, but that would not mean he belonged to both.
Under the Top 2 Open Primary there are no nominations, other than by the electorate as a whole. Candidates who have expressed No Party Preference on their voter registration are limited to that description on their ballot.
It is a convoluted reading of the Elections Code that limits a candidate to expressing a preference for a “qualified party”, and is contrary to the intent of Proposition 14.
Jim Riley
In Ten more weeks. It does not have to be in Kern County. If the line cuts through a building, and the
the property is on both sides of the county line the
elector under California law can pick where he votes.
My guess is five (or at one point in time eight) electors wanted to vote in the special election and
wrote the county election official that the line came through their home.
This process of voting goes on all the time along the
part of the border between the Netherlands and Belgium.
We have locations along the California Nevada border that buildings cross even the state line, e.g., Cal-Neva.
,
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Richard Winger
Why not help Mr. Riley out. I remember in the CA Election Code the proceedures (but not the section number) of giving note to the county election official
on voting in a district when the line cut through ones
home.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
#24, you’ve already done a good job explaining that bit of esoterica!
Article says:
(3) whereas six of the special elections held in 2009 and 2010 (i.e., the special-election-first-rounds that weren’t combined with a statewide election) had candidates from one or more of the qualified minor parties, there were no such candidates in the two recent elections. This is because Proposition 14 makes it more difficult for candidates of small qualified parties to get on the primary ballot.
22. Says:
Qualification for all candidates is the same for all candidates under the Top 2 Open Primary. It is of course substantially easier than it was for candidates who are not affiliated with a qualified party to qualify for the ballot.
How can both statements be true?
Can’t a member of a “small qualified party” get on the ballot in the same way as a dts individual?
Before Prop. 14 came along, members of qualified parties with registration under 5% could get on the primary ballot of their own party without paying a filing fee, if they got 150 signatures of members of their own party. This worked well for Greens, Libertarians, American Independent, and Peace & Freedom Party candidates. Prop. 14 says parties no longer have nominees, so the Secretary of State ruled that the 150-signature law is defunct, even though it is still on the books. Now members of small qualified parties must get 10,000 signatures in lieu of filing fee if running for a statewide office, or 3,000 for US House or State Senate, or 1,500 for Assembly.
As usual — how about 10,000 words regarding ballot access before and after Prop 14 for ALL candidates of all parties and independents ??? — to reduce the standard repetitive questions from folks too lazy to look up the language in the CA Const and CA Election Code — esp if such folks are in CA.
#26,27 Before Proposition 14, candidates had to pay a filing fee, and file a petition. For legislative office the filing fee is $952.91 (1% of annual salary). For partisan candidates, the petition was 40 signatures from party members. For nonpartisan candidates it was 500 signatures in special elections, but 1000s for general elections (around 15,000 for senator, 8,000 for assemblyman, the exact number depended on votes cast in the district).
Proposition 14 eliminated this huge difference, and it made it easier for partisan candidates to qualify since they could gather the 40 signatures from any voter.
California also permits a candidate to collect signatures in lieu of paying the filing fee. Signatures can offset the filing fee on a pro rata basis. So if you collect 1/3 of the necessary signatures, you can pay 1/3 less of the filing fee (eg 1/3 x 952.91 = $317.64).
For senate elections, 3000 in lieu of signatures are needed to totally offset the filing fee, so they are worth about 32 cents each. For assembly, 1500 are needed, so they are worth about 64 cents each. These signatures may be gathered from any voter in the district. This part of the law has not changed, and was available for ALL candidates.
There was also a special provision for candidates seeking the nomination of their (small) party, where they only had to gather signatures from 10% of their registered voters in the district with a cap of 150. So these signatures were worth about $6.36, or more since in some cases parties had less than 1500 registrants in a district. Since there are no longer partisan nominations, this provision is no longer applicable.
The high number of in lieu of signatures are also applicable to nonpartisan offices, so a candidate who was running for county supervisor might have to collect 1000s of in lieu of signatures, regardless of his party registration.
What the root problem is that the general rule for in lieu of petitions makes signatures so valueless. For example, a candidate for senator could get 200 persons to contribute $5 each and cover the filing fee, vs collecting signatures from 1500 as many. It may be more cost effective to collect empty cans than to collect signatures. That is the real issue. It is a distraction to focus on the special privileges of certain candidates.
Before Proposition 14, an independent candidate did not need to pay the filing fee, because the petition to get the independent candidate on the November ballot counted for both purposes, basic ballot access and the petition in lieu of the filing fee.
Before proposition 14, the number of signatures to get on the November ballot was 1% of the number of registered voters for statewide office, and 3% of the number of registered voters for district office (the signature requirement is not based on the number of votes cast in the last election). Although these petitions were difficult, three independent candidates for U.S. House did qualify in California for the November 2010 ballot. If one looks at the blanket primaries California has held in which independent candidates ran in the primary (i.e., in all special elections since 1967), one can’t find a single instance when an independent placed either first or second in one of those blanket primaries. This strongly suggests that independent candidates in California will no longer ever appear on the November ballot for Congress and state office. It strongly suggests that Prop. 14 has made ballot access on the November election ballot more difficult.
The California 1% petition requirement for independent candidates was successfully used in 1976, 1978, 1980, 1988, and 1992. Most of those candidates were independent presidential candidates, but they include one gubernatorial candidate and one U.S. Senate candidate.
How many NON-Donkey/Elephant nominees in the top 2 primaries so far in WA State ???
ANY of them win in the following general election ???
Is CA a bit different than WA ???
—
P.R. and App.V. = NO primaries are needed.
Save govt cash for something useful — food, clothing and shelter for poor folks ???
#31 Lucy Killea, Audie Bock, and Quentin Kopp would certainly have qualified for the November ballot.
Trying to apply the results of past special elections as if they were equivalent to the Top 2 primary is fantastical. Remember in some instances it would have been impossible for some persons to appear on the ballot under the pre-Prop 14 procedure.
In-lieu-of signatures still count toward both the filing fee and ballot access. That hasn’t changed. Any senate candidate could collect 40 in lieu of signatures, which would reduce the filing fee by $12.71, and they wouldn’t have to collect any additional signatures.
The number of signature needed to qualify for the general election in senate districts 17 and 28 in 2010. was 14,064 and 13,544 (there was no election in SD-17 in 2010, but the 14,064 is based on the registration date used for 2010 elections).
The number of independently-nominated congressional candidates in California. since you’ve been voting is 12 out of about 10,000 races.
There have not been independently-nominated statewide candidates in California since 1976 and 1978. Someone whose first election was in 1978 could be telling their grandchildren about having an independent on the ballot.
Audie Bock would not have qualified for advancement to a runoff under Prop 14. The second place Democrat in the special election that propelled Bock to the State Assembly would have been there instead.
What it’s like starting a new political party in Israel, a country with low-threshold PR:
http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/my-involvement-with-shas/