As reported previously, AB 1413 had been set for a hearing in the California Senate Elections Committee on September 7. That hearing was never held, but in preparation for the hearing, legislative employees had prepared an analysis of the bill, which was introduced to make alterations in the “top-two” Proposition 14 procedure. Proposition 14 passed in June 2010 and says all candidates for Congress and partisan state office run on a single primary ballot in June. Then, only the two top vote-getters may run in November.
The analysis says, “In 2009, as part of a state budget agreement, a measure was placed on the ballot for the voters to consider authorizing a ‘top-two’ primary election system. At the same time that measure was approved, the Legislature also approved a series of changes to the Election Code to implement a top two primary election system. Unfortunately, due to the nature in which those statutory changes were adopted, they created a number of problems for the effective and efficient operation of elections. Last year, the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee held an oversight hearing to hear from elections officials about some of the problems with those statutory changes. Among other problems, county elections officials testified that certain ballot printing requirements created an unnecessary burden, and could significantly increase election costs.
“Since that time, state and county elections officials have been working diligently to develop fixes that will help implement the top two primary system in a more effective manner. This bill includes much of that work.”
The analysis also says, “This bill shortens the format in which a candidate’s party preference is displayed on the ballot, shortens and clarifies the ballot instructions that appear on the ballot, and eliminates certain type size and typeface requirements to give county elections officials greater flexibility to format their ballots. These changes should help address some of the concerns raised by elections officials in this committee’s oversight hearing.”
Existing law requires very large print notices on voter registration forms, ballots, and voter handbooks, emphasizing that party labels on the ballot do not mean that the candidate has been nominated by the listed party, or even that the party approves of that person, or considers him or her a bona fide member. These requirements will substantially increase the cost of election administration, by requiring additional ballot cards and also increasing the size of voter registration forms, which must be prepared as postcards. Because the bill will not advance this year, these election administration problems cannot be addressed by the legislature until next year.
The chair of the Senate Elections Committee, Senator Lou Correa, is a staunch supporter of the top-two system, but it appears that he does acknowledge the election administration problems caused by Proposition 14 and its implementing legislation, SB 6 from the 2009 session.
What is the cost per vote in CA ???
What percentage of the State GDP goes for election law stuff ???
What price to have some sort of alleged *Democracy* in the U.S.A. ???
The party hack robot stuff is more and more INSANE and IN-tolerable.
The legislative employees have an axe to grind because they were bypassed when the bill was passed. The language that goes on the ballots was in direct response to the Washington litigation.
Local election officials probably were eying state funds for an unfunded mandate, and emphasizing the possible lengthy ballot, vs. the reduction of up to 13 ballot styles into one.
What was the cost of Dean Logan not being able to determine whether a vote had been cast for Hillary Clinton or Don Grundman?
#2, the same people who hammered out the final language of Prop. 14 and SB 6 in the middle of the night in the legislative session in February 2009 are the exact same individuals who wrote this September 2011 analysis.
The very people who wrote the final top-two law are the same people who are pointing out severe flaws. They are the Senate Elections Committee consultant and the Assembly Elections Committee consultant. The Senate consultant has served in that job at least 20 years, maybe 25. The Assembly consultant has served in that same job at least 5 years. They are professionals.
#3 They had insufficient time to polish the language. If they were applying for a similar job with another legislature, they would not include SB 6 as an example of their work product, and explain that they were under time pressure. Those doing the hiring would decide that they could not cope with the time deadlines of the job.
They were forced to do something and were unable to produce a quality product through no fault of their own. They are employed by the same folks who played games with the timing of Abel Maldonado’s appointment to Lieutenant Governor.
Anyone who has read the Washington case would not be suggesting: “Preference: None Selected” or invented the construction “declined to state an affiliation with a qualified party”. The proposed change to EC 7100 is not something a legislative analyst should be proposing, and would appear to be intended to bolster a case that the Democrats could argue that “Top 2” lets Libertarians and other voters interfere in our selection of presidential electors.
Los Angeles has a weird system apparently designed to allow votes for all candidates for all offices in the county. They probably want to dump the system. If you recall at the legislative hearing in 2010, LA said that it would cost millions to replace, while the SOS thought that the system could be made to work.
If you are a local election official and can get funding for “state mandates” it is prudent to claim everything you can.