Oregon supporters of the “top-two” primary system are circulating an initiative petition to put that idea before Oregon voters in November 2008. Meanwhile, the State Supreme Court is receiving briefs, arguing over what the ballot title ought to be. Supporters of the initiative are suing the Attorney General because his ballot title refuses to refer to the initiative as an “open primary.” Opponents of the initiative are counter-suing because the Attorney General’s Ballot Title doesn’t mention that the initiative would restrict the November ballot to just two candidates. The case is Keisling v Myers, S055161.
Actually, the AG’s draft ballot title called it an “open primary.” But then various parties filed comments, and the AG removed the term “open primary.” The proponents appealed that ballot title to the Oregon Supreme Court, where they are now arguing that the term “open primary” should be used in the ballot title.
Opponents of the proposed measure also appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court in order to have the ballot title clarified on other points.
During California’s 2004 “top two” initiative campaign, a judge prohibited the proponents from calling it an “open primary,” since the “top two” is in fact a nonpartisan general election with a runoff.
Louisianans also like to call their “top two” the “open primary.” Mississippians, whose legislature passed the “top two” five times between 1966 and 1979, call it the “open primary” as well.
There’s obviously something sexy about the term “open primary,” as it’s used to describe a number of election systems. In a true open primary, of course, a party’s primary ballot is available to any voter who requests it.