On September 29, Steve Peace, a former Democratic State Senator from San Diego, filed a proposed initiative with the California Attorney General that would establish the “top-two” election system in California. The proposal is more similar to Washington state’s “top-two” law, than it is to Oregon’s “top-two” initiative. The California initiative would abolish the practice of asking voters about party membership, on voter registration forms. By contrast, the Oregon initiative, on the ballot in the current election, retains partisan registration.
The California initiative appears to have been drafted hastily and carelessly. It fails to re-define “political party”. Under existing law, the chief means that parties have for getting on the ballot is by persuading people to join that party, as shown on voter registration forms. Since the initiative abolishes partisan registration, one would have expected the initiative to re-define “political party”. However, it does not do that.
The initiative also says that a the list of people who vote in any party’s presidential primary would be given to that party, but not to anyone else. Similar laws have been held unconstitutional this year or last year in Michigan and New Hampshire. The initiative has careless mistakes, such as referring to the existing California elected office known as “Superintendent of Public Instruction” as “Superintendent of Public Education.” The initiative has no intent to change the name of that office, since in other places it refers to the office by its original name.
Here is the text of the initiative. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for the news.
The Washington Top-Two is basically a non-partisan system except candidates can put whatever cue to voters next to their names. As far as association goes, it’s kind of like the snake that eats its own tail – the candidate may “prefer” a certain party on the ballot, but at the same time, the party is neutralized because it has effectively lost control over its nomination process. Soon there will be no party to prefer – at least on the grass roots level, the two major parties will endure as campaign finance conduits.
Very sorry but – the PUBLIC Electors / Voters (partisan and nonpartisan) are doing PUBLIC nominations for PUBLIC offices — and NOT the EVIL party hacks.
Cry a mini-bit for the EVIL party hacks losing power.
Like slaveholders losing their EVIL power over slaves with the Union Army coming to each slave plantation in 1861-1865 — about 620,000 dead on both sides.
For any clueless — Party hack primaries = a hidden form of slavery (for the voters).
However – NO primaries are needed.
Equal general election nominating petitions for ALL candidates for the SAME office in the SAME area.
P.R. and A.V.
Thank you for correctly calling this a top two proposal rather than an open primary proposal, which is what at least two other sources are calling it.
Also, +1 on everything Krist says above.
A new party could qualify under Election Code 5100(c) – subject to legal challenge with regard to the percentage. An existing party could continue to qualify under Election Code 5100(a).
The only remaining purpose for a party would be to nominate presidential candidates and party officers.
Since the measure does away with the concept of independent nomination, qualification requirements would be much smaller.
Corrupt insular insider and former office aide of corrupt insular insider Governor Gray [Recalled] Davis, Peace is originally known for indie film cult classic ‘Attack of the Giant Tomatoes’!
A pox on all of their houses……..
Well, for starters, Section 2 is unconstitutional, specifically the proposed Section 3-b since political parties have the right under the First Amendment Freedom of Association to determine who can vote in their own elections, and this contravenes that, most specifically holding 1-b. See http://laws.findlaw.com/us/479/208.html.
The proposed Section 3-c would deny political parties the ability to maintain their own membership and registration lists.
There’s more, but that’s just one section.
This is nuts…
This failed in CA once already as Prop. 62, when Westly trying pulling this heinous violation of the state constitution. It’ll fail again.
Besides which, Prop. 60 guarantees the rights of every ballot-qualified party to have its candidates access the November ballot. It passed.
Charles, those were before I moved here. Can you give more details?
Actually, never mind. I found it, and they were both after I moved here, but I don’t remember how I voted on them…
The “top two” monstrosity is popularly called the “open primary” in California as well as in Louisiana and Oregon.
In 2004, the “open primary”(Prop. 62) lost in 51 of CA’s 58 counties. A state judge prohibited it from being called an “open primary” in the voters’ guide.
Efforts like this are terrifying. They are perpetrated with the guise of furthering democracy with their only true mission being furthering a group’s personal politics.
Re #5 and #7
Most partisan offices would become voter-nominated offices, where the two candidates in the general election would be nominated by the people at large, irrespective of the party preference of the candidates. The only remaining partisan elections would be the presidential preference primary and elections of party offices.
For these elections, it would be up to each party to determine whether voters must make a declaration of affiliation in order to vote.
Since there would no longer be party registration, Tashjian can hardly apply.
I am a former Democrat—in California moderates on both parties have no place to go. Since we vote for our local officials as non-partisan–why not for state and Congressional officerholders.
The US Supreme Court upheld the State of Washington –party two system—the California open primary was held to be unconstitutional because of the right of association. However, the State of Washington election system has been upheld as valid.
Go for it, Mr. Peace.