On December 16, California Assemblymember Charles Calderon introduced ACA 6, a proposed state constitutional amendment. It would provide for non-partisan elections for state legislature and the state executive elected posts. All candidates for a particular office would run in the primary, and if anyone polled 50%, that person would be elected.
The only difference between state office elections (under ACA 6) and California’s present elections for county and city office, would be that the ballot for state office would include the party of registration for each candidate. However, a party is free to issue a blanket rule that its name should never appear on the ballot for state office.
Since this is only a proposed Constitutional Amendment, and not a bill, many details aren’t specified, such as whether a candidate registered into an unqualified party could have that party label next to his or her name.
Lots of details not talked about with this bill. Would there be a change in ballot access petitions or would there be new limits?
A question for clarification…does state executive elected posts also include Governor, Lt. Governor, SOS, etc?
Richard’s question is very worthy about having a unqualified party could have that party label next to his or her name.
In November 2004, Prop. 62 lost in 51 of California’s 58 counties. It proposed nonpartisan elections for state AND congressional offices; it also would have ALWAYS had a runoff, even if one candidate got 50%-plus in the first round.
I don’t see the state assembly passing this amendment, but it would have to do so, of course, before the amendment could be submitted for a referendum.
I predict that (1) this proposal will fail in the assembly, and (2) an initiative will qualify for the ballot, probably in 2010.
Prop. 62 was defeated in the statewide vote in November 2004.
P.R. for partisan legislative bodies.
A.V. for nonpartisan executive/judicial offices.
Prior election results mean absolutely ZERO for future election reforms.
Such a move seems to be disfunctional without either a high barrier to getting names on the ballot (which I’m sure that you abhor) or use of a voting method that can handle many candidates without spoiler problems.
Could be an opportunity for Approval voting advocates?
Bill Lussenheide: Lots of details not talked about with this bill.
This is an amendment to the state constitution, which leaves many matters of detail up to the state legislature. In California, that’s somewhat unusual; constitutional provisions here are frequently very detailed. This one isn’t.
Association is exploding on the internet with Twitter, Myspace, Facebook, Plaxo – to name a few.
People have always come together with shared needs and values. Non-partisan elections deny this reality.
People coming together behind candidates or the policy proposals of an organization will not go away. Why not have party imprimaturs with candidates on the ballot? It gives information to voters.
Traditional association with civic groups is in decline. Indeed, there is a grassroots component to the two major party organizations and that seems to be weak. (The real power of the “two parties†is in their function as political soft-money conduits.)
I believe we need to create opportunities for more association with our democracy.
OK, time to throw on the LPCA Legislative Analysis Hat again…
Richard: … the ballot for state office would include the party of registration for each candidate. However, a party is free to issue a blanket rule that its name should never appear on the ballot for state office.
These provisions are in the statement of findings and declaration of intent, but not in the proposed text that would be added to the state constitution. I suspect that the measure as a whole actually gives the legislature quite a bit of latitude here. Implementing legislation might be unconstitutional on the same basis as Washington’s top two. The measure is clearly designed to survive constitutional challenge by leaving the role of political parties — and constitutional questions — up to the legislature.
The amendment explicitly specifies the offices that it applies to: “Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, Controller, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Member of the Assembly, State Senator, and Member of the State Board of Equalization”.
It also explicitly excludes congressional elections and the presidential preference primary.
Ballot access would remain a matter of State law. It would be pretty dubious that the legislature could set higher access standards for non-affiliated candidates, since it would be a constitutional right of a voter to vote for any candidate regardless of the candidate’s party affiliation. And the legislature isn’t going to set particularly high standards for themselves. It is easier simply to copy whatever the current requirements for the partisan primaries are.
Can’t the legislature enact a companion law that will only take effect if a constitutional amendment is approved by the voters?
Setting up lower standards for the Voters Choice Primary will open up a legal challenge to California’s intolerant independent congressional qualifications. After all, California senate districts are more populous than California congressional districts.
By expanding the franchise for elections to the Assembly (the larger branch of the legislature) more than it does for the US House of Representatives, California would find itself in violation of the voter qualification clause of Article I, Section 2 and the 17th Amendment of the US Constitution.
Tashjian clearly expresses that the qualification clause does apply to primaries. However, the majority opinion was that the Connecticut regulations were OK, because it set a broader franchise for congressional primaries than it did for legislative primaries. But it also warned that a State law that excluded qualified legislative voters from voting in congressional elections would be mischievous.
At minimum, California could end up with mandatory semi-closed primaries for Congress, where non-affiliated voters and those registered with non ballot-qualified parties could vote.
The proposed amendment would eliminate the current constitutional guarantees of primaries, and instead replace them with a method of conducting primaries. The new language could be interpreted as permitting the elimination of primaries. Whether or not that is a correct interpretation, it could be used by opponents of the initiative.