The September 20 Sacramento Bee has this op-ed, making the case against the “top-two” ballot measure that Californians will be voting on in June 2010. Thank to Jack Dean for the link. The author of the op-ed is Richard Winger.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Good work Richard.
Richard, I had a question I was hoping you could answer.
Could you tell me if there is a real difference between Top-Two and nonpartisan elections?
If I understand Washington’s Two-Two system in 2008, everyone faced the same ballot-access hurdle in Round One. Then in Round Two, only the two candidates advanced. There was a ballot indication of partisan preference.
In my local city, everyone has to collect 50 signatures to run for City Councilor for their Ward. A primary election is held if more than two candidates file, and there is always a general for the top two candidates.
I believe you have suggested in the past that nonpartisan elections would be an improvement over Top-Two. It seems to me that the results would be the same, except there is no issue about party-association rights and the first amendment.
In the 1994 partisan primaries in Minnesota almost 4 times as many people voted in the Democratic primary as voted in the Republican primary. Yet the Republican nominee easily defeated the Democratic nominee in the general election.
Quite clearly, voters will vote in any election that they think they can have an effect. There was simply no reason to vote for Norm Coleman or Jesse Ventura in a primary where a voter can choose which party’s primary to vote in, and no reason for either to campaign extensively. Had the September 1994 election been a Top 2 primary, there is no reason to believe that Ventura could not have finished in the Top 2 to advance to the November election.
#2, there is a big difference between “top-two” and nonpartisan elections. Generally speaking, in a nonpartisan election, the first round IS an election. In other words, someone can get elected in the first round. That gives it a certain seriousness. But with “top-two” as proposed in California and as it exists in Washington state, the first round is not an election. No one gets elected in the first round. Even if one candidates gets 100% of the vote in the first round, that candidate is not elected and must run again in “The” election in November.
I realize that Washington state, perhaps uniquely in the nation, has some non-partisan elections in which the first round is also not an election, and no matter what happens (even if only one person runs) there is a 2nd round. But that’s the exception, nationally.
Another difference is the absense of party labels in nonpartisan elections; by contrast in “top-two” there are party labels.
#3, the Minnesota 1998 gubernatorial election is just one example of many. In all the years Louisiana has been using almost the same system as ‘top-two” (since 1975 for state office, and the years 1978-2006 for congressional elections) never once did any minor party member place first or second, except in a very few elections in which there were only two candidates running. And in Washington state, in all the years 1990 through 2002, the blanket primary years, only once did a minor party member place first or second (not counting instances when only two people were running, of course). Audie Bock, the Green elected to the California in the blanket primary special election of 1999, only got 8% in the first round; but under blanket primary rules, she was admitted into the second round, and she won, and became the first minor party member of the California legislature since 1918.
#4 Non-partisan elections in Washington state are simply general elections with a requirement for a majority. If you check the elections for the Superintendent of Public Instruction, you will notice that sometimes the winner is elected in the primary, and sometimes in November.
Nebraska uses non-partisan Top 2 for its legislative elections, and they are also used for some city elections, Minneapolis (before this year) and Omaha, I know of.
#5 In Louisiana, many candidates have been relatively independent. For example, when Buddy Roemer beat Edwin Edwards, there was a debate among the candidates. The question was asked if the other Democrats would support Edwards if he was in the runoff. Roemer answered that sometime you have to do what is right. The other candidates equivocated. It is wisely believed that this event is what separated Roemer from the other also-rans and propelled him to victory. Roemer of course ran for re-election as a Republican. Rodney Alexander changed parties immediately before a primary in another election. Candidates like John Breaux appealed to voters of all parties. And of course, the Louisiana legislature has independents who were actually elected directly.
I doubt that many real conclusions can be made about the Audie Bock election, there was voter fatigue after a series of 3(?) special elections, and serious charges of corruption against the winner of the Democratic primary. Had that election been a Top 2 election, the 2nd place candidate might well have won. Texas runs its special elections just like California will after they adopt Top 2 (not really Top 2, but simple majority elections), and there isn’t a problem with multiple candidates from one party or the other.
#4: The “top two,” as I see it, is a nonpartisan system– because the parties have no way of officially nominating candidates. Putting party labels on the ballot, which is usually done for the voters’ information, does not make it a partisan election.
Louisiana, like California, registers voters by party. Thus Louisiana puts party labels on the ballot (if a candidate is registered with an unqualified party, the space next to his name is left blank; I’m not sure about registered independents).
“… Washington state, perhaps uniquely in the nation, has some non-partisan elections in which the first round is also not an election, and no matter what happens… there is a 2nd round. But that’s the exception, nationally.”
Nonpartisan elections, as practiced today, originated in the cities in the early 1900s. The big majority of municipal elections now are nonpartisan, and it’s my impression that, in a large number of those, there is always a second round of voting. In Cincinnati a few elections cycles ago, e. g., the mayoral candidate who got 54% in the first round was defeated in the runoff.
Recently in Durham, NC, the incumbent mayor got 88% in the first round, and the second-place finisher got only 4%, but they nevertheless had a second round of voting (guess who won).
In Michigan’s nonpartisan municipal elections, some localities always have a second round, while others only have a runoff if no one gets 50%-plus in the first round. Detroit and Lansing do it different ways– I forget which is which.
In the book Primary Elections, Merriam and Overacker call a nonpartisan election in which there is always a runoff a “double election.”
#7: “In Louisiana, many candidates have been relatively independent.”
In a “top two”– or other nonpartisan system– ALL the candidates might just as well be independents, since the parties cannot perform their basic function of officially nominating candidates.
In 1987, the Democrat Buddy Roemer was elected governor because (1) the incumbent Edwards, also a Democrat, was very unpopular, and (2) Roemer was seen as the best alternative to Edwards. Roemer was helped greatly by a large number of editorial endorsements from newspapers. Also, Republican Rep. Bob Livingston’s campaign was damaged when he lost his train of thought while answering a question during a debate.
Roemer got 33% and Edwards was second with 28%. Knowing that he would lose a runoff, Edwards then dropped out. Under Louisiana law, Roemer was considered elected. So the situation you describe about an endorsement in the runoff did not arise.
“Rodney Alexander changed parties immediately before a primary in another election.”
That’s a good example of why the Louisiana system stinks. Alexander was narrowly elected to the US House as a Democrat. Two years later, he qualified again as a Democrat. Then, just a few minutes before the deadline, he re-qualified, this time as a Republican! It was, of course, too late for a major Democratic candidate to get into the race. Some Democrats filed a lawsuit over this (as I recall), but the judge refused to extend the qualifying period.
It should be noted that, in 2008, the Bayou State wisely restored party primaries for its congressional elections.
Louisiana’s 1995 gubernatorial election provided another example of how little parties mean in a state with a long history of nonpartisan elections.
State senator Mike Foster, age 65 and a lifelong Democrat, switched to the Republicans and was elected governor just a few weeks later. Sorta like joining the church one Sunday and then getting elected chairman of the board of deacons the next Sunday.
Gov. Foster’s lack of party loyalty came into play during the 2002 US Senate race. Suzanne Terrell was supported by the national Republicans, while Foster endorsed another Republican candidate. Foster publicly criticized Terrell after she had made the runoff against the incumbent Democrat, Mary Landrieu, who was re-elected.
It should be noted, too, that in the 1991 Louisiana governor’s race, the national Republicans and the state Republican Party endorsed opposing candidates– neither of whom made the runoff.
A citizen certainly has the right to be an independent. But a citizen does NOT have the right to force everyone else to behave as independents– and that’s what the “top two” effectively does.
California’s State Senator Maldanado author of the “top two” is a moron. Under his own system he would have come in 4th place in his race for State Controller three years ago. But worse. There would have been no Republican in the general. It would have been a runoff between two Democrats.
#11, though, in fairness to Senator Maldonado, the 2006 primary was a semi-closed primary, so what happened in 2006 doesn’t really relate to what would have happened under either “top-two” or a blanket primary.
NO primaries are needed.
P.R. legislative bodies and nonpartisan A.V. executive/judicial offices.
The op-ed is very helpful. I have one suggestion, though: don’t call the first round a primary election. That just perpetuates the confusion that proponents of this measure are relying on. In fact, the Maldonado proposal eliminates primary elections, properly so-called.
#9 In 1987, Buddy Roemer was seen as being the best alternative to Edwards because he spoke out at the debate. One of other candidates (Jim Brown?) said that he would support Edwards, and then a few days later said that he agreed with Roemer (me too). There were four major Democratic candidates, Edwards, Roemer, Brown, and Billy Tauzin, plus the Republican Bob Livingston.
The results were Roemer 33%, Edwards 28%, Livingston 18%, Tauzin 10%, and Brown 9%. So the effect of the debate was to separate Roemer from Tauzin and Brown, and possibly to also draw votes from Livingston. Remember that Louisiana had previously elected a Republican governor.
The question asked of Roemer, Brown, and Tauzin was whether in a runoff between Edwards and Livingston would they support the Democrat Edwards or the Republican Livingston. It was the issue of an endorsement in a hypothetical race that resulted in Roemer’s qualifying for the runoff and being elected when Edwards withdrew.
It should be noted that Louisiana has to use lockout devices on their voting machines (manually operated by election judges) in order to violate the US Constitution. I would not call that wise.
#15: I assume you agree with all of my other remarks above.
“… Louisiana had previously elected a Republican governor.”
David Treen, elected in 1979, had previously run against Edwin Edwards for governor. In ’71, the last year for party primaries for state offices, Treen had only token opposition in the Republican primary, while Edwards had to slug it out through a tough Democratic primary and runoff. That was a big factor in Edwards pushing the so-called “open primary” (“top two”) through the legislature and then lobbying hard to get the Justice Dept. to approve it.
Edwards, the “father of Louisiana’s open primary,” is now rotting in federal prison.
Treen was the only Republican running in ’79, and his runoff opponent was the Democrat Louis Lambert. All of the eliminated Democratic candidates then endorsed Treen, who gave all of them posts in his administration. When Treen ran for re-election in ’83, Edwards pulverized him. Treen almost ran again for governor in 1995 but decided not to. He tried a comeback for the US House at age 70 in 1999, after Bob Livingston resigned; now-US Sen. David Vitter beat Treen, 51%-49%. Treen even talked about running again for Congress in 2008.
Before he ever ran for governor, Treen had run several times for Congress against Hale Boggs. Treen won the special election after Boggs was killed.
You know, of course, that Jim Brown is the father of CNN’s Campbell Brown. I believe he was secretary of state (remember Dart v. Brown?) when he ran for governor in ’87. He later was state insurance commissioner and went to federal prison for perjury.
The five words most feared by a Louisiana politician: “Will the defendant please rise.”
#16 I’ll put this spin on it – You had 4 Democratic candidates: Brown, Edwards, Roemer, and Tauzin; and one Republican: Livingston (ignoring the 1% candidates).
There was a reasonable chance that the runoff would be a Democrat v. Livingston. In effect, it was seen as working like a blanket primary. The candidates were asked a question whether they would support the Democratic candidate (or perhaps the question was predicated on the condition that if it were a Democrat v. Republican race).
Roemer said that he wouldn’t simply vote the party, “no, we’ve got to slay the dragon. I would endorse anyone but Edwards.”. Next day while Brown was explaining his statement, Roemer was ordering “Slay the Dragon” buttons. If the non-Edwards Democratic vote had split 3 ways, the runoff would have been Edwards vs. Livingston.