The San Francisco Young Democrats held a public forum on October 14, 2009, on proposals to write a new Constitution for California. The meeting was chaired by California Assemblymember Fiona Ma, who asked the panel to comment on the “top-two” ballot measure that will be on the California ballot in June, 2010. Here is a link to a Youtube for that part of the program. It lasts six minutes and 18 seconds.
Speaking moderately in favor of “top-two” was Matt Regan, Director of Government Relations, Bay Area Council. Speaking against it are Blair Bobier of the New America Foundation, and Robert Cruikshank, Public Policy Director of the Courage Campaign. Thanks to Blair Bobier for the link.
One of the problems with public discussion of the California issue is that people in favor of the measure generally refer to it as the “open primary”, whereas opponents refuse to use that label, because in traditional political science usage, and in past U.S. Supreme Court decisions, “open primary” means a system in which each party has its own primary, whereas under “top-two”, there are no party nominees.
Who is discussing P.R. and nonpartisan A.V. in ? —
NO primaries are needed.
Basically Regan recognized it as the modest reform that it actually is.
Bobier wanted to push PR and RCV (though the two are actually antithetical). He claims that elections are about “ideas”, yet there are no reason that ideas can not be debated in the primary. Does he really think that partisan primaries are just about personalities, and that the nominees then simply incorporate the party platform whole?
Cruikshank was pretty much a party hack and just ranting. He made a number of mistakes. He claimed that Top 2 had been adopted in Washington in 2006. He claimed that in California, candidates could choose arbitrary designations – in fact it must be based on voter registration, and possibly even restricted to that of a so-called qualified party, and that a candidate’s party registration for the past 10 years would also be available information.
He claimed that candidates in Washington had used various party names for purposes of deception. I hardly think that someone saying that they prefer “Tax Cutting Republican”, or the “GOP” or “Progressive Democrat” is acting in a deceptive matter. Even someone who claimed that they preferred the “Grange Party” would not be doing it to for purposes of deception, but rather for rhetoric. And of course the great SoS Sam Reed has proposed a number of statute changes that would eliminate the use of made up designations. There is no reason that these could not be adopted except that the Forces of FUD want to create confusion about Top 2.
He claimed that in districts where two candidates of the same party advanced to the general election it would prevent parties from coming together to support a common platform, or working together on certain propositions. But California is just as likely to have propositions at the time of the primary as the general election. Prop 13 was approved in June 1978. San Francisco currently elects its supervisors at the time of the statewide general election. While nominally non-partisan, most candidates are Democrats, and there is no evidence that having these elections coincident with the general election prevents Democrats from working together in the presidential or gubernatorial campaigns.
Top-2 isn’t fair. If you like have a jungle primary where voters can vote in any of the ballot-qualified parties’ primaries. In Uruguay, there’s a national primary and then the general election. All parties are allowed to nominate as many candidates as they want. But, in order to make it to the general election, a candidate needs at least 500 votes nationwide.
The *legal* part of the text of the proposal calls the system the *voter-nomination primary election*.
Change in name – change in system.
If it gets approved, then how many gerrymander areas will have 2 Donkeys or 2 Elephants being nominated — causing both parties to blow up a bit into leftwing and rightwing factions — perhaps 4 main subgroups ???
#3 Who is it unfair to?
#2: Taking away the parties’ ability to officially nominate candidates– one of a party’s basic functions– is a “modest reform”?
“[Bobier] claims that elections are about ‘ideas’, yet there are (sic) no reason that ideas can not be debated in the [first round].”
In California’s “top two” proposal, the purpose of the first round is to winnow the field to two candidates, regardless of party; no one can be elected in the first round. All candidates can indeed present their ideas in this preliminary round. But the second round is the one in which the voters are really paying attention, since that’s when candidates are actually elected to office. That’s the round in which ideas really matter.
As to Washington state: in 2004, when that state had party primaries, Dino Rossi was the Republican nominee for governor. Under the “top two” in 2008, Rossi was again the strongest– or only– Republican candidate for governor. However, since “Republican” is a negative word to many Washington voters, Rossi chose “GOP” for his party preference on the ballot. This was clearly deceptive.
#3: “… a jungle primary where voters can vote in any of the ballot-qualified parties’ primaries.”
This is a blanket primary. The U. S. Supreme Court has declared the state-mandated blanket primary unconstitutional.
The late Mike Mansfield (D-MT), the Senate majority leader, was a big proponent of a national primary.
#5: When a party does not have a candidate in the final, deciding election, the “top two” is unfair to that party’s faithful voters. The “top two” is especially unfair to independents and small party candidates, who almost never reach the crucial final round.
When a small party’s message is kept out of the final, deciding election, the party loses its main reason for existing.
When the two candidates in the final, deciding election are from the same party, it’s impossible for that party to unite behind a single candidate. The “top two” is unfair to that party in that situation.
The California Independent Voter’s Project (CAIVP) offers both sides of the argument at http://caivn.org/. Feel free to examine the pros and cons of each perspective.
What part of the U.S.A. Constitution says that a party hack subgroup of all voters has a magic constitutional right to put its party hack nominee (especially plurality nominees) on the general election ballots ???
Answer — NO such language in the U.S.A. Constitution.
How about reading the WA top 2 case again — about 1,000 times ???
All nomination stuff for PUBLIC offices is mostly statutory — i.e. by ordinary laws — but some state constitutions give some status to party hack primaries and conventions.
#9: The U. S. Supreme Court said in March 2008 that Washington state’s “top two” was not unconstitutional on its face. But the high court left the door open for an as-applied challenge to the “top two” after it had been used at least once.
Washington, of course, used the “top two” for the first time in 2008, and the latest lawsuit against it is now pending in U. S. district court there.
#6 Who says that it is a “basic function” of political parties to officially nominate candidates? Scalia in Jones was quoting from Kusper v Pontikes a decision which overturned an Illinois law that discouraged voters from flitting back and forth between parties so that they could participate in the primary of choice, using almost the opposite reasoning the Supreme Court applied in Jones – it is simply a matter of the time interval. Justice Stewart was simply over-generalizing.
Many voters do not pay attention during the partisan primaries, either because the are legally constrained from participating in a process which they are forced to fund, or they don’t see the relevance of the decisions being made. Under Top 2 this will be less true. Surely 3rd party and independent candidates if they are sensible will make an effort to reach voters.
Both Sam Reed and Rob McKenna ran indicating a preference for the “Republican Party” and were easily elected, running nearly 20% ahead of the presidential ticket and about 12% ahead of Rossi. Your explanation is about as plausible as those who claimed that Spanish-speaking voters in Flordia confused Libertarian with Lieberman.
How is that “unfair”? What is your definition of fairness? While it might be your desire that you win the lottery, it certainly is not “unfair” if you don’t. 3rd party candidates and independents are even less likely to be elected under a partisan primary system, than under Top 2. Doesn’t that make the partisan primary system even more unfair than Top 2?
#7 What about when Joe Lieberman was elected senator from Connecticut. Was that “unfair” to the Democratic and Republican parties because they were split between voters who voters who supported Lieberman, and those who supported the nominee of their party? And even it was “unfair” to the parties, why does that matter?
#10 Judge Coughenour made clear that he wasn’t going to be overturning Top 2, and he has set a schedule that gives time for the legislature to clarify the loose ends of the current legislation, and to also conduct the 2010 elections using Top 2.
“Who says that it is a “basic function†of political parties to officially nominate candidates?”
That’s what happens at Presidential nominating conventions every four years. In 48 states, political parties nominate candidates for Senate, House of Representatives, Governor and other statewide races. In 47 states, they nominate for all of these offices plus state legislature. Many local races are also partisan. The term “nomination” is specifically written into the election laws of my state, and I presume many others as well.
“Many voters do not pay attention during the partisan primaries, either because the are legally constrained from participating in a process which they are forced to fund, or they don’t see the relevance of the decisions being made.”
Many states have open primaries by necessity, as they don’t have partisan registration. The only thing that voters are constrained from doing in these states is hopping around from party to party in different races (such as Democrat for Governor and Republican for Secretary of State). Other states allow independents to vote in party primaries.
“How is that “unfairâ€? What is your definition of fairness? While it might be your desire that you win the lottery, it certainly is not “unfair†if you don’t. 3rd party candidates and independents are even less likely to be elected under a partisan primary system, than under Top 2. Doesn’t that make the partisan primary system even more unfair than Top 2?”
You can’t be serious about comparing elections to the lottery. My definition of fairness is that every political party who passes a modest ballot access test in terms of signatures, registered members or vote totals should have their nominee on the general election ballot. The same should hold for independent candidates who meet a modest signature test. Third parties and independents have a difficult time winning under plurality. In most top two elections, they’re not even on the general election ballot.
#11: You answered your own question. Justice Scalia said in Jones that nominating candidates is a basic function of a political party. How could anyone possibly quarrel with that? Parties want to elect people to office, and the best way to accomplish that is to first nominate candidates.
“Many voters… are legally constrained from participating in [party primaries]…”
How so? If a voter wants to participate in a party’s primary, and registering with that party is required to do so, then that’s what the voter should do. In Jones, e. g., Scalia said that a voter living in a one-party jurisdiction should simply JOIN THE PARTY.
In Washington state, Reed and McKenna (your heroes for pushing the “top two”) both had the advantage of running as incumbents. Rossi, in contrast, was a non-incumbent running against the incumbent governor. What’s your explanation for Rossi picking “GOP” instead of “Republican” for his party preference on the ballot?
“3rd party candidates and independents are even less likely to be elected under a partisan primary system, than under Top 2.”
You’ve gotta be kidding! That’s the most ridiculous statement I’ve seen in a long time. As Tom noted in #12, independents and small party candidates almost never reach the runoff in the “top two,” whereas, in a partisan system, every ballot-qualified party has the power to have one candidate per partisan office on the general election ballot. And every qualifying independent is placed on the general election ballot. Almost every general election only requires a plurality to win, while 50%-plus is needed to win the “top two” runoff.
Furthermore, in the “top two,” all or most small parties will eventually cease to exist.
It obviously doesn’t matter to you if parties are placed in an unfair situation, since you don’t give a damn about political parties anyway.
Regardless of how Judge Coughenour rules, his decision will be appealed to the 9th Circuit.
#12: Iowa has open primaries, despite having party registration. Also, Utah has party registration, but the Democrats there have an open primary.
As I understand it, Washington state allows write-ins in its “top two,” so 50%-plus is technically not required to win; write-ins, of course, are usually not consequential.
50%-plus is required to win in Louisiana’s “top two.”
Are write-ins permitted in the California “top two” proposal?
In a partisan system, an independent candidate only has to campaign in the general election.
In the “top two,” on the other hand, independents are placed on the first-round ballot along with all the other candidates. If lightning strikes and an independent makes the runoff, he then faces a second campaign.
The top two vote-getters in the “top two” are both compelled to conduct TWO general election campaigns, which makes campaigning more expensive (in Louisiana, to be sure, there is no runoff when one candidate gets 50%-plus in the first round).
#12: 49 states (all but Washington) now enable the parties to officially nominate candidates for the U. S. Congress. In 2008, Louisiana wisely restored party primaries for Congress.
Louisiana’s Democrats invite registered independents to vote in their congressional primaries, while the Republicans do not.
The relevant section in the proposed amendment to CA Const Art. II, Sec. 5 — spacing and brackets added for clarity.
SEC. 5. (a) [1] A voter-nomination primary election shall be conducted to select the candidates for congressional and state elective offices in California.
[2] All voters may vote at a voter-nominated primary election for any candidate for congressional and state elective office without regard to the political party preference disclosed by the candidate or the voter, provided that the voter is otherwise qualified to vote for candidates for the office in question.
[3] The candidates who are the top two vote-getters at a voter-nominated primary election for a congressional or state elective office shall, regardless of party preference, compete in the ensuing general election.
(b) [1] Except as otherwise provided by Section 6, a candidate for a congressional or state elective office may have his or her political party preference, or lack of political party preference, indicated upon the ballot for the office in the manner provided by statute.
[2] A political party or party central committee shall not nominate a candidate for any congressional or state elective office at the voter-nominated primary.
[3] This subdivision shall not be interpreted to prohibit a political party or party central committee from endorsing, supporting, or opposing any candidate for a congressional or state elective office.
[4] A political party or party central committee shall not have the right to have its preferred candidate participate in the general election for a voter-nominated office other than a candidate who is one of the two highest vote-getters at the primary election, as provided in subdivision (a).
—-
Somehow unfair* to the party hack extremists ???
Shed a tear for the party hacks — IF the proposal gets adopted — with the standard court cases by the party hacks.
As noted earlier – P.R. and A.V.
NO primaries are needed.
#16: “NO primaries are needed.”
Not even a so-called “voter-nominated primary election”?
In reality, the two rounds in this system are the general election and the runoff general election. The purpose of the first round is to winnow the field to two candidates, regardless of party.
No mention in #16 of write-in votes…
#12 My State permits candidates to be placed on the ballot by methods other than “nomination”. Other States refer to a similar process as “nomination”. California would reserve the power of nomination for State, congressional, and legislative elections to the voters in the Top 2 election. The basic function of the electorate in a Top 2 primary is to nominate the candidates that appear on the general election ballot.
Some States do not maintain records of the political beliefs of their citizens, it is true. But even they prevent or discouraging with individual citizens from organizing with other citizens on an ad hoc basis.
Elections and lotteries both are processes that can be fair or unfair. I was trying to understand what your understanding of the meaning of fairness is. You have told me that an election process with certain properties is fair, therefore a fair election process is one with those properties.
#13 Scalia was quoting another decision. That other decision was about a person switching their registration and not being permitted to participate in a partisan primary for an extended period of time afterward. Effectively, they were denied the right to vote by the implementation of partisan primaries.
I think that the original decision would have been more accurate to have said, that under State X’s election laws, a basis function of a political party is to nominate candidates for office. Under a Top 2 system it is not a basic function of a political party to officially nominate candidates for office.
In Mississippi, a voter can not, according to State law, participate in a partisan primary unless he intends to support the nominated candidates at the general election. That is a pretty severe constraint that some voters might be unwilling to accept.
The only thing definitive I could find on Rossi was that he had run in 2000 as the “Gino Rossi GOP”. Maybe the alliteration between ‘Gino’ and ‘GeeOhPee” was effective, much like Ronald Reagan Republican is.
For the legislature, there were 22 “G.O.P.”; 4 “G O P”; and 1 “Grand Old Party” preferences. What is your inference on the use of punctuation?
If an independent or 3rd party candidate is capable of getting a plurality in a general election, they are capable of finishing in the Top 2 in a primary, no? And if an independent or 3rd party candidate is capable of getting a plurality, certainly even more are capable of finishing second.
In 2006, there was only one, REPEAT ONE, independent or 3rd party legislative candidate in Washington. Are you going to blame that on Top 2 as well? After all it was the law in Washington at the time.
#14 Texas does not permit write-ins in runoff elections. California permits them for its elections, but does not count them under its Top 2 law.
Washington does not permit losing candidates in the primary, whether on-ballot or write-in to declare as write-in candidates for the general election.
#15 Independent candidates often must gather many signatures. In Texas, this is in competition with the party primaries (recall the “Save yourself for Kinky” campaign in 2006). Independent candidates in Hawaii qualify by the primary.
Why would a candidate for office consider any election system as anything other than a two or three stage process.
Louisiana now employees lockout devices on the side of their voting machines which election judges manipulate to prevent some voters from casting a vote in congressional elections while they are also voting in a legislative election. I wonder whether the elections judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution. You might recall the proposal last year to prevent minor parties from nominating congressional candidates. They essentially had to pledge to not have primaries.