On February 22, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association issued an 8-page analysis of California’s Proposition 14, the top-two election measure. The Association is neutral on the measure.
Back in November 2004, when another top-two open primary ballot measure was on the California ballot, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association supported that measure, Proposition 62. The Association does not explicitly say why it no longer supports this concept. However, the analysis points out the differences between Proposition 62 and Proposition 14: (1) general election write-ins were permitted under Proposition 62 but not permitted under Proposition 14; (2) Proposition 62 lowered the registration requirement for parties to remain ballot-qualified, but Proposition 14 does not, thereby indirectly making it much more difficult for parties to remain ballot-qualified (because the 2% vote test wouldn’t function any longer, because parties would no longer have nominees in midterm years).
Their analysis missed the fact that Prop 14 will reduce the number of signatures required for an independent candidate for a statewide office (governor, US senator, etc.) from about 175,000 to 100, and for Congress from around 10,000 to 40. There have only been 9 independent candidates for Congress in California since the 1970s (around 900 races).
When Lucy Killea switched from running as a Democrat to an independent, she expressed particular interest in Nebraska’s legislature which is elected on a Top 2 basis (in Nebraska, candidates do not have partisan labels on the ballot).
They appear to be under the misapprehension that a ban on write-in voting in the runoff is a direct consequence of a Top 2 system. Louisiana does not permit write-in votes in any election including the open primary. Washington permits write-in votes in the general election of its Top 2 system (it does prevent losers in the Top 2 primary from running as write-in candidates).
The write-in “prohibition” in SB 6 is particularly poorly written, and is unlikely to withstand a court challenge. The California Supreme Court overturned a similar ban on write-in votes for the San Diego mayoral election. In that case the primary was in June, the runoff in November, and the incumbent mayor was indicted in between. The California Supreme Court later upheld a ban on write-in votes in the San Francisco mayoral race, but that was because the mayoral runoff was only a month after the general election. The legislature is quite free to change that provision of statute.
Richard Winger has cited 3 elections where a write-in candidate has won a California election.
1) One was actually a special election held 15 months after the death of the Senator Hiram Johnson. A temporary senator had already been appointed a year earlier, and the special election was to fill the last two months of Johnson’s term (Congress was not in session). California at that time simply did not have laws that permitted candidates to file for a special election.
Under the Top 2 Open Primary Act, special elections will be conducted much like special elections are conducted under current law, where all candidates including independents are placed on the special primary ballot. Like now, if a candidate receives a majority of the vote, he is elected. Unlike the current system the special general (runoff) election will be contested between Top 2 candidates regardless of party affiliation.
California currently does not conduct special elections to fill the final months of a congressional term, but instead the winner of the election for the full term serves the remainder of the vacancy.
2) Another was a congressional election where the only candidate died a month before the election. Under the Top 2 Open Primary, there would have been two candidates on the ballot, and a 3rd-placed candidate would have been placed on the ballot to fill the vacancy in nomination. While this might not be the best method, it is the method that California already uses for non-partisan elections. In Great Britain if a candidate dies immediately before an election, the election for that office is cancelled, and then a special election is held.
3) And the final example was a Republican who lost the primary and then defeated both the Republican and Democratic nominees as a write-in candidate. Given that the two Republicans finished 1,2, it is quite possible both would have qualified under a Top 2 system. And had they not, then a sore loser provision such as is in place in Washington would have blocked a candidate rejected by the voters from running in the general election.
With the ease with which candidates may run in the Top 2 primary, there may be little reason to run as a write-in candidate. Under current California law, many independents are either forced to run as write-in candidates, or simply not even run for office.
When comparing what might happen in California vs. what has happened in Louisiana, it is important to remember that Louisiana legislative districts are much smaller than those in California. Louisiana House districts have around 40,000 persons, about 10% the size of Assembly districts in California. Senate districts have around 100,000 persons, about 14% the
size of California senate districts.
Smaller districts will tend to have a more partisan tilt. A county of 400,000 people might have a pretty even balance between Republicans and Democrats. Start dividing it up into 10 districts, and some will be decidedly Democratic or Republican.
In 2007, all 39 senate districts were up. Louisiana legislators are elected for 4-year terms, with all elected in the odd-numbered year prior to the presidential election year.
9 senators were unopposed. Like California, Louisiana has term limits. Would-be challengers might decide to wait 4 years when there will be a open seat. Many voters may be satisfied with the job an incumbent is doing. After all, a majority had voted for him a few years before. In Louisiana, if only one candidate files, the election for that office does not appear on the ballot.
13 senate districts had candidates from only one party. So either one was elected, or the top 2 candidates were in a runoff. All voters regardless of their party were permitted to vote for their senator.
The other 17 districts had candidates from more than one party, including independents. In 15 districts, either one candidate received a majority and was elected; or the candidates in the runoff were from different parties.
There were 2 districts where there were candidates from multiple parties, but the runoff was contested between two candidates from the same party. In one district, the lone Republican had 8% of the vote. In the other, the lone Democrat finished 4th with 17% of the vote. Candidates of the majority party in these districts shared 92% and 83% of the vote, respectively.
In the House, there were 105 districts, 26 of these were uncontested. In 36 had candidates from a single party.
The other 43 districts had candidates from more than one party. 31 of these either had a candidate with a majority, or the two candidates in the runoff were from different parties.
There were 12 runoffs where there were candidates from more than one party, or independents, but both candidates in the runoff were from the same party.
D15: 3R,2D => 2R in runoff. D’s had combined 12% and finished 4th and 5th.
D44: 4D,1N => 2D in runoff. Non-partisan had 23%.
D71: 4R,1D => 2R in runoff. D had 11% and was 5th.
D73: 3R,1D => 2R in runoff. D had 11% and was 4th.
D74: 3R,1D,1O => 2R in runoff. D had 15%, O 3%.
D77: 2R,1D => 2R in runoff. D had 12%.
D78: 4R,1D => 2R in runoff. D had 7% and was 4th.
D91: 3D,3M,1R => 2D in runoff. D had 75%, R 15%.
D92: 2R,1D => 2R in runoff. D had 22%.
D95: 7D,1R => 2D in runoff. R had 5% and was 6th.
D98: 2D,3R => 2D in runoff. R had 37%.
D102: 2D,1N => 2D in runoff. N had 14%.
The same pattern was true in Washington. It was the extremely Democratic areas such as Seattle, or the extremely Republican areas in eastern Washington where the general election was between two candidates from the same party.
P.R. and A.V. = real reforms.
NO primaries are needed.
Isn’t Sandy Ego Tax Payers headed by that sparkling icon of liberty and non traditional parties, Richard ‘Sand Paper; Rider ????????
THEY ARE ‘NEUTRAL’ ON PROPOSITION 14!
Told ya so, told ya so!
Southern California Lib ‘Leaders’ Rider, Tessleir, and Cohen are moral midgets ……..
Told ya so, told ya so!
Don Lake I think you are wrong about Rider, Tessier and Cohen. They are with the San Diego TAX FIGHTERS Association, not to be confused with the fraud, pro establishment San Diego Taxpayers Association. Read this link. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is the established California Taxpayers group and they side with Rider’s group.
http://open.salon.com/blog/richard_rider/2009/08/27/richard_rider_honored_as_tax_fighter_of_the_year
See *denied* in 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 — regarding any write-in votes.
How many write in votes before and after the 14th Amdt in 1868 ???