Proposition 14 will be on the June 8, 2010 ballot in California. It provides for a “top-two open primary”. The original language that was to appear on the ballot was: “Elections. Primaries. Greater Participation in Elections”, all in bold print. Then, in smaller print, “Reforms the primary election process for congressional, statewide and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference.”
On March 2, Allen D. Clark, a union official, had sued to overturn that language. He proposed, “Elections. Primaries”, in bold print. Then, “Changes primary election process for congressional, legislative and statewide races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Does not require candidates to disclose their registered political party preference. Eliminates political parties’ rights to be on the general election ballot. Ensures that only the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of their registered political party preference. Does not change primary election for President, party committee officers, and nonpartisan offices.”
On March 5, the legislature and the plaintiff agreed to settle out-of-court. The compromise settlement was for this language: “Elections. Primaries.” (in bold print). Then, “Changes the primary election process for congressional, statewide and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. A candidate may choose to have his or her party preference, or lack thereof, indicated on the ballot. Provides that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference. Eliminates the existing constitutional right of a political party that participated in the primary election to participate in the general election.”
The proponents of Proposition 14 do not agree with this compromise and have obtained a court hearing, set for March 9, to intervene in the lawsuit. As will be noted, the biggest difference between the various versions is that the proponents of Proposition 14 want to have “Greater Participation in Elections” as part of the Title of the measure (not just the description of it on the ballot, but as part of the name). However, when Washington state first used a top-two open primary in 2008, primary turnout was lower than it had been in 2004, when Washington used a classic open primary. Also, when Louisiana first used a top-two system for state office in 1975, turnout was lower than it had been in the closed Democratic primary of November 6, 1971, and turnout in 1979 was also lower than it had been in 1971.
Is there a legal standard (in statute or caselaw) for ballot language in California? If so, does anyone have a copy handy?
The Election Code says the language must be neutral.
Excellent post Richard.
One more reason NOT to have ANY *explanation* stuff on the ballots on what ANY proposal does or does not do.
Shall Proposal 123456 be adopted ?
YES
NO
——-
The full LEGAL text is in the voter guides and/or stuck on a wall in the precincts.
A MORON voter (of which there are way too many) can always vote NO on any *change* in the law.
Perhaps always have *NO* be the default vote on ALL proposals ??? — i.e. require a positive YES vote to make any changes in the law. Duh.
More votes were cast in the Washington gubernatorial race in 2008 than had been cast in 2004. Participation should be measured by something other than the number of persons who cast blank ballots (perhaps in protest of the elimination of the blanket primary). Just two months later, voters of Washington by a 60-40 margin repudiated the infamous Pick-A-Party primary that had been imposed because of the ill-advised veto by Governor Gary Locke.
Statewide 2004 TO: 1,480,247
Statewide Governor: 1,303,024
Effective Participation: 88.0%
Statewide 2008 TO: 1,455,756 (down 1.7%)
Statewide Governor: 1,442,457 (up 10.7%)
Effective Participation: 99.1%
And it must also be remembered that in 2004, there was an open gubernatorial race, particularly on the Democratic side, where King County Executive Ron Sims was challenging Attorney General Christine Gregoire. If you analyze the turnout figures on a county-by-county basis, you will observe a large dropoff in King County, and to a lesser extent, neighboring Snohomish and Pierce counties, where Sims also received strong support.
King Governor 2004: 420,732
King Governor 2008: 359,988
King Change 2004-2008: (down 14.5%)
non-King Governor 2004: 882,292
non-King Governor 2008: 1,082,460
non-King Change 2004-2008: (up 22.7%)
#1
Elections Code 9051 (c) “In providing the ballot title and summary, the Attorney General shall give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure.”
The legislature bypassed the previous section, which directs the SOS to give the measure to the AG so that the AG may write the ballot title and summary, and instead wrote the ballot title and summary themselves. But it could probably be argued that the legislature could be held to the same standard.
Louisiana:
Nov 6, 1971 Democratic Primary (16 candidates, including: US Representative Edwin Edwards; future US Senator J. Bennett Johnston; cousin of Huey Long and Russell Long, Gillis William Long; former governor and singer Jimmie H. Davis; supermarket magnate John G. Schwegmann; Lt. Governor Clarence C. Aycock; and Congressman and another Long-cousin Speedy O. Long)
1,174,043 votes. Add in the 10,571 votes cast in the Republican primary that nominated David Treen, for a grand total of 1,184,036
December 18, 1971 Democratic 2nd primary (Edwards vs. Johnston) 1,164,036
February 1, 1972 General Election (Edwards v Treen)
1,121,570
November 1, 1975 Open Primary. Edwards v. 5 relative minor challengers, all Democrats, Edwards is elected with 62% of the vote: 1,203,004
1975 open primary vs. 1971 Democratic and Republican primaries: 1,203,004 v. 1,184,614. Up 1.5% despite the lackluster contest in 1975.
October 24, 1979 open primary (David Treen and Louis Lambert advance to runoff, ahead of 7 other candidates): 1,365,880
December 8, 1979 runoff (Treen elected as governor): 1,371,825
1979 open primary vs. 1971 Democratic and Republican primaries: 1,365,880 v. 1,184,614. Up 15.3%.
Turnout is measure as a percentage of the voters, not in raw numbers. The source for the statement about Louisiana turnout is Professor Thomas A. Kazee’s article in Publius, Winter 1983, vol. 13 #1. The article is “The Impact of Electoral Reform: ‘Open Elections’ and the Louisiana Party System.” The article, on page 138, says, “Both the old system in 1972, and the open-election rules in 1979, had challengers from each major party, and both were relatively competitive. Turnout in 1972 was 52.0 percent; the first election in 1979 attracted 51.3% of the voting-age population.” The article also says turnout in 1975 was lower than both 1979 and 1972. He leans over backward to be fair to the new system, and excludes 1975 because the incumbent Governor was running for re-election and therefore it wasn’t as competitive.
And if a classic open primary is “infamous” in Washington state, isn’t the same type of primary also “infamous” in Texas, Jim Riley’s home state? So why doesn’t Jim Riley, a Texan, work to get rid of the “infamous” system in his home state?
While I do believe that each political party deserves to be able to have official nominees in general elections for state and federal offices, I do not consider that to be a “constitutional right.”
#8, last paragraph: I have repeatedly asked Jim Riley on this site when he intends to enlighten at least one Texas state legislator about the glories of Jim’s cherished “top two open primary.”
I have yet to receive an answer.
Jim describes as “infamous” the classic open primary, in which each voter picks a party on primary day, and which is now used by some 21 states. If the open primary is “infamous,” what adjective would best fit the closed primary?
#5: “… the infamous Pick-A-Party primary that had been imposed because of the ill-advised veto by Governor Gary Locke [now US secretary of commerce].”
The “top two” bill passed by the Washington state legislature in 2004 gave the governor the power to invalidate the “top two” and replace it with a classic open primary. In his veto message, Locke expressed his concern that, under the “top two,” small parties would be locked out of the final, deciding election.
The main reason that Washington state voters approved the “top two” was that state’s long history– since the 1930s– with the blanket primary, in which voters, in the first round, could cross party lines from office to office.
#9
There was no primary in 1972. The general election was February 1, 1972. The primaries were in 1971.
The Kazee article compares turnout in the 1972 general election with turnout in the open primary in 1979, which were the first elections each year where all voters could vote for both Republicans and Democrats.
But he was primarily concerned with measuring the impact of the open primary reform on the Louisiana party system. The section on voter turnout is a single paragraph at the end of the article.
I think that he is comparing apples and oranges, by comparing the general election with the primary. It would be like comparing the November 2004 turnout in Washington with the August 2008 turnout. In any case, you have misstated the particular information that he provided, since there was no February 1972 primary.
You also misquoted him in Reply #8.
He wrote:
“Turnout for the 1972 general election was 52.0 percent; the first election in 1979 (in which
ten candidates participated) attracted 51.3 percent of the voting-age population.”
“in 1972” is not an accurate paraphrase of “for the 1972 general election”, especially since you left the accurate characterization for 1979.
And Kazee’s conclusion was:
“Figures for these years indicate that voter participation has been essentially unaffected by the open-elections law.”
It is quite possible that there was also an effect on turnout due to the change in the age distribution as baby boomers entered adulthood.
In Louisiana, between 1972 and 1980, persons 18-24 increased by 17%, 25-44 by 29%, 45-64 by 6%, and 65+ by 21%. There would have been a massive shift in the 25-44 YO to those between 25-34. Younger persons vote less. Baby boomers vote less than persons of the same age in previous generations.
I have no idea where he got his 14.7% for 1975 from. There was a primary with 6-candidates in which Edwards receive 62.7% of the vote, and votes cast were comparable to the 1971 and 1979 primaries. The Open Primary was extended to congressional elections in 1978. Perhaps as of 1975, the general election was still conducted with one candidate on the ballot? That is the only way I can see that you could get a 14.7% turnout and an “unopposed incumbent”.
As for the rest of the article, it is interesting from a perspective of seeing what the contemporary view of the effect of the Open Primary was.
In 2010, Democratic registration is still over 50%, but will probably drop below half in a few years. And compare 1975 when the open primary reform was first passed and all 4 Republicans in the House voted against it, to 2007 where Republicans are a majority.
#9 A primary in which 12% of the voters do not indicate a preference for a gubernatorial candidate can certainly be characterized as infamous.
The 1964 special election in which John Tower was elected can rightly be characterized as famous. It was conducted under the same rules as will be used in California.
I did contact all the gubernatorial candidates about the Open Primary. It apparently drove two of them out of the race days later. I only heard back from one campaign, and that was merely a belated acknowledgment of receipt.
#12, paragraph 2: Texas’s special election for US senator was in 1961, after Lyndon Johnson had assumed the vice-presidency. John Tower, of course, had been the Republican nominee against Senator Johnson in 1960.
As I recall, there were 30-plus candidates in that ’61 special election, including Congressman Jim Wright, who was later speaker of the US House.
I guess none of our US preidential elections have been “famous,” since none of them have been conducted under the “top two” format.
Jim, thanks for the correction about the date of the last closed Louisiana gubernatorial primary. You are right, it was November 1971, not February 1972. I fixed the post.
In your comment #12, did you mean to say 1961 instead of 1964?
#9
While I do believe that each political party deserves to be able to have official nominees in general elections for state and federal offices, I do not consider that to be a “constitutional right.â€
Technically it is accurate, since it is in the California Constitution. But it is prejudicial to someone who thinks that it is somehow tied to the 1st Amendment.
Perhaps this would be more balanced. Instead of “allows” say “establishes constitutional right of”
“Changes the primary election process for congressional, statewide and legislative races. Establishes constitutional right of all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. A candidate may choose to have his or her party preference, or lack thereof, indicated on the ballot. Provides that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference. Eliminates the existing constitutional right of a political party that participated in the primary election to participate in the general election.”
Doesn’t that highlight the fundamental issue: whether elections should be voter-centric or party-centric?
#11, last paragraph: As I recall, the Louisiana legislature passed the “open primary” in 1974. It was approved by the US Dept. of Justice in time for the ’75 elections.
Those four Republicans in the Louisiana House would have been insane to have voted for the “open primary,” since the GOP was then in a position similar to the small parties now in California. In LA’s party primary system, if the GOP had a candidate for an office, the party was assured of having a candidate in the general election; there, of course, is no such assurance with the “open primary.”
In the LA party primary system, the Republicans almost never had contested primaries (David Treen did have a token opponent in the ’71 GOP gubernatorial primary). Since LA had party runoff (or second) primaries, the Democratic nominee usually had to conduct THREE campaigns, whereas the GOP nominee usually only had to run ONE campaign– in the general election. The Democrats naturally resented this and wanted to (1) force the Republicans to run in the same election with the Dems, and (2) return LA’s elections to the two-step process that everyone had been accustomed to under the one-party system.
Thus Louisiana’s “open primary” is really an extension of the old one-party (truly NO-PARTY) system, in which elections were decided in the Democratic primary, with a Democratic runoff if necessary.
#14 Kazee actually appears to be comparing turnout in the February 1972 general election to the Open Primary in October 1979. It sort of makes sense for his paper, which was more about the effect on party politics, than on voter turnout. The 1972 general election was the first in which Republicans and Democrats could vote, while the same was true in the 1979 open primary.
If you look at how he analyzed the effect on legislative races, it was based mainly on the number of general election races that had Republican candidates in the different elections.
On the other hand, since 99.1% of the votes cast in the two partisan primaries in November 1971 were in the Democratic primary, I think it more reasonable to say that the Open Primary replaced the Democratic Primary. I kind of suspect that 1972 was an anomaly in that turnout in the general was anywhere close to what it was in the Democratic primary. This was certainly true in Texas, at least in non-presidential years.
#14 Re #12. You are corrrect, 1961. I was thinking LBJ and converted that into 1964 rather than 1960.
#13
70 candidates. I’ve seen newspaper articles during the filing period and they started out giving details of the candidates. Towards the end there would be a byline like “57, 58, 59” and a list of the latest candidates and their city.
1801 Presidential election between Jefferson and Burr was Top 2. 1824 was Top 3. Some States have had Top 2-like elections for their electors, but I don’t think there was ever a popular vote runoff – but simply the legislature chose between the Top 2.
#10 The bill that passed the legislature provided for the Top 2 primary. It had a backup provision, that said: “If a court of competent jurisdiction holds that a candidate may not identify a major or minor political party as best approximating his or her political philosophy, as provided in RCW 29A.24.030(3), and all appeals of that court order have been exhausted or waived, the secretary of state shall notify the governor, the majority and minority leaders of the two largest caucuses in the senate and the house of representatives, the code reviser, and all county auditors that the state can no longer conduct a qualifying primary and instead will conduct a nominating primary.”
It then defined a “nominating primary” as Pick-A-Party Primary.
Governor Locke vetoed all the sections providing for a Top 2 primary, thus substituting his judgment for that of a court of competent jurisdiction. He decried the party hacks for taking the blanket primary to court, and said he thought that the major parties might litigate forever, and this would threaten the Pick-a-Party primary (as is now happening in neighboring Idaho).
#16 IOW, Top 2 facilitated the Republican rise to power in Louisiana, and might do the same for now-minor parties in California. Instead of simply trying to maintain their qualification from election to election, they were forced to compete for votes.
P.R. and A.V.
NO MORON primaries are needed.
ALL the primary stuff from the past is about as useful as a record of all the wars of the EVIL kings in the rotten EVIL past.
#18: The 1801 and 1824 elections, of course, were decided by the US House. And the 1876 election was decided by a special commission.
You could say that Mississippi and Vermont, in certain circumstances, have a “top two” for statewide constitutional offices, with the state legislature making the final decision.
And, when no candidate gets 50%-plus in Georgia’s general election, the top two meet in a popular runoff.
#19: The major parties in Washington state would be very satisfied if they could get rid of the “top two” and restore the classic open (or pick-a-party) primary– regardless of what happens in any other state.
#20: I’m afraid I don’t follow your logic here. Most of my relatives live in Louisiana, and I’ve been observing their “open primary” since its inception in the 1970s, and I wouldn’t wish that election system on my worst enemy.
It’s certainly no conincidence that Louisiana did not have its first popularly-elected Republican US senator– David Vitter– until 2004.
Unless one candidate gets 50%-plus in the first round, the top two candidates in Louisiana are required to conduct TWO general election campaigns; this discourages candidates from running. In recent years, two former governors “tested the waters” but decided not to run. If Louisiana had had party primaries, they likely WOULD have run.
For a member of a small party to favor the “top two open primary” would be like a chicken handing Colonel Sanders a hatchet and inviting him into the henhouse.
Under California’s Prop. 14, of course, the top two vote-getters would ALWAYS have to conduct TWO general election campaigns.
#23/19 That is conjecture. The Washington Democrats refuse to use the presidential primary, even though the State requires voters to sign their affiliation when they vote.
#23/20 If you read the Publius article, it talked about the effect of the open primary on legislative races. It compared the number of races where there was a Republican candidate on the general election ballot under the primary system vs. how many made the runoff under the open primary.
Before the open primary, a Republican simply had to file in order to get on the general election ballot – it would be rare for the GOP primary to be contested. They would then watch a couple of rounds of party primaries. And it would count to be on the general election ballot, even if you lost 90-10.
After the open primary was instituted, Republicans would be on the primary ballot with a few Democrats. They would have to get people to vote for them, or they wouldn’t be on the general election ballot. Initially this meant fewer Republicans were on the general election ballot. But ultimately made them stronger.
Johnston and Russell Long were entrenched before the Open Primary was instituted. So you have to show that Moore would have been elected in 1986 had there been a partisan primary. Breaux was pretty unbeatable, in part because he would get the votes of some Republican voters.
Landrieu won the 1996 runoff because it was coincident with the presidential election, which Gore won fairly handily in Louisiana. Had it been after Foster v. Love then it would probably have been Jenkins winning the runoff.
I don’t think you can really say that had there been primaries, that Moore or Jenkins would have been elected. And had there still been the open primary, maybe Landrieu would have been forced to a runoff in 2008.
Under an open primary, a candidate would have to appeal to the entire electorate. They couldn’t simply appeal to a party electorate in the primary, and then expect automatic election in the general election.
#24: It will likely be several more years before the Washington state “top two” litigation is settled. Many voters are already mad at the political parties, and if the parties win the “top two” case, they aren’t going to plunge into yet more litigation. The voters would really get angry if the parties tried to have closed primaries.
As I’ve said elsewhere on this site, party primaries have been a major factor in the growth of the Republican Party in the South. Louisiana’s lack of party primaries, starting in the 1970s, retarded the GOP’s growth in the Bayou State.
Senator Johnston won his second term in ’78, the first year the “open primary” was used for congressional elections. The second-place finisher was a Democrat, and there was no runoff. I don’t think the Republicans even ran a candidate.
The ’96 presidential election was between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole (plus the small party nominees).
In the ’96 US Senate race, there were five or six serious Republican candidates, and it appeared that they would split the vote and enable two Democrats to make the runoff. At the last minute, the GOP leaders endorsed Woody Jenkins, who made the runoff against the Democrat Mary Landrieu (I would much prefer to have such a decision made by Republican voters in a party primary).
A gambling referendum in Landrieu’s home parish of Orleans increased the turnout there and was largely responsible for her win. She carried Orleans Parish by 100,000-plus votes but won statewide by only about 7,000 votes (Jenkins carried 37 of the state’s 64 parishes).
There was evidence of vote fraud in Orleans Parish, and Jenkins contested the election. But he was wasting his time, since the Democrats in the Senate made sure that Landrieu was seated.
“Under an open primary, a candidate would have to appeal to the entire electorate.”
Yes, unless one candidate gets 50%-plus in the first round of Louisiana’s “open primary,” the top two vote-getters have to finance and conduct TWO general election campaigns. This makes campaigns more expensive and discourages candidates from running– especially candidates without a great deal of money.
Under Prop. 14, the top two vote-getters in California would ALWAYS have to finance and conduct TWO general election campaigns.
#25 You assume that the political parties are acting with intelligence.
Louisiana is most similar to Mississippi, Arkansas, and Alabama. Agreed?
A larger share of the US representatives from Louisiana are Republicans than the other 3, and they are much closer to taking control of the House of Representatives, and there is effectively bipartisan control now.
Louisiana restored party primaries for the US House and Senate in 2008.
The current congressman from Baton Rouge was first elected in 2008, for example. He’s a Republican who defeated a Democratic incumbent.
The Republican Party was a small party when Louisiana began using its “open primary” in the 1970s. The “open primary” retarded the GOP’s growth.
#27
Neither Cazayoux or Cassidy received a majority. Had the special election been run as a conventional Louisiana election, Jenkins might have been elected.
Had the general election been run as a conventional Louisiana election, Cazayoux might have won. Jackson avoided the Democratic primary by running as an “independent”.
Under the “top two open primary,” Woody Jenkins lost three times for US senator and once for state registrar of voters (he ran his first two races for the Senate as a Democrat).
If Mississippi had had the “top two open primary” in 1978, Thad Cochran would not have been elected US senator. A black independent drained votes from the Democratic nominee, and Cochran won with 45.0%.
For that matter, if we had had a “top two” in 1972, Cochran would not have been elected to the US House. He benefited from the presence of another black independent and won with 47.9%.