Thomas D. Elias is probably the most powerful supporter of California’s Proposition 14. He has a newspaper column that appears in over 100 California newspapers, and he is a fervent support of the “top-two open primary.” Here is his latest column, which appears in the Redding Searchlight. In the days and weeks to come, this same column will appear in dozens of other California newspapers. This column is titled, “Voters declare their independence.”
Elias is very convincing, but the reality he paints is divorced from actual reality. His four columns in favor of “top-two”, over the last year, have never acknowledged that we have already seen how “top-two” works, in Washington and Louisiana, and in practice it makes it even easier for incumbents to get re-elected, than normal primary systems. None of his four columns has ever mentioned either Washington or Louisiana.
His latest column also does not mention the Public Policy Institute of California analysis, which is based on actual data, and which says that the blanket primary system in California, in use for four years, made no difference in the State Senate and only a slight difference in the Assembly.
His columns have never mentioned that, since 2001, eight California legislators have been elected in special elections, and those special elections use the blanket primary system, and those eight state legislators don’t behave any differently than the legislators elected in regular semi-closed primaries.
His latest column implies that independent voters who vote by absentee don’t have the ability to ask for a partisan ballot, but the instructions for obtaining a sample ballot clearly explain how an independent voter may request a partisan primary ballot via the postal mail.
Ironically, the latest Elias columns celebrates the excitement of Massachusetts independent voters electing Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate in the special election earlier this year. If Elias had actually analyzed the Massachusetts election, he would have noted that if Massachusetts had used a “top-two open primary”, it is almost certain that Scott Brown would not have qualified for the second round. Over 50% of Massachusetts voters are registered independents, and they have always been free to choose any party’s primary ballot. At the Massachusetts primaries, Martha Coakley polled 311,548 votes, Congressman Michael Capuano polled 185,157 votes, and Scott Brown polled 146,057 votes. It is true that registered Democrats were not free to vote for Brown in the Democratic primary except by writing him in, but there were only 1,800 total write-ins in the Democratic primary. Because U.S. Senate was the only race on the ballot, independents who wanted to support Brown had no reason not to choose the Republican ballot, and it is obvious that independents did choose the Republican ballot in order to support Brown at the primary stage…but still, Coakley and Capuano were the two top vote-getters, and it is they who would have faced off in any second stage under “top-two.”
Elias also perpetuates the idea that general elections in California never result in any significant changes. Actually, in California in November 2008, four of the 80 Assembly seats switched parties.
ALL past election stuff is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT if an election system is changed.
Real reforms —
P.R. and A.V.
As I have noted previously, Tom Elias and I had some email contact during California’s 2004 Prop. 62 campaign for the “top two open primary” (Tom never bothers to mention that Prop. 62 was defeated, losing in 51 of the state’s 58 counties).
Tom has claimed that (1) the courts have validated Louisiana’s “top two open primary,” and (2) the US Supreme Court [SCOTUS], in its March 2008 ruling, validated Washington state’s “top two.”
In reality, (1) no lawsuit has ever been brought against Louisiana’s basic, overall system, and (2) the SCOTUS said that Washington’s system was not unconstitutional on its face. The justices, however, left the door open for an as-applied challenge to the Washington system, and it now faces a trial in US district court next October.
Like most advocates of the “top two open primary,” Tom has little use for political parties. He told me that he didn’t mind the existence of national parties, but that he saw no need for state parties!
I think Elias was saying that it was confusing or difficult for DTS voters to request a partisan ballot. In 2008, more than 1/2 of DTS voters voted a non-partisan ballot.
For a permanent mail voter, the county has to send a note to the voter. It includes a toll-tree number that a voter may call to get information about which parties are permitting DTS voters participate in this particular election. It appears that the State is trying to be extremely neutral and not push any party ballot on a voter.
If the county doesn’t hear back from the DTS voter, then they get sent a non-partisan ballot. If the DTS non-partisan voters had voted in the partisan primary in 2008, it would have meant 8% GREATER PARTICIPATION.
And it is quite possible that some DTS voters got the non-partisan ballot and didn’t see much interesting and didn’t turn the ballot back in. Don’t mail voters have to pay postage?
In the special elections for Senate districts 26 and 35, and Assembly district 55, the State of California clearly denied the people of the district their real choice for who would represent them. It is possible that if those who were elected had to appeal to the entire electorate, there might have been a different candidate elected.
It is really conjecture what would have happened in Massachusetts under a Top 2 primary. The primary was a couple of weeks before Christmas. Brown didn’t face much competition in the Republican primary. Now you’re suggesting that independents would have bothered to even vote simply to simulate the effect of a Top 2 election. Not too likely at all.
#2 Judge Coughenour has made it quite clear that the litigation in Washington is now about particular implementation issues of Top 2, such as election of Party Officers and not the overall scheme.
opinions from ‘just one citizen’ on Mister Thomas D. Elias and a decade of his print news commentary:
[a] he does not/ did not ever take an interest in abused veterans ………
[b] his columns usually did not pass the ‘smell tests’
As to comment #2, Judge Coughenour’s work will be reviewed by the 9th circuit. Judge Coughenour’s ruling of August 20, 2009, on ballot access, is weak because he ignored the language in Munro v Socialist Workers Party (the US Supreme Court decision from 1986) that said there is no constitutional distinction between a petition hurdle to the November ballot, and a vote test hurdle to the November ballot.
The bottom line is this:
Using state petition restrictions or a state one-party (top-two) voter test to eliminate the access of candidates to the general election ballot restricts freedom of choice.
“Top-two” is a state sponsored one-party system.
“Top-two” is a euphemism for a communist style, ONE PARTY electoral system. “Top-two” forces every individual to participate in a single party with a single primary. There will be less choice than there was in the old USSR.
“TOP-TWO” is COMMUNISM.
# 7 Top 2 in CA does ZERO about the overall gerrymander math —
half the votes in half the gerrymander districts = about 25 percent minority rule = OLIGARCHY — directly tending towards MONARCHY — depending on the power of the top party hacks — in the legislature or the Guv.
The communist Donkey and fascist Elephant gerrymander regimes in the U.S.A. are quite ready to absolutely politically BLOW UP — to make the 1861-1865 Civil War seem like child’s play in a backyard sandbox.
P.R. and A.V. — before it is too late.
#3: If a voter cannot understand the process, he probably doesn’t have any business voting. I live several thousand miles away from California, and I know that California independent (“decline to state”) voters are eligible to vote in the Democratic, Republican, or American Independent primary for state and congressional offices.
And a California independent can change his/her registration as late as 15 days before the election.
“Don’t mail voters have to pay postage?”
Several years ago, there was a story from Washington state about an elderly man who always sent his ballot in “postage due”; he equated paying postage with paying a poll tax. Rather than making an issue of it, the elections office furnished him with a supply of postage-paid envelopes.
#6: And the 9th circuit’s ruling can be appealed to the US Supreme Court, which means that the Washington state “top two” could well be involved in litigation for some years to come.
#7: “‘Top-two’ is a euphemism for a communist style, ONE PARTY electoral system.”
The “top two” is really a NO-PARTY system. If political parties cannot perform their basic function of officially nominating candidates, what do you need them for? The “top two” is “everyone for himself.”
As much as I despise the “top two” for state and federal elections, I wouldn’t call it “communist.”
Chicago’s one-party system produced the current occupant of the White House, but I digress.
Steve,
I would argue that top two is a reinforced two-party system masquerading as a no-party system. Third parties have a much smaller chance of making the November election ballot under top two.
You’re right in that, under the “top two,” independents and small party candidates almost never reach the final, deciding election.
But if the “top two” entrenched a two-party system, the two major parties wouldn’t hate it like they do. The Democrats and Repubicans– as well as the small parties– want to (1) be able to officially nominate candidates, and (2) be assured of having a candidate in the final election– assuming that a party has at least one candidate running.
Louisiana began using its “top two” in the 1970s, and the Bayou State did not have its first popularly-elected Republican US senator– David Vitter– until 2004.
The “top two” is a nonpartisan– “no party”– system. All candidates and voters might just as well be independents.
#12, paragraph 3: Party primaries have been a major factor in the growth of the Republican Party in the South. Louisiana’s lack of party primaries (other than for president), starting in the 1970s, retarded the growth of the GOP in the Bayou State.
“Top Two” is better than the current system which inevitably creates “little” travesties imitating Florida 2000 when the race gets close. The way to bring about viable “third parties” that can make it into the runoff is by using PR to elect state and local legislatures. Elected office-of a significant type- enhances the credibility of non-duopoly parties. You can see this process going on in Europe all the time. Maybe the US would also need a constitutional amendment addressing campaign finance-but we really don’t know.
#9 If you are a permanent by mail voter in California, you will get a notice:
“The notice shall inform the voter that he or she may request a vote by mail ballot for a particular political party for the primary election, if that political party adopted a party rule, duly noticed to the Secretary of State, authorizing these voters to vote in their primary. The notice shall also contain a toll-free telephone number, established by the Secretary of State, that the voter may call to access information regarding which political parties have adopted such a rule.”
The voter is required to fill in the name of the political party and return it to the county election official.
In person voters may or may not be told, depending on their particular county and polling place. If a voter declined to state which party they intended to affiliate with at the next primary, what business is it of the State of California to ask someone whether they want to vote in the primary of the Republican or Democratic party?
#12 Louisiana has a greater share of independents elected as such in its legislature than every other state but Virginia (excluding Nebraska since its candidates do not have partisan designation).
#13 Republicans are much closer to legislative control in Louisiana, than they are in Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas.
At the cost of many lives and much expense, the folks in Iraq have just had their second mainly P.R. (repeat P.R.) national election.
Iraq 2010 Election – Sample Ballot
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/special/misc/iraqielections2010/
Right to left in Arabic.
Iraq election info —
http://carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=24168
Some gerrymander stuff (fixed number of seats per province), plurality stuff in some districts and sex quota stuff — BUT overall light years ahead of the STONE AGE U.S.A. minority rule gerrymander regimes.
P.R. and A.V. NOW — to prevent Civil WAR II in the U.S.A.
Concerning #14, would you have approved of a November 2008 presidential election in which the voters could only vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? In the 2008 presidential primaries, Obama and Clinton each got over 16,000,000 votes in the nation, but no one else got even 10,000,000. John McCain got 9,500,000. And remember, Prop. 14 even eliminates write-ins in November. Of course Prpp. 14 doesn’t apply to presidential elections, but your comment seems to wish that it did.
#19 Proposition 14 does not eliminate write-in votes in November.
#19
Since I’m fantasizing, I support mandatory two-round elections for POTUS in every state. Like the French presidential elections.
Louisiana law, third parties and the “top two” blanket primary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan_blanket_primary
(…)
This format has only been used for regular elections in the U.S. state of Louisiana. The 1976 House and Senate elections were the last in Louisiana under the closed primary system for approximately 30 years. Starting in the 1978 House and Senate elections were switched to the nonpartisan blanket primary format, which had already begun for state elections in 1975. The only labels originally permitted under the Louisiana law were Democrat, Republican, and No Party; however, as of 2008[update] the labels of any “registered political party” may be used.[1]
(…)
#20 Jim Reilly is wrong. Prop 14 does eliminate write-in votes in general elections for those offices to which the top two primary applies. While the language isn’t in the constitutional amendment that will appear on the ballot, it is part of the implementing legislation SB 6 that Maldonado forced the legislature to adopt along with putting Prop 14 on the ballot in exchange for his vote on the February 2009 budget deal. That bill has already been signed into law, but will actually go into effect only if Proposition 14 is approved in June.
from chaptered version of SB 6
Oops. I see that in my post immediately above I misspelled the name of the person who incorrectly claims that Prop 14 doesn’t ban write-ins in general elections. My apologies to Jim Reilly. Jim Riley is the person who got it wrong.
#15: You’re obviously talking about independent (“decline to state”) voters.
“… what business is it of the State of California to ask someone whether they want to vote in the primary of the Republican or Democratic party?”
Only eight states now have “open primary, private choice,” in which the voter picks a party in the secrecy of the voting booth. And in one of those states, Idaho, the Republican Party has filed a federal suit against the primary election law.
Did you vote in a party primary on March 2, Jim? If so, the state of Texas asked you which party’s primary you wanted to vote in.
Have you raised hell about that?
#21: “… I support mandatory two-round elections for POTUS in every state. Like the French presidential elections.”
The French parties nominate presidential candidates in advance of the two-round election, and any mayor has the power to hand-pick a presidential nominee.
The French Socialists conducted a primary to pick their nominee for the last presidential race, and they have said that they will also have a primary for the next presidential election.
#22: Washington state began using the “top two” for its state and congressional elections in 2008.
Louisiana and Washington are the only states which use the “top two” to elect all of their state officials (Louisiana calls it the “open primary”).
Washington state alone uses the “top two” for its congressional elections.
#25 In Texas, party primaries are conducted by the political party, not the State of Texas. At one time, I believe there was a requirement that they be conducted in different buildings, but that has been relaxed. The political parties are permitted to consolidate election precincts, and they don’t necessarily use the same consolidation.
The ballot said:
“I am a (insert appropriate political party) and understand that I am ineligible to vote or participate in another political party’s primary election or convention during this voting year.”
I voted early. Early voting is conducted by the county (this might not be mandatory, since political parties in each county do have the option to hold joint primaries on election day conducted by the county).
The election judge asked me which primary I wished to vote in. My voter registration was stamped with the name of the party. This information is collected by the county voter registrar.
They did not present me a list of choices.
As I understand it, in California they do not necessarily ask DTS voters whether or not they want a non-partisan or a party ballot. I think in some counties they are proactive and ask the voter, and in others they are reactive, and will only give a DTS voter a partisan ballot if they request it. Administration of the county policy may vary from precinct to precinct.
There was (is?) a bill that would require election judges to ask DTS voters which primary they wished to vote in.
#28: So your county government asked you which party’s primary you wanted to vote in, which became a matter of public record.
In Mississippi, some of our municipalities elect their own officials at different times in the same year that other elections are held (e. g., in the spring of presidential election years). A voter is eligible to vote in one party’s municipal primary, and the other party’s primary for other offices.
#29 In this case, the county government was acting on behalf of the political parties (since it was administering early voting).
If I had voted on election day, I would have gone to the polling place of the Republican or Democratic party. Party officials would have stamped my voter registration card, and also sent the marked voter roll to the county. The reason for this procedure is so that voters may not cross over between the primary and the runoff.
If I had instead gone to a precinct convention of the Libertarian, Green, or Constitution parties (on March 9), they would have stamped my voter registration card. Whether the Green and Constitution parties qualify for the November ballot is based on attendance at their conventions (though they may supplement this with petition signatures). So these would be a matter of public record as well.
Party affiliation only applies to the nominating activities (primaries and conventions) in even-numbered election years. The slate is wiped clean at the end of this year, and really has little practical effect after the conventions this summer.
Party affiliation does not matter for voting in general elections nor in special elections.
Texas does not allow other elections to be held at the same time as the primaries.
#30: What if a voter forgets his registration card? Is he permitted to cast a provisional vote?
Special elections cannot be held on primary day?
“Party affiliation does not matter for voting in general elections nor in special elections.”
That’s true of all general elections, since every voter receives the same ballot. And it’s true of any nonpartisan election such as Texas’s special elections.
#31 “(c) If a voter is accepted to vote without presenting a registration certificate, the presiding judge shall issue the voter an affiliation certificate. The certificate is not required to be issued to a voter in a runoff primary unless the voter requests it.”
In recent elections, election judges have taken to preferring driver’s licenses as an ID, since they can be swiped to do the voter look-up. I think it is probably also to get people used to the idea of using photo ID at elections.
It is probably more likely that voting will get recorded on the voting rolls, than the registration cards get stamped. Petitions for independents are going to be checked against the voter rolls, which would then show if a voter had voted in a primary. The same would be true for convention attendees/supplementary petition for new parties.
=====
Remember that primaries are conducted by political parties (and not all political parties have primaries). Political parties may consolidate election precincts, so the Democrats could have a polling place within the same building – but separate rooms, where different voters would be eligible to vote. So you could have precincts 18 and 19 for the Republicans voting in one room; and precincts 19, 20, and 21 voting in another room. And if you had a special election it would be for precinct 19.
And political parties often use the same voting equipment as the county does, so there might not be enough to go around. Though for the special election – a single race, they might be able to switch to paper ballots.
And you would also have have different sets of election judges. And you have the registration cutoffs before elections. The special election might cover just part of a county.
There is actually a 30-day window on either side of the primary and runoff where special elections are not permitted, except for “emergencies”. Generally it is preferred to hold a special election at the next uniform election date (there is one in May and one November).
It is possible that if the legislature were in session, there could be a special election to fill a vacancy. But the legislature is unlikely to be in session during primary season. The legislators would never forgive the governor for making them run or vote on anything substantive during the primary campaign.
So it is possible but quite extremely unlikely for a special election to be held around the primary elections.
=====
Special elections for the legislature and Congress are partisan elections.