On March 12, a California Superior Court Judge revised Proposition 14’s ballot title and description.

The ballot label will say, “Elections. Increase Right to Participate in Primary Elections”. 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. Fiscal impact: The data are insufficient to identify the amount of any increase or decrease in costs to administer elections will increase (sic).”

The Summary in the Voters Pamphlet will say: “Elections. Increases Right to Participate in Primary Elections. That will be followed by five bullet points: (1) Encourages increased participation in elections for congressional, legislative, and statewide offices by reforming the procedure by which candidates are selected in primary elections. (2) Gives voters increased options in the primary by allowing all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. (3) Provides that candidates may choose not to have a political party preference indicated on the primary ballot. (4) Provides that only the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference. (5) Does not change primary elections for President, party committee offices and nonpartisan offices.”

The Voters Pamphlet also carries a fiscal effect. For Proposition 14, the fiscal effect will be: “Minor Costs and Savings. This measure would change how elections officials prepare, print, and mail ballot materials. In some cases, these changes could increase these state and county costs. For instance, under this measure, all candidates – regardless of their party preference – would be listed on each primary election ballot. This would make these ballots longer. In other cases, the measure would reduce election costs. For example, by eliminating in some instances the need to prepare different primary ballots for each political party, counties would sometimes realize savings. For general election ballots, the measure would reduce the number of candidates (by only having the two candidates who received the most votes from the primary election on the ballot). This would make these ballots shorter. The direct costs and savings resulting from this measure may be relatively minor and may tend to offset each other. However, the data are insufficient to determine whether state and local costs to administer elections will increase or decrease.”

Here is the 8-page order, explaining why the judge altered the language that Senator Maldonado had written back in February 2009 when his measure had passed.