On March 24, the California Secretary of State announced that the initiative to legalize marijuana has qualified for the November ballot. The Attorney General says the title will be “Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow it to be Regulated and Taxed.”
This is the first initiative that has qualified for the California November ballot, although there is already a statewide measure concerning water that the legislature put on the November ballot. Other initiatives must qualify no later than June 24.
Jerry Brown, who inevitably will be the Democratic Party nominee, has already said publicly that he is opposed to this initiative. Presumably the Republican nominee (likely to be Meg Whitman) will also declare her opposition. If “top-two” were already the law in California, these two candidates would be the only two individuals on the ballot in November for Governor, and no write-ins would be counted. Thus Californians would not be able to vote in November for any gubernatorial candidate who favors this initiative.
Who needs any party hack governor — when the People can directly make laws — and bypass the entire EVIL gang of party hack gerrymander MONSTERS in the CA legislature ???
P.R. and nonpartisan A.V. — the W-A-R for REAL Democracy continues — to END the EVIL rule of the powermad EVIL party hacks.
If the gubernatorial election had been conducted under Top 2, there might well have been different candidates, or the dynamics of the race would have been different. If voters considered opposition to the marijuana legalization to be a significant factor in their choice of gubernatorial candidate, they could vote for another candidate, including independent candidates.
What should be more troubling to Californians is that non-partisan elections and measures are voted on concurrently with partisan primaries. Independent and minor party voters are discouraged from voting because they are led to believe that nothing of significance is being decided.
Jim, Meg Whitman has already spent over $30,000,000 on her campaign, and Jerry Brown, as a former 8-year governor, has more name recognition by far than any other California Democratic politician except possibly our two U.S. Senators. It is entirely unrealistic for anyone to imagine that anyone but those two will come in first/second in the primary, regardless of the election system.
Similarly, in Washington state, the same two candidates for Governor in 2008 qualified for the November ballot who had qualified in 2004 under the classic open primary, because they are the two who had name recognition. In Louisiana, Edwin Edwards was the winner of the first top-two gubernatorial election (in 1975) because he was the incumbent. It is fantasy that top-two brings outsiders and long shots into the final round. It strengthens those who are already strong and shuts everybody else out.
Congrats to MPP for getting this on the ballot.
They will need to arrest any federal officials that try to arrest people under federal drug laws if this passes.
#2, paragraph 2: The marijuana initiative will be on the November general election ballot, when every voter receives the same ballot.
As to California’s party primaries for state and congressional offices: Independents are eligible to vote in either the Democratic or the Republican primary, which is more choice than registered party members have. Furthermore, voters have until 15 days before the election to change their registration.
It’s my understanding that the marijuana measure provides for local option.
I really fail to see the benifit if this scheme whereby every candidate is on the ballot in a big primary and then only the top two candidates are choices in the general election. Why not simply adopt Instant Runoff Voting and get rid of the primary all together?
It would be rather interesting if California, a state that said ‘no’ to gay marriage would say, ‘yes’ to legal pot. Although, such an initiative cannot alter federal level.
Governor Arnold S. is in favor of this ballot effort. How then does he explain the anti-drug Public Service Announcement he did in 1986?
#3 In the 1987 Louisiana primary, the Democratic candidates were all asked whether they would support Democrat Edwin Edwards in a general election against Republican Bob Livingston.
Buddy Roemer said that sometimes you have to do what is right and slay the dragon. Jim Brown and Billy Tauzin were equivocal. Roemer was propelled to victory. Edwards finished second but withdrew. Livingston ended up with 18% (as the only Republican in the race). Brown and Tauzin ended up as also rans.
Had it been a conventional partisan primary, the last thing a candidate would do is say they wouldn’t support the nominee of the party.
#7 California seems to be attached to the June primary. They don’t seem to be bothered with having all the candidates for county office appear on the June ballot and then having a choice between the top 2 5 months later. The same is true for the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
If it were my decision, I would move the primary to October.
The problem with IRV is that it prevents a clear debate before the final decision is made.
#6 I agree – that referendums in which all voters may vote should only be on the ballot for elections in which all voters are able to participate.
The current California system is like having a mayoral election while the Methodists and Baptists are having competing revival meetings, and telling an agnostic that for his convenience polling booths have been set up in the tents on either side of the street.
#9: The 1987 Louisiana election points up the lack of importance of political parties in a nonpartisan system like the “top two open primary.” Everyone might just as well be an independent.
Party affiliaton was not the overriding issue vis-a-vis Edwin Edwards. He had already been tried for fraud and was clearly corrupt.
Notably, Roemer and Tauzin later switched to the Republicans. And Jim Brown (father of CNN’s Campbell Brown) did a stretch in prison.
#11: When California has ballot questions on primary day, don’t the questions appear on ALL the ballots? Aren’t the questions included on the party ballots as well as the nonpartisan ballot?
#12/9 In 1987, elections in Louisiana were still seen as a continuation of the Democratic primary with a token Republican entered. Had it been a pure Democratic primary, refusal to support the nominee of the party might have bounced you from the ballot (like happened to Dennis Kucinich in Texas in 2008). This year, the state Democratic party in Texas had to give local party leaders dispensation to not support Kesha Rogers, a congressional nominee chosen by the voters.
#12/11 Yes the non-partisan ballots have the ballot issues. But most all the advertising will be for the partisan contests. Since Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer don’t have strong opposition, Democratic turnout may be down. The Lieutenant Governor race between the mayor of San Francisco and the sister of the former mayor of Los Angeles may result in some newspaper interest, but probably won’t draw voters.
The Republicans have competitive races for both governor and senator. Those independents who game the system and choose the primary they vote in, will probably vote GOP this year. But other independent and minor party voters might simply not bother to vote at all.
#13: Party loyalty has never been a priority in Louisiana.
Re the California primaries: The important thing is that all voters have the option to participate. If a voter chooses not to vote, that’s his business. And someone who doesn’t understand the system probably doesn’t need to be voting anyway.
#14 Not all voters in California have the option to participate in a partisan primary.
Under Proposition 14 all voters will have the same equal opportunity to participate.
ALL and EQUAL is better than NOT ALL and UNEQUAL, in my opinion.
All California voters have an option to participate in a partisan primary. Members of qualified parties may participate in their own party’s primary. Independents, and members of unqualified parties, are free to choose either a Republican primary ballot or a Democratic primary ballot. When an independent chooses a major party primary ballot, the independent remains an independent. Choosing a partisan primary ballot does not disturb the independent voter’s status.
Independent voters in California are the only voters who have a choice of party primary ballots. Independent voters in California have more freedom than members of qualified parties do. And, anyone is free to switch parties as late as 2 weeks before the primary.