The Center for Voting and Democracy, a nationwide group, has taken a position against California’s Proposition 14. Director Rob Richie explains the Center’s position in this Huffington Post article.
The Center for Voting and Democracy, a nationwide group, has taken a position against California’s Proposition 14. Director Rob Richie explains the Center’s position in this Huffington Post article.
…and unlike every other Rob Richie written piece, comments are enabled!
Proposition 14 reduces the number of signatures for an independent for statewide offices from over 176,000 to 65. There has not been an independent candidate on the ballot for statewide office since 1978. For Congress or the legislature, the count number of signatures would be reduced from thousands to 40. There have been 9 independent congressional candidates in the last 900 or so races.
Proposition 14 does not change California’s June-November election schedule, also used for many local elections. Top 2 is more amenable to a short runoff season or even IRV than the partisan primary system, which encourages candidates to zigzag from partisan positions in the primary, to a more centrist position in November.
Partisan primaries discourages participation by independent and minor-party voters in non-partisan contests and measures that are also held in June.
Parties will be able to endorse candidates, including independents or other parties, on the sample ballot that is included with the voters pamphlet.
Candidates will be limited to the party shown on their voting registration, and the SOS website will maintain a 10-year history of candidate’s party registration.
Nothing in the text of the legislation supports a claim that a candidate who has registered with a small party will not be able to have that party affiliation shown on the ballot. Under current law, such a candidate would have to run as an independent after gathering a bazillion signatures, and would be barred from even voting in the partisan primaries.
Jim Riley repeatedly asserts that there has been no independent candidate for statewide office since 1978, but Ross Perot got on in California as an independent in 1992, and many independents were on in the special gubernatorial election of 2003. He does not mention that there were two independents on for US House in California in 2008, and one independent on in California for State Senate in 2008.
He repeatedly denies that members of unqualified parties will be deprived of a label, even though both Steve Peace (who hired attorneys to write Prop. 14 when he was intending to qualify it as an initiative, and who checked with his attorneys) and Senator Maldonado’s staff, both agree that members of unqualified parties can’t have their party label on the ballot.
The 2010 number of signatures for a statewide independent is 173,041, not “over 176,000”. And as horrible as it is for anyone to get 173,041 valid signatures, that is still far, far easier than coming in first or second in the June primary. Imagine an independent running for Governor this year if California had Prop. 14 in place. With Meg Whitman having spent over $40,000,000, and former Governor Jerry Brown having more name recognition than any other California politician except possibly California’s two U.S. Senators, it is unthinkable and impossible that any other of the 23 current candidates for California Governor could ever outpoll them in June.
Was it unthinkable and impossible in 1854 that the new R party would elect a gerrymander Prez in 1860 and that slavery would be gone by Dec. 1865 [at the cost of about 620,000 DEAD Americans on both sides] ???
#3 Jim Riley was limited to 250 words in his comment in the Huffington Post.
Ross Perot was not a candidate for a statewide office. He was a national candidate for the presidency, and would obviously seek to qualify in every state. Proposition 14 does not change the rules for presidential elections.
Richard Winger is correct that there were indeed 2 independent candidates for Congress in California in 2008 (out of 53 races). Added to the 7 previous candidates since to the 1970s, it brings the total to 9. Before 2008, it was less than 1%. Now it is up to 1%.
And yes, there was an independent senate candidate. I think it is also fair to say that two of the three independent candidates were running largely so that there would be two candidates in the ballot in November. Under Proposition 14, unopposed candidates will largely be gone because write-in candidates can be practicably nominated in the primary.
Were there any independent candidates on the ballot for the Assembly?
In my reply to Rob Richie, I wrote:
Nothing in the text of the legislation supports a claim that a candidate who has registered with a small party will not be able to have that party affiliation shown on the ballot.
While Richard Winger has claimed that he has assurances from Steve Peace and Abel Maldonado’s staff that there is such language, he has never actually pointed to the language in the text of the SB 6.
This is unlike the supposed ban on write-in votes, where Winger and I agree that there is some badly written language in SB 6. Somehow, I suspect that neither Peace or Maldonado’s staff will lay claim to its authorship.
We agree that Proposition 62 in 2004 did indeed have explicit language that would require a candidate not affiliated with a so-called qualified party to indicate either that he had no party preference, or to leave it blank. The drafters of SB 6 knew how to restrict candidates. They simply chose not to include that restrict language.
Instead what they did add was Elections Code Section 8002.5 which in subsection (a) states:
8002.5. (a) A candidate for a voter-nominated office may indicate his or her party preference, or lack of party preference, as disclosed upon the candidate’s most recent statement of registration, upon his or her declaration of candidacy. If a candidate indicates his or her party preference on his or her declaration of candidacy, it shall appear on the primary and general election ballot in conjunction with his or her name. The candidate’s designated party preference on the ballot shall not be changed between the primary and general election. A candidate for voter-nominated office may also choose not to have the party preference disclosed upon the candidate’s most recent affidavit of registration indicated upon the ballot.
Subsection 8002.5(d) states (in part): “…, except that the declaration of candidacy required by Section 8040 shall include space for the candidate to list the party preference disclosed upon the candidate’s most recent affidavit of registration, in accordance with subsection (a).”
California simply has no rational interest in regulating speech to more popular views. If the voters don’t like the party that a candidate has expressed a preference for, they can vote for someone else. California may impose reasonable regulations such as length of party names, or that preferences are truthful and correct. In California, a voter’s signature on his voter registration signifies, subject to perjury charges, that it is truthful and correct. And SB 6 directs that the SOS web site include a 10-year record of party affiliation for each candidate.
Under current California law, a voter who is affiliated with a non-qualified party is forbidden to vote in a partisan primary. They are not treated like a DTS voter, who may participate in a party primary, subject to the whim of the party. And if they wish to run for office, they have to gather a bazillion signatures and run as an independent.
#3 It is more likely that an independent candidate for governor could finish 2nd running against Whitman and Brown than they could finish 1st in November.
And we simply can not project what will happen under Proposition 14 – other than voters will be able to vote for who they want.
What you are doing is equivalent to prognosticating the results of the 1970 NBA championships, if the 3-point rule had been available. You can get the old videos and electronically project the 3-point arc and count 3 points for field goals beyond the arc, but you can’t adjust for strategy and tactics. You can’t explain why a shooter stepped on the arc, or took a 2-point shot late in the game when his team trailed by 3. And if you went further back, then perhaps his team actually led by one, and probably should have held on to the ball. And if you go back into the season, perhaps the same teams would not be playing for the championship.
Whitman and Brown are somewhat like independent candidates who have been sometimes successful elsewhere. Whitman is like Ross Perot and Michael Bloomberg in having lots of money to spend on a campaign. Jerry Brown is like Jesse Ventura or George Wallace whose appeal can transcend conventional political labels.
Under Proposition 14 it could actually be candidates like Whitman or Brown who run as independents.
#7: Yes we can. Plurality + top-two runoff is one of the methods tested in Warren Smith’s simulations.
(And the answer is: it won’t really change much.)
#2: “… the partisan primary system… encourages candidates to zigzag from partisan positions in the primary, to a more centrist position in November.”
That may be true of the major party nominees, but let’s remember that every qualified party can have a candidate on the November ballot, and there’s no limit to the number of independents who can be on that ballot. So a voter who is unhappy with the major party nominees usually has several other choices.
The “top two open primary” enables a more extreme candidate to get enough votes in the preliminary round to squeak into the runoff, where he usually gets shellacked. This happened, e. g., in Louisiana’s 1991 and 1995 governor’s races. David Duke, an ex-Ku Klux Klansman, and Cleo Fields, a black liberal Democrat, respectively made the ’91 runoff and the ’95 runoff (now-US Sen. Mary Landrieu had finished third in ’95). If the state had had party primaries, it’s highly unlikely that either Duke or Fields would have made the final election (unless they ran as independents).
“Partisan primaries discourages participation by independent and minor-party voters in non-partisan contests and measures that are also held in June.”
How so? Independents have their choice of either the Republican, the Democratic, or the nonpartisan ballot. The party ballots include the propositions and nonpartisan races. And a voter may change his registration as late as 15 days before the primaries.
California independents now have more options than party registrants.
Nebraska is still surviving with its top 2 NONPARTISAN primary for its NONPARTISAN one house legislature — though it should have P.R.
Are the NE disguised party hacks any more or less EVIL than the party hacks in partisan legislature regimes ???
#9 California requires statewide independent candidates to have more than 173,000 signatures. The last to qualify was Ed Clark in 1978. No voter younger than 49 has seen a ballot with an independent statewide candidate.
Independent congressional and legislative candidates are also rare.
=====
Your calculation of the 1995 election assumes that some Democrats who voted for Foster or Roemer would have voted for Landrieu in the primary, and then voted for Foster or Roemer in the general election.
But if their party registration matched their ideology, then Fields would have been elected in the Democratic primary. And if Louisiana still had partisan primaries, Foster and Roemer might not have switched parties.
=====
Minor-party voters very rarely have contested nominations, and often don’t have anyone running in most districts, especially in presidential election years, when there are only congressional and legislative races on the ballot.
Imagine a voter who is an independent because he votes for “the person not the party”. He looks at the candidates and picks out three individuals. He picks Smith for senator, Jones for representative, White for governor, and mentions he has heard some good things about a Wilson, but didn’t see him listed.
You ask him whether he likes Smith or Jones more. He asks why, since they are running for different offices. You explain they are in different parties and he has to pick a party. After you explain the silliness three times, he reluctantly takes the ballot with Jones name on it, saying that though he liked Smith, he sometimes felt he was saying things simply to pander to his party. You tell him not to worry, since Smith will be able to express his true beliefs in the general election when you can vote for him, explaining, “it’s just a game he has to play”.
You then ask who he wants to vote for senator. “I already told you, I like Smith, but didn’t you say you I couldn’t vote for him?”
“Yes, but you can vote for someone you don’t like, or you can even vote for a weaker candidate so that Wilson will be more electable in the fall.”
“Isn’t that cynical”
“Yes”, you say with a sincere smile.
He asks about White and Wilson. You explain that White’s party doesn’t let independents like him vote in their primary, but they still would appreciate his vote in the fall.
“And Wilson?”
“He’s independent like you so you can’t vote for him”
“But I can vote for him in fall?”, he ask hopefully.
Not wanting to explain the formidable number of signatures he would need, you say, “If he runs, you can vote for him. But enough of politics, let’s play a real game”, as you pull 3 walnut shells and a small ball from your pocket.
Jim, please explain how Ross Perot got on the California ballot in 1992.
#11: If California enacts Prop. 14– the “top two open primary”– there will almost never be independents OR small party candidates in the final, deciding election.
In California’s current setup, an independent candidate who qualifies is assured of a place on the final election ballot, and that’s the only campaign he has to conduct. In the “top two open primary,” in contrast, independents are on the first-round ballot along with all the other candidates.
If lightning strikes and an independent makes the runoff, he then is forced to conduct and finance a SECOND general election campaign (that’s another drawback of the “top two open primary”: the top two vote-getters are compelled to finance and conduct TWO general election campaigns; this discourages candidates without big bucks from running).
In California’s present setup, a small party candidate who is unopposed in the primary, is in the same position as independent candidates: He is assured of a spot in the final, deciding election, and that’s the only campaign he has to run. Under the “top two open primary,” such a small party candidate would face the same situation as independent candidates.
Once again: The required number of signatures for independents can be lowered without screwing up California’s whole election system by inflicting the “top two open primary” abomination on the state.
#11: When Louisiana has party primaries– other than for president– 50%-plus is required to win.
It’s highly unlikely that a candidate like David Duke or Cleo Fields could get 50%-plus in a statewide party primary.
Running statewide in 1991, Duke got 39%. Running statewide in 1995, Fields got some 34%, as I recall.
After reading your little fairy tale, I suspect that your bong water is again in need of being changed.
#11 Suppose you’re a Prop 14 supporter working the polls on the big day in June. You see a voter approaching, and tell her “Stop disenfranchising independents! Vote yes on Prop 14!”
She says “You guys aren’t disenfranchised. You can vote in the Democratic or Republican primaries. I’m a Green, so I can only vote in my own primary.”
You reply “But independents aren’t guaranteed the right to vote in their primaries. We need to support Prop 14 to take the power over primaries away from the Political Gangs and give it to The People.”
She tells you “I have a full slate of statewide Green candidates to vote for in November, plus the Peace and Freedom candidate for Congress. If Prop 14 passes, then minor parties will rarely make it to the top two in November. What’s in this for me?”
You tell her “That’s not the only reason to support Prop 14. Under the current system, I can only vote in one party’s primary. I want to vote for a Democrat for Governor and a Republican for Secretary of State.”
She replies “In other words, I should disenfranchise myself in the November election just to make sure that you can vote in the primary and hop around from party to party?”
You object “You’re not being disenfranchised! You’re still free to vote for the Greens in the primary and for Democrats and Republicans in November!”
She says rather icily “I’m already free to vote for the Greens in the primary AND the general election. I don’t want to vote for the Republicrats and I don’t see why I should lose that choice.”
You smile sincerely and say “A voter whose candidate doesn’t make it out of the primary should accept that and for one of the top two in November. Besides, I wanna hop around from party to party in the primary! I wanna hop around!”
You know what bugs me? Parties are private organizations, yet I, even if I’m not a member, even if I’m legally barred from participating in the primary, I have to foot the bill for them to decide who to run in November.
#16 PUBLIC nominations for PUBLIC offices by PUBLIC electors is PUBLIC business — TOTALLY subject to PUBLIC laws.
The party hacks can have their party hack private clubby stuff in their backyard sand boxes.
See the Eu case in 1989.
#15: Excellent points. The “top two open primary” enables the voter to choose among all the candidates in the preliminary round, the purpose of which is simply to winnow the field.
But the price the voter pays is that he only has two choices in the final, deciding election– both of whom may be from the same party.
#16: California independents have their choice of either the Democratic primary or the Republican primary in state and congressional elections.
And a California voter may change his or her registration up until 15 days before the primaries.
#12 Ross Perot and James Stockdale were independent candidates for President and Vice President of the United States. He spent at least $65 million in personal funds. The signature requirement for independent presidential candidates in California was 134,781 in 1992. Proposition 14 does not change the presidential election process.
Perot was not an independent candidate for statewide office in California. The last independent candidate for a statewide office was Ed Clark, a candidate for governor in 1978.
BTW, there have been 42 candidates for Superintendent of Public Instruction in the 6 elections since 1990, including 12 this year. 65 to 100 signatures doesn’t not appear to be a barrier that can not be overcome.
Proposition 14 will lower the signature threshold for all candidates for statewide office (plus US Senator) to 65.
Stockdale was later a California delegate to the Republican National Convention (in 1996?).
November presidential elections in the U.S. are technically elections to choose presidential electors. Each state chooses its own presidential electors. So, presidential elections are statewide elections.
#13 “In California’s current setup, an independent candidate who qualifies is assured of a place on the final election ballot, and that’s the only campaign he has to conduct. In the “top two open primary,†in contrast, independents are on the first-round ballot along with all the other candidates.
There has not been an independent candidate who has qualified for the ballot for statewide office since 1978, when Ed Clark qualified. There have been 9 independent congressional candidates since the 1990s, out of 900 races.
Part of Angus King’s successful independent campaign to be governor in Maine was running TV ads during the primaries.
Why should the State of California deliberately set disparate classes of candidates and voters? Why not just “voters” and “candidates”?
#15 She says “You guys aren’t disenfranchised. You can vote in the Democratic or Republican primaries. I’m a Green, so I can only vote in my own primary.â€
Under Proposition 14 she would be able to vote for who her Representative in Congress was going to be.
Under the current system, there are only 5 congressional districts (of 53) where there is a Green candidate on the ballot. 0 of 20 Senate races, and 5 of 80 Assembly races.
In the June 2008 primary, 33% of Republicans, 30% of Democrats, 24% of Greens, 21% of Libertarians, 20% of DTS, 17% of American Independents, and 9% of Peace & Freedom voters voted in the June Primary. While 0.75% of registered voters are registered Green, only 0.63% of primary voters were Green.
#21 Be happy then. Proposition 14 doesn’t change anything for statewide elections for presidential electors or Superintendent of Public Instruction.