The League of Women Voters of California is neutral on Proposition 14, the “top-two” ballot measure. Here is the League’s analysis of the measure. The League does not mention that the measure makes it more difficult for ballot-qualified parties to remain qualified, nor does it mention the implementation law that says write-ins may not be counted in November for Congress and state office. But the analysis is impartial and interesting. It links to the debate earlier this month before the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce, between Mike Feinstein of the Green Party and Brandon Gesicki, former campaign manager for Senator Abel Maldonado.
Interesting, yes. But impartial? On the central question of polarization and electing political moderates, they say that opponents think “it would help elect representatives who are more practical and open to compromise, and thus more likely to approve tax increases and unreasonable budgets.”. Well, I’m an opponent and I certainly don’t think that. The real argument in opposition, which they omit entirely, is that it just plain doesn’t work. So you get all of the damage to political parties in exchange for no rela benefit to moderate voters.
NO write-ins = a blatant violation of 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 in the nearly dead U.S.A. Constitution.
P.R. and A.V. = NO primaries are needed.
Ballot access via equal nominating petitions.
LWV misses the rather obvious result of Prop 14 passing, which will be candidates trying to buy the seat during the primary. If people are unhappy with the moneyball politics now, just wait until they see that!
I remember in 2002 when the D and R both spent $1M each on CO Senate 11, and the L candidate, which I managed, spent $50, $35 of which was the filing fee. The rest was a necktie and a box of Advil as a prop. The R beat the D by 0.46%. The L got 9.1% on three weeks of campaigning, a little publicity, and debate inclusion. That spot paid $30K.
In CA the legisaltive seats pay around $83K right now (roughly, depends on the Compensation Comission), and the efforts to buy a top two spot will be enormous. Whitman vs. Poizner right now for the R nod for governor is a mere example.
Pingback: California League of Women Voters Analysis of Proposition 14 | goodne.ws
There would be no effect on party “ballot qualification” prior to 2015. Ballot access for the actual individual candidates will be greatly eased.
Under terms of Proposition 14, the only office for which parties will be qualified for ballot placement will be presidential elections. The intent of Proposition 14 is to not modify the current system of presidential election, so it would really not be appropriate for Proposition 14 to change the party ballot qualification.
Currently parties qualify for ballot access on the basis of their number of registrants or their performance in a statewide office during the gubernatorial election. The latter standard makes no sense, if the effect of party ballot qualification is focused on presidential elections. A future legislature could easily change the standard for party qualification to be based on performance in the presidential election. At the same time, the legislature could also reduce the number of signatures required to qualify as an independent presidential candidate.
One problem associated with reducing the size qualification for qualified parties is that the constitution requires the state to provide partisan elections for party officers. In 2008, only 5342 voters participated in the Peace & Freedom Party primary. One possible solution would be to switch all partisan elections to March, so in presidential elections years, they would include the presidential primary and elections for party officers. In the midterm election, it might make more sense to conduct the party elections as all-mail elections, which would allow ballots to be mailed only to party registrants, and with much fewer ballot types.
In Edelstein, the plaintiffs were demanding that the ballot include a space for write-in votes, and that San Francisco accept a declaration of write-in candidacy.
SB 6 absolutely does not change the requirement that California ballots contain a space for write-in votes, the right of voters to cast write-in votes in all elections, and right of candidates to campaign for write-in votes. It does not change the procedure by which a write-in candidate files to have his votes counted in any meaningful sense (write-in candidates for voter-nominated offices would specify their party preference, rather than party affiliation). It does not change the requirement that the SOS disseminate the names of declared write-in candidates to county election officials.
You can not throw out the rest of the statutes on the basis of a badly written section (8606). Literally, it says that if a voter were to write in the name of a person, that the person shall not be counted. If a voter were to write in the name of “Richard Winger” what does it mean for Richard Winger to “not be counted”? Doesn’t that violate due process, if some voter can simply write the name of a person on the ballot and cause that person to “not be counted”?
Is the DOJ going to pre-clear Section 8606 if it permits persons to “not be counted” merely by having their name written on a sheet of paper by an anonymous voter?
And if a court tries to guess what Section 8606 perhaps might mean, it has two choices:
I) A write-in vote shall not be tabulated in the general election for a voter-nominated office.
But that means that votes for a candidate who had fully complied with statutory provisions to have write-in votes for him tabulated, and had exercised his right to run for office as a write-in candidate, and voters who had written the name of that candidate as they had a right to do, and used the space provided on the government-provided ballot, would not be counted.
You can run for office and you can file to have votes counted for you, but then if voters vote for you the votes can not be counted. The purpose of filing for office, whether as an on-ballot candidate or as a write-in candidate is so voters may vote for you and have those votes be counted. To then not count some of those votes, violates the right to vote of the voter.
II) The write-in votes would be tabulated, but even if the candidate received the most votes, he would not be elected. This would parallel the construction of 8605(a).
But is a court going to uphold a system where the candidate who received the most votes is not elected?
If Prop. 14 passes and then proceeds to get all tied up with the Voting Rights Section of the U.S. Justice Department, and all tied up in court, isn’t that yet another reason why the voters would be wise to reject it?
It isn’t surprising that Prop. 14 and its implementing language is a mess. It was introduced at 3 a.m. on February 19, 2009, and was completely through both houses of the legislature by 6 a.m. the same day. No legislative hearings were held before it was passed. The public had no knowledge of what was going on, much less any opportunity to suggest improvements and point out problems. Prop. 14 should be defeated to teach the legislature never again to pass such important legislation in secret and great haste.
Regarding write-ins — 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 is still a part of the nearly dead U.S.A. Constitution — almost killed off by the party hack Supremes.
If Prop 14 passes, then obviously there may be more proposed constitutional amendments / laws to make conforming amendments — to remove the vague / confusing stuff.
#7 California has to file all of its statewide election legislation with the DOJ. Are you suggesting that Proposition 15 should not be approved since that will have to be filed with the DOJ?
If the DOJ objected to Section 8606, it simply won’t be enforced. It isn’t enforceable in any case, and the DOJ would save the cost of litigation.
One could only hope that the DOJ would object on grounds similar to those in Kinston.