Firedoglake has this detailed analysis of California’s Proposition 14, the top-two ballot measure in the June 8, 2010 primary. Firedoglake was founded in 2004 by Jane Hamsher, and has received award for being one of the best political blogs. It now has 20 writers. This particular analysis is by Jon Walker. Thanks to Rob Richie for the link.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
There aren’t even supposed to be ballot propositions. How are we supposed to vote people who make bad laws out of office if the voters are the ones making the laws?
Voting out bad laws is even better, it gives you more choices than just voting out people, which is a more aggregate (less precise signal) choice.
Of course, each prop has to be judged on its own merits.
For example: Prop 13, prop 215 – good
Prop 8, Prop 14/”88″ – baaaaaaaaaaaad
“any candidate can complete with any party label attached to his or her name”.
A candidate’s party preference is a matter of personal political expression. It does not represent an endorsement by a political party. The State’s only interest is that the information is accurate. In essence, it is similar to the candidate designation that appears on the ballot.
Under Proposition 14 (and its implementing legislation, SB 6), there would be a 10-year party registration history of each candidate on the SOS web site. On the ballot, candidates would be limited to expressing a preference for the same party that they had expressed a preference for on their voter registration, or have nothing at all (a blank space).
The State may not compel speech by candidates, so they can not force a candidate to have his party preference on the ballot. It is not a matter of letting a candidate “hide”. It is a matter of respecting the 1st Amendment.
Under Proposition 14, political parties will be able to make endorsements of candidates, and have those endorsements appear in the sample ballot distributed with the Voter’s Pamphlet. Over half of California voters are permanent by-mail voters, and the percentage is rapidly increasing. These voters will be able to consult the sample ballot as they prepare their ballot at their own pace.
“This is not a primary in the way most Americans think of the term”
Americans are capable of thinking in new ways. Certainly voters in Louisiana and Nebraska have demonstrated that they are capable of understanding the system, and it is similar to the system used for many local elections.
“Although similar systems have been used in Washington and Louisiana, independents and third parties almost never make it to the general election ballot in the rest of America.”
The Louisiana legislature has a larger share of independent candidates elected as such than all but one State (Virginia) that uses partisan elections.
In California, it is extremely difficult for an independent candidate to qualify for the general election ballot. The last independent candidate on the general election ballot for statewide office was Ed Clark, who ran for governor in 1978 (back when Jerry Brown was governor). For Congress, there have been 9 independent candidates in the last 900 races, or just 1%. Independent candidates are even less frequent in legislative races.
Proposition 14, would simply make all candidates, “candidates”, and all voter, “voters”, and remove the artificial barriers to participation. This is why the ballot title of Increases Right to Participate in Primary Election. is absolutely correct. Instead of the conditional and restricted rights of candidates and voters under the current partisan system, a candidate runs and a voter votes.
“June, with a runoff election many months later, in November.”
Proposition 14 does not change the election calendar at all. A few years ago, the primary was in March. In the early 1900s it was in August. It could be moved again.
Just because California has a stupid election calendar does not mean that it has to have a stupid election system to go with it.
“When runoff elections happen right away, via instant run off voting”.
Louisiana uses a form of instant runoff voting for overseas and military voters. Voters in these elections are given a regular ballot, and then a contingent ballot for subsequent elections.
In 2008, Louisiana foolishly switched to partisan congressional elections. Louisiana has runoffs for its primaries (the 2nd primary), so a candidate and a voter may be able to vote in 1, 2, or 3 elections depending on their party, and how many candidates have filed.
So an overseas Democrat might get a Democratic 1st primary ballot, and a contingent ballot for the 2nd primary, and another for the general election.
But if there were only two Democratic candidates, there would be no possibility of a 2nd primary, so they wouldn’t be given that contingent ballot.
And if there was only one Democratic candidate, the primary would be skipped, and the voter would simply get a contingent general election ballot.
It simply makes the whole system overly complex.
When Louisiana had an open primary for congressional elections, they could give every overseas voter a primary ballot, and a contingent ballot for the runoff.
If one favored IRV, they would recognize Proposition 14 as a necessary first step to its implementation.
“Long term, Prop. 14 will probably have a much better impact on the future of California than anything else on the ballot June 8th.”
I can agree with this conclusion.
#3: Louisiana, which uses the “top two open primary,” also registers voters by party.
In the 1991 Louisiana governor’s race, the national Republicans and the state GOP supported different candidates, neither of whom made the runoff. Instead, another Republican, David Duke, the ex-Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, made the runoff against former Gov. Edwin Edwards, who had already been tried for fraud. Duke was again repudiated by the Republican leaders, who backed the Democrat Edwards.
A similar thing had happened when Duke ran in the 1990 U. S. Senate race. Embarrassed by the Duke candidacy, the Republicans had endorsed state Sen. Ben Bagert. His campaign making little headway, Bagert dropped out at the 11th hour, and the Republican leaders threw their support to the Democratic incumbent!
Is this the kind of nonsense that Californians want to have to tolerate? I don’t think so.
“The State… can not force a candidate to have his party preference on the ballot.”
You had better deliver that news to Louisiana, which puts the party labels of all party-affiliated candidates on the ballot.
“Proposition 14, would simply make all candidates, ‘candidates,’ and all voters, ‘voters’…”
That could be accomplished by eliminating political parties altogether– which I’m sure would be just fine with you. Prop. 14 would force everyone to behave like an independent (ironically, it would also make it nearly impossible for independents and small-party candidates to reach the second round of voting).
“Just because California has a stupid election calendar does not mean that it has to have a stupid election system to go with it.”
Hey! That’s about the best argument I’ve heard against Prop. 14, which would impose the “top two open primary”– a truly stupid election system.
“In 2008, Louisiana foolishly switched to partisan congressional elections.”
Right– Louisiana thus became the 49th state which lets parties officially nominate candidates for Congress. There’s lots of foolishness going on amongst the states these days, isn’t there?
“Long term, Prop. 14 will probably have a much better impact on the future of California than anything else on the ballot June 8th.”
Prop. 14 would be the final flush that would send California the rest of the way down the crapper.
Californians should instead FLUSH 14!
Will the “Salmon and Yoga Party” come to California to fix this?
California’s Proposition 14 does not permit labels unless they match the name of a qualified party. The attorney who actually drafted the measure, Chris Skinnell; the man who first hired lawyers to draft the measure, Steve Peace; and the attorneys for Abel Maldonado, who introduced the measure in the legislature, all agree with me on this. And because Proposition 14 also increases the requirements for a party to remain ballot-qualified, the only labels that California would print would be “My party preference is the (either Republican, Democratic, American Independent, or Green) Party.
Washington state, by contrast, as comment #5 notes, lets a candidate choose any party label as long as it is not obscene and is not longer than 15 characters. It is one of the reasons that California’s top-two is worse than Washington’s. The other things that are better about Washington’s top-two is that the Washington primary is in late August, so at least everyone can campaign thru most of the summer. Also Washington state has easy ballot access for minor party and independent candidates for President, but California does not.
PUBLIC nominations for PUBLIC offices by PUBLIC Electors is PUBLIC business
— and NOT the private business of extremist party hacks in party hack primaries, caucuses and conventions.
See the Texas White Primary cases in the Supremes late 1920s- early 1930s — the semi-modern beginning of the END of the party hacks in control of the U.S.A.
——–
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. = DOOM for the party hacks.
NO primaries are needed.
“In the 1991 Louisiana governor’s race, the national Republicans and the state GOP supported different candidates”
There have been a lot of party switchers in Texas. Some have been successful afterward (eg Phil Gramm and Rick Perry), others not so successful, including some who were beaten when they ran for re-election in a different party.
“The State… can not force a candidate to have his party preference on the ballot.”
“You had better deliver that news to Louisiana, which puts the party labels of all party-affiliated candidates on the ballot.”
Perhaps Louisiana voters are more sophisticated than those in California, and won’t be confused by the party label next to a candidate’s name. If you want to enhance your success in the US Supreme Court, the expression of party preference should be personal and voluntary; and separate from the endorsements by the parties on the sample ballot.
<i?“Proposition 14, would simply make all candidates, ‘candidates,’ and all voters, ‘voters’…”
"That could be accomplished by eliminating political parties altogether."
Persons have a 1st amendment right to organize in support of candidates and issues. But the state need not give formal recognition to those positions. It may regulate parties to a certain extent with regard to their financial activities.
#8: In the first round of Louisiana’s 1991 governor’s race, the national Republicans and their state affiliate were split between two candidates, neither of whom made it to the second round. The runoff featured a Democratic crook versus a Republican ex-sheet-head who had been repudiated by the Republicans. Like many Louisianans that year, the Republican leaders held their noses and supported the Democratic crook.
What does that have to do with Texas party-switchers?
“Persons have a 1st amendment right to organize in support of candidates and issues.”
Political parties also have First Amendment rights. As Justice Scalia has said, “Representative democracy… is unimaginable without the ability of citizens to band together in promoting among the electorate candidates who espouse their political views.”
He was talking about political parties, not the Rotary Club or the Junior Chamber of Commerce.
FLUSH 14!!
#6 Proposition 14 (the constitutional amendment) does not define “party preference” leaving it for the underlying statutes. But Proposition 14 does say that voters may vote regardless of their party preference or that of the candidates. That is, within its implementing statutes, California may not discriminate or distinguish on the basis of party preference, or lack thereof. It may make content-neutral regulations.
The resolution proposing Proposition 14 says that current voter party affiliations should be recast as a “disclosure of party preference”, and that no voter be denied the right to cast a vote in a primary on the basis of the voter’s disclosed party preference.
It also says that when a candidate runs for office he may declare a party preference, and have that preference appear on both the primary and general election ballot.
It also says that nothing in the act shall restrict the right of individuals to organize into political parties.
While these are not part of the text of the constitutional amendment they do reflect the legislative intent of the Legislature and the People in enacting the ‘Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act’
Currently, party registration in California is prospective, declaring an intent to affiliate (vote) at a party’s next primary. Voters are free to declare an intent to participate in the primary of a party that is not qualified to have a primary. They may affiliate with a non-qualified party before election officials are notified of an intent of the party to attempt to qualify. Election officials may not change a voter’s party registration. The only way for it to change is for the voter to change, or for the registration to lapse. In sum, California allows “write-ins” on its voter registration.
Currently, a voter has a right to declare an intent to affiliate with the Salmon Yoga or Constitution Party. The odds that he would be successfully prosecuted for perjury on the basis that his intended party affiliation was not truthful and correct are quite remote.
Under Proposition 14, that declaration of intent to affiliate with the Salmon Yoga or Constitution party will be recast as a disclosure of party preference for the Salmon Yoga or Constitution party.
A voter who has disclosed a preference for the Salmon Yoga or Constitution or Republican or Libertarian party may not be denied the right to vote to vote for any candidate in a primary for a voter-nominated office on the basis of that disclosure – neither on the basis that he has made a disclosure nor on the basis of the particular party he disclosed his preference for.
Now let’s look at SB 6.
Elections Code Section 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.”
A voter who has disclosed a party preference for the Salmon Yoga or Constitution or Libertarian party on his voter registration and seeks office can either have that preference shown on the ballot or have nothing (a blank space). Proposition 14 says that a candidate could declare his party preference on the ballot. Section 8002.5 defines how a candidate makes his declaration of party preference.
A candidate declaration must be sworn to and notarized. If a voter had disclosed a preference for the Salmon Yoga Party, he may not declare that he has no party preference when he files office. His voter registration affidavit was signed to indicate it was truthful and correct. And of course the State of California may not compel a candidate to make a false declaration.
If California attempted to require certain candidates to run without any indication of party preference, the State would be interfering with the right of voters who had disclosed certain party preferences from running for office, and of all voters being able to vote for any candidate regardless of party preference of the voter or the candidate. The logic of the term limit and residential duration cases applies here. In the case of congressional candidates, California would be attempting to introduce an unconstitutional qualification.
There is nothing in SB 6 that supports your interpretation, and even if there were, it would violate the provisions of the California Constitution added by Proposition 14, plus the 1st and 14th Amendments.
It doesn’t matter what Chris Skinnell intended, even if it was stipulated in the contract with the attorneys. Perhaps Skinnell could sue the attorneys, but that has no effect on Proposition 14 nor SB 6.
BTW, what is the compelling state interest in denying a candidate who disclosed a preference for the Salmon Yoga Party on his voter registration from running for office with “My Party Preference is The Salmon Yoga Party” and “Aquatic Performance Artist” next to his name?
#6 Proposition 14 does not have any direct effect on presidential elections. The indirect effect would not occur until 2016.
When California introduced the direct primary it was in August. It can be moved back to August.
I’d guess that California will be moving the presidential preference primary from February, so perhaps when that date is changed, the party officer elections could be moved to be coincident with the presidential preference primary, and the direct primary to August. How many local elections are on the June ballot that may go to a November runoff? Since there are 12 candidates for the Superintendent of Public Instruction, it will probably go to a runoff. Even if Proposition 14 were not being proposed, moving to August would be a good idea. You should support Proposition 14 for providing an impetus.
While doing that California can clean up Title 7 and make the qualification for presidential elections and presidential primaries be based on the presidential elections, and reduce the petition qualifications for presidential candidates.
#9 Buddy Roemer had been elected while a Democrat. He lost as the incumbent when he switched to the Republican Party with the support of the national Republican Party.
“Political parties also have First Amendment rights. As Justice Scalia has said, “Representative democracy… is unimaginable without the ability of citizens to band together in promoting among the electorate candidates who espouse their political views.””
Individuals have the right to exercise their 1st Amendment rights collectively. Who do you think Scalia had in mind banding together?
You don’t think that the 1st amendment rights if individuals are derivative of their party membership do you?
“Individuals have the right to exercise their 1st Amendment rights collectively. Who do you think Scalia had in mind banding together?”
I think that my First Amendment rights mean voting for someone besides the Democrats and Republicans in the general election. There will be six candidates for each statewide office and U.S. Senate on the ballot in California’s general election. There will be four or five candidates on the ballot in each of the Board of Equalization Districts. Under The Top Two Jungle Primary, there would be two, exactly two, and only two choices in each of these elections, probably all of them Democrats and Republicans, or two Democrats, or two Republicans.
I don’t understand Top Two advocates utter indifference to choice in the general election. If I had a choice between being able to hop around from party to party in the primary, or having a candidate that I liked on the ballot in November, I would prefer to have a real choice in November.
#13 The primary and general election are two stages of a single process to determine the governor, legislators, congress, etc.
Why do you think that the candidates that you will prefer will not be in the Top 2?
Jim Riley writes:#13 The primary and general election are two stages of a single process to determine the governor, legislators, congress, etc.
Why do you think that the candidates that you will prefer will not be in the Top 2?
I reply:
Dude, are you really that stupid, or just pretending?
The data from Washington’s blanket primary, which started including minor party nominees in the blanket primary in 1977, is overwhelming. In all the years 1978-2002, only once did any minor party nominee place first or second (discounting cases when only one major party person ran). That was in 1996, when 7 Democrats and one Reform Party person ran for one legislative seat. The Reform Party came in 2nd. That is the only exception.
The California blanket primary experience shows no one but a Republican or a Democrat ever came in first or second. Those blanket primaries include 1998 and 2000, and all special elections since 1967.
The Washington top-two experience in 2008 confirms this. No one but Democrats and Republicans placed first or second in any federal or state race, except for 5 legislative elections in which only one major party person was running.
As Ronald Reagan said, facts are stubborn things.
Pingback: Firedoglake Blog Posts Extensive Analysis of Proposition 14 | Independent Political Report
#12: Gov. Buddy Roemer’s 1991 defeat for re-election had little, if anything, to do with his switch to the Republicans. He lost because he was a lousy governor.
Most Louisianans care little about political parties. That’s the legacy of all those years of using the “top two open primary.” In 1995, state Sen. Mike Foster, age 65 and a lifelong Democrat, switched to the Republicans and was elected governor a few weeks later. Sort of like joining the church one Sunday and then getting elected chairman of the board of deacons the next Sunday.
“Who do you think [Justice] Scalia had in mind banding together?”
In his dissent in that case– California Democratic Party v. Jones— Justice Stevens acknowledged that Scalia was talking about political parties (Stevens also stated that the “top two” is a general election with a runoff).
#14 Because they tend not to be Democrats or Republicans. Some Top Two advocates like Jason Olson and Harry Kresky know the probable effects of Top Two very well and are at least honest about their indifference or hostility to third parties. They are openly encouraging third parties to basically become special interest groups.
#14: “… two stages of a single process…”
This is a reminder that, in the “top two open primary” that Prop. 14 would impose, the top two vote-getters for each office will be required to finance and conduct TWO general election campaigns. That’s an expensive undertaking in a state as large as California, where paid media is so crucial to reaching the voters.
And it strikes me as being unfair for a candidate who gets 50%-plus in the first round to then be forced to conduct a SECOND general election campaign, in which he can be defeated.
“Why do you think that the [non-major party] candidates that you will prefer will not be in the Top 2?”
In the current setup in California– and almost every other state– (1) each party, including the small parties, is empowered to have a candidate for every partisan office on the general election ballot, and (2) all independent candidates are listed on the general election ballot.
It’s ironic that so many independents support the “top two open primary,” since it makes it nearly impossible for independents and small-party candidates to reach the final, deciding election.
Besides, why should the voters be limited to just two choices in the final election?
FLUSH 14!!
I don’t understand this sentence: Long term, Prop. 14 will probably have a much better impact on the future of California than anything else on the ballot June 8th. It belongs in a different article — one favorable to Prop 14. It is totally out of place in this article.
What part of the dead U.S.A. Constitution says that X percent of ALL voters (i.e. a party hack gang) have a magic constitutional RIGHT to have *their* party hack candidates on general election ballots ???
Keep looking to solve for X.
Inform this list and at least 5 of the 9 party hack Supremes what X is.
———
P.R. and App.V.
NO primaries are needed.
#16 In a blanket primary, voters don’t necessarily vote the same way they would under an open primary; nor do candidates necessarily conduct their campaigns the same way. Though voters may cross over, candidates are still trying to win a party nomination. Many voters are sophisticated or cynical enough to understand how a blanket primary works, and will vote based on the impact of their vote.
If there is one Democrat, one Republican, and two Libertarians running, then some voters will vote for one of the two Libertarians – not because they prefer Libertarians, but because their vote will have an impact. You will recall that one such race played a role in the Supreme Court’s decision in California Democratic Party v Jones
In Washington, minor party candidates would have been running simply to get on the general election ballot, which might not be the most effective political strategy: “I would like your modicum of support on September 12”, is not the zingiest of slogans.
Audie Bock would likely have finished 2nd in the blanket primary in 2000, but as running as an independent candidate, she was not on the primary ballot.
Louisiana has a larger share of independents elected as such than all but one of the 49 partisan legislatures. But it doesn’t use a blanket primary.
#18 In his Jones dissent, Justice Stephens quoted Justice Scalia’s dissent in Tashjian
“The … voter who, while steadfastly refusing to register as a Republican, casts a vote in [a non-closed] Republican primary, forms no more meaningful an `association’ with the Party than does the independent or the registered Democrat who responds to questions by a Republican Party pollster. If the concept of freedom of association is extended to such casual contacts, it ceases to be of any analytic use.”
#19 Because they are not Democrats or Republicans, means that the candidates you favor are not attempting to get elected (ie secure the most votes)?
#20 In California, it requires 173,000+ signatures to get on the statewide ballot. Other than the 2003 recall election, the last independent candidate to qualify for a statewide office was Ed Clark in 1978 (back when Jerry Brown was governor).
To run for Congress in California or the legislature in California requires 1000s of signatures, an average of over 6000 for even the Assembly. Since the 1970s in over 900 races, there have been 9 independent congressional candidates, or about 1% of the time.
#25 You’re just being deliberately obtuse now. You’re trolling and there’s no point in arguing with you any further.
#20 That could be at least in part because of the dishonest campaign waged by Prop 14 supporters. Some of them have resorted to outright lying about independent voters being excluded from voting in the primaries. Most of them are using the term “open primary” to describe Prop 14 and conflate it with the open primaries in states like Michigan. They’ve been so successful that the media routinely refers to Prop 14 as the “open primary”.
#28 When California had the blanket primary in 1998 and 2000, minor party candidates typically did better in the primaries than they did in the general election, in those races where all parties had one candidate on the ballot. In such a case voters could freely vote their sincere sentiments. In the general election, voters were more calculating.
So who were these voters who would support the Green Party and Libertarian Party candidates in the primary, but not in the general election? There are typical a smaller share of minor party and independent voters in the primary.
So it must have been Democrats and Republicans and independents. Voters are effectively coerced into joining the Democratic and Republic party so that they may vote in the primary.
Before the 2008 primary, there was a big decline in Green Party registration as voters switched their registration in order to vote in the Clinton-Obama primary. So voters who might be inclined to vote for a Green Party candidate, end up registered in the Democratic Party.
So it is true that the Top 2 Open Primary does provide greater opportunities for participation by all voters.
#23: In Washington state’s blanket primary, independent candidates were also on the primary ballot, so it was definitely a preliminary general election.
“Louisiana has a larger share of independents elected as such than all but one of the 49 partisan legislatures. But it doesn’t use a blanket primary.”
The Bayou State happened to elect some independent legislators in 2007. We’ll see whether they survive the 2011 elections. Justice Scalia called the Louisiana/”top two” a “nonpartisan blanket primary,” as opposed to the partisan blanket primary that the Supreme Court struck down in California Democratic Party v. Jones.
Since Washington state and Nebraska also have nonpartisan legislatures, there are 47 partisan state legislatures. Of course, when elections are nonpartisan, everyone might just as well be an independent.
#24: What’s your point? Justice Stevens also dissented in Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, which empowered parties to invite independents to vote in their primaries.
#26: California’s ballot-access requirments for independent candidates can be eased without screwing up the election system by inflicting the “top two open primary” on the Golden State.
#28: That’s ironic, since in 2004, a California state judge prohibited the “top two” from being called an “open primary” in the voter’s pamphlet. Prop. 62, which would have imposed the “top two,” lost in 51 of the state’s 58 counties.
#29: Suppose California winds up with the “top two open primary” monstrosity. Anyone who wants to vote for a Green or Libertarian candidate had better do so in the first round, since those candidates won’t be on the second-round ballot.
The Green and Libertarian parties would very likely eventually cease to exist, so those candidates would then not even be on the FIRST-ROUND ballot (the same is also true of California’s other two small parties, the American Independent and Peace and Freedom parties).
“Voters are effectively coerced into joining the Democratic and Republican party so that they may vote in the primary.”
In state and congressional elections, California independents have their choice of either the Democratic or the Republican primary– which is greater choice than party members have.
And a voter may change his registration up until 15 days before the primaries.
FLUSH 14!!
Prop. 14 IF enacted WILL cause SOME of the gerrymander MONSTERS to have SOME real opposition in general elections.
Sorry — what century will ANY minor party candidate get elected to the CA Legislature with the gerrymander districts ???
Minor party protest votes in general elections mean about ZERO to the EVIL party hacks in control.
P.R. and App.V.
— REAL reforms next on the reform agenda
— to END the EVIL rule of the EVIL party hacks — the MONSTERS who have de facto caused the poltical – social and economic bankruptcy of the U.S.A. since 1929.
#30 The same logic would have applied for independents as for minor party candidates. Take a look at the 1996 Lt.Governor’s race, with 6 Democrats, 5 Republicans, 1 Libertarian, 1 Reform, and 1 NLP candidate. The Libertarian and Reform candidates barely qualified with 1.11% and 1.01% of the vote, and the NLP candidates missed at 0.84%. In the general election with only 1 Republican and 1 Democrat, the Libertarian and Reform candidates received 1.84% and 3.69% of the vote. Voters saw an opportunity to have decisive vote, and used that rather than helping a minor party candidate receive his modicum.
In races where there was one Democrat, one Republican, and one modicum-seeking minor-party candidate candidate, the results from the primary and the general election were typically about the same.
In 2007, Louisiana came within a few 10ths of a percentage point of electing another independent. They were closer to electing more independents than less independents.
As you may be aware, there are 50 state legislatures. When I said that there were 49 partisan legislatures, I excluded that of Nebraska, which is non-partisan. Of the remaining 49 legislatures, Louisiana has the 2nd largest share of independents elected as such, trailing only Virginia.
#31/24 As you know, Justice Steven’s dissent in Tashjian was not based on the political association issue. The point is when someone can engage in “political association” by checking a box on the ballot in secret, or even changing their registration 15 days before the election, it ceases to be of any analytical use.
#31/26 California coulda woulda, but didna when they shoulda.
#31/28 Maybe the California judge was confused with how “open … primary” is currently used in the California Constitution, that is where the SOS puts candidates on the ballot unless they actively decline to run. Under that construction, a “close … primary” would be one that is closed to candidates who don’t file for election.
#32 When the blanket primary was used, candidates of the Green and Libertarian party typically did better in June than they did in November. Voters will still be free to cast write-in votes in the general election.
There were more minor candidates on the ballot during the blanket primary era, than now. In 2008, there was a total of 1 American Independent candidate in 53 congressional, 80 Assembly, and 20 senate races (153 in total).
#36: In California’s present party primary system, the Greens, the Libertarians, and every other qualified party have the power to nominate a candidate for each office in the general election. All independent candidates are also listed on the general election ballot.
In the “top two open primary,” in contrast, there will NEVER be more than two candidates per office in the final, deciding election– and both of them may be from the same party.
Richard Winger says that, under Prop. 14, write-in votes will not be counted.
#37 Under Proposition 14 any candidate who wants to seek office may file if they satisfy quite modest signature requirements. All voters vote for who they want to hold office. The Top 2 advance to the general election.
Remember the purpose of an election is to determine which candidate is elected to hold office. There is no reason to have non-majority elections, or different candidate qualifications. The simplest way to implement this is with an open primary.
California does not have a winning legal case with regard to write-in votes. They won’t be able to come with a rational explanation for putting a write-in space on the ballots, having an explicit guarantee that voters may cast a write-in vote, and that candidates may run as write-in candidates, a procedure that a candidate may follow to have his write-in votes counted and makes him subject to campaign finance reporting, and then not count the votes.