On May 24, twelve minor party and independent activists demonstrated in front a Sacramento restaurant. Inside, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared. Guests paid $5,000 each to be at the event, and the money went toward the campaign for Proposition 14, the top-two measure on the June 8 ballot.
The event seemed to attract approximately twenty guests. About half of them accepted an anti-Proposition 14 flyer before entering the restaurant. Two of the guests added that they have no idea what Proposition 14 does. One guest acknowledged that the measure is unfair to minor party members.
The Governor himself seems to have entered the restaurant from a side door that opens into an alley, so he avoided seeing any of the protestors, the signs, and the fliers. Channel 10 TV filmed interviews with some of the protesters.
When I left to put coins in the meter, a man with cameras asked me for my name and party affiliation (decline to state-independent), and identified himself as being with the AP. So maybe more media.
Also of note to me was that there were 6 police officers assigned to “our” detail in the front of the building. More in the alley from what I could tell walking by. Easy night for them, two would’ve done the trick just fine.
Pingback: Smaller Parties Again Demonstrate in Front of Schwarzenegger Fund-Raising Event Concerning Proposition 14 | Independent Political Report
ANY body at the event heard about P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. ???
NO primaries are needed.
I wonder how many people realize that the “open primary” has been tried before here in California (1997[?]). The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional:
“California was “forcing political parties to associate with those who do not share their beliefs” by opening the primaries to members of other parties, said Justice Antonin Scalia.”
The Primary should be the election where each party chooses its best, and they all compete in the General.
While a good argument may be made that we could conceivably see two Peace-and-Freedom candidates alone on the General Election ballot, the most likely outcome, given California’s electorate, is that we will see two Democrats.
And no minority party will ever make it to the General – which is why that should all oppose it.
Louisiana had it – there, it was called the “jungle primary” (1978 to 2006). They dropped it.
It won’t be long before voters realize that they can vote for the worst – most unelectable – candidate from the “other party”, in the hopes that enough other voters will vote for the best from their party to rig the results in their favor.
Since no stateewide third party candidates will make it to the November “top two” election, they will lose ballot certification — except for the dormant American Independent Party, with its deceptive but well chosen name, will always have enough party registrants — and will not need to win 2% in a statewide election.
In response to #5
Not true. Currently the Green Party has over 112,000 members so they should continue being ballot-qualified at least until 2014 and probably 2018. The Libertarian Party is the one currently most vulnerable to staying ballot-qualified. With only 85,000+ members they would need to spend the money for a strong registration drive if Prop. 14 passes. With just 56,000 members, the Peace & Freedom Party would be the only clear goner. Which would be a shame because occasionally they have fielded candidates for the legislature who won well over 10% of the vote.
Unlike many states California uses both a vote test and party registration for ballot qualification. Currently, the law states a party only needs to stay above 1% of the total vote for Governor to maintain its place on the state ballot. Which I suppose this year will end up being somewhere between 95 and 98 Thousand voters.
Currently, qualified parties in California must always keep their registration above one-fifteenth of 1% of the state total, and in addition they must either poll 2% of the vote in a midterm year for one statewide race, OR they must have registration of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote.
The reason that parties have two hurdles for staying on the ballot is because the Communist Party kept passing the vote test in the period 1934-1942, and the legislature wanted to get rid of it. In 1940 the legislature said even a party that passes the vote test is disqualified if its registration is under 2,000. The State Supreme Court invalidated that because the bill didn’t give the Communist Party a chance to bring up its registration. So in 1943 the legislature repealed the 2,000 member requirement, and replaced it with a one-tenth of 1% registration requirement applicable at the beginning of election years. That was constitutional, and the Communist Party was unable to comply, and went off the ballot for failure to have registration of one-tenth of 1%, in March 1944. In 1957 the legislature lowered the one-tenth of 1% to one-fifteenth of 1% in order to help the Prohibition Party stay on. In 1959 the legislature lowered the vote test from 3% to 2%, also to help the Prohibition Party stay on. The Prohibition Party finally went off the ballot in January 1964 because it failed the one-fifteenth of 1% registration test.
Richard: When did the California Progressive Party lose its qualified status? I know that Hiram Johnson (R) tried to revive it in conjunction with his 1934 Senate re-election race.
#4: You’re talking about the blanket primary, which California enacted through an initiative in 1996; the state used it in 1998 and 2000.
California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000), in which the US Supreme Court struck down the state-mandated blanket primary, has frequently been mentioned on this site.
The “top two open primary” that Prop. 14 would impose differs from the blanket primary in that it’s not a process by which the parties choose their nominees. Instead, as you noted, there are only two candidates in the final election, both of whom may be from the same party.
“Louisiana had it – there, it was called the “jungle primary” (1978 to 2006). They dropped it.”
Louisiana has used the “top two”– popularly called the “open primary”– to elect its state and local officials since 1975. It also used it for its congressional elections from 1978 through 2006 and now appears to be on the verge of restoring it for those elections.
The only other state that has used the “top two” to elect all of its state officials is Washington, which first used it in 2008; Washington is also the only other state to have used the “top two” to elect its congressional delegation. There the “top two” is facing a trial in US district court in October 2010, as well as probable future litigation in the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.
#6 Proposition 14 will not go into effect until January 1st, 2011. Any “qualified” party that gets 2% of the vote for a statewide office in November 2010 will maintain its qualified status until after the November 2014 election.
For the vast majority of offices: statewide offices such as governor and attorney general; congressional offices of US senator and representative; legislative offices of senator and assemblyman; it won’t matter.
Proposition 14 says that California may not make a distinction on the basis of or with regard to party preference for those offices.
Currently, California does make such a distinction, requiring candidates from “non-qualified” parties to secure over 173,000 signatures AND then refusing to let the candidate have his party name on the ballot.
IOW, California says it is fine to be an adherent of the Constitution or Reform or Salmon Yoga parties, but you won’t be able to participate on equal footing in the electoral process. Instead of letting the voters make the decision, the State of California is interposing extreme barriers.
Voters are already totally free to declare an intent to affiliate with a “non-qualified” party at its next primary. If the party does not qualify, or even it does not even make an official attempt to qualify, the voter’s registration and intent are carried forward.
Proposition 14 would recast this as a “disclosure of a party preference”. California may not make a distinction between voters who have disclosed a preference for the Constitution Party or the Salmon Yoga Party, and those who have disclosed a preference for the Republican or Democratic parties.
Proposition 14 says that when a candidate runs for office he may fill in the blank on the candidacy form with either the preference he had disclosed on this signed voter registration affidavit, or leave it blank. If California tried to otherwise limit what could be placed in this box, it would be making a distinction based on party preference. Voters would be denied the equal opportunity to vote for candidates who preferred certain parties, and not others. The whole purpose of Proposition 14 is to remove those barriers.
#4 The Louisiana Legislature has a larger share of independents elected as such than any other state with a partisan legislature but one (Virginia). That is because independents can compete with all other candidates on an equal footing in the Open Primary.
Louisiana dropped the Open Primary for congressional races in 2008. As part of its implementation they use “lockout” devices on their voting machines to prevent voters from voting for certain candidates. Physical limitations of the lockout devices were such that Louisiana seriously considered barring Libertarian and Green party candidates from running in congressional races.
They are now in the process of restoring the Open Primary for congressional elections. The legislators who were all elected under the Open Primary thought it bizarre that if they met a voter who liked them but was registered with a different party, that they would tell them to go away, and then vote for them a couple of months later.