The New York Times has this neutral story about California’s Proposition 14, the top-two measure. It is unfortunate that the story does not mention that Proposition 14 increases the requirements for parties to remain ballot-qualified. That is one of the most significant characteristics of Proposition 14, but no newspaper has mentioned that aspect in a news story except for the San Francisco Chronicle, which has mentioned it twice now.
The story is on the front page of the May 27 paper copy of the New York Times. It is continued on page three and includes a fairly large picture of Governor Schwarzenegger and Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado.
NYS would be far better off if the NYT pushed for a similar Prop 14 for New York State.
P.R. and App.V. in ALL regimes – to END the EVIL rule of the EVIL party hacks in all regimes — domestic and foreign.
There would be no effect on ballot qualification prior to the 2016 presidential election.
This would give plenty of time for the legislature to change qualification for the presidential primary to be based on performance in the presidential race (rather than the insurance commissioner race).
Under Proposition 14 the qualifying standard for an independent gubernatorial candidate will be 65 signatures. It simply won’t make sense to maintain the presidential qualification at more than 2500 times as high.
There is no requirement under Proposition 14 that a candidate express a preference for a so-called “qualified party”. Even if there were, it would likely fail under the traditional rational State interests such as “ballot crowding”. California may not reduce the number of candidates on the ballot by suppressing candidate speech.
Since the political party preference is an expression of the candidate, and does not indicate that the candidate is a representative or nominee of the party which he prefers, there is no reason for California to limit expression of preference to more popular parties. California is likely to win a lawsuit that would outlaw unpopular designations such as “ferrier” or “buggy whip manufacturer” as they would “I prefer the Constitution Party” or “I prefer the Salmon Yoga Party”.
If a candidate who preferred a political party that was “non-qualified”, could not have that personal expression, which he had previously disclosed on his signed voter registration affidavit, appear on the ballot, then the State of California would be having regard for the political party preference of the candidate. But that would violate the basic premise of Proposition 14 – that a voter may voter for any candidate regardless of the candidate’s political party preference.