The June 3-9 issue of the San Francisco Bay Guardian has this op-ed, explaining that if Proposition 14 passes, ballot retention for qualified parties in California will become substantially more difficult.
This aspect of Proposition 14 has not been mentioned in any California newspaper story, except for two earlier stories in the San Francisco Chronicle. Proposition 62, the previous top-two ballot measure in California, did not have this characteristic.
Pingback: NTT America announces release 09.1 enhancements to the enterprise hosting product portfolio.: An article from: Green Data Centers & Internet Business | VPS Managed Hosting
Proposition 14 will not take effect until January 1, 2011. Parties that maintain their “qualified” status on the basis of this November’s election will retain it until after the 2014 election.
In Washington, where a Top 2 Open Primary was approved in 2004, but blocked by the political parties,including the Libertarian, Republican, and Democratic parties, until 2008, the Secretary of State has proposed common sense legislation that would only require a party to have 100 signatures to be recognized as a political party, which candidates may express a preference for. Major parties would be be those that received 1% or more of the vote in the presidential election, and be entitled to a presidential primary and presidential ballot access.
Under Proposition 14, political parties will no longer have primaries for state, congressional, and legislative candidates, so it is nonsensical to base the right to have a presidential primary on performance in the insurance commissioner race.
Proposition 62, which was defeated in 2004, did say that a candidate affiliated with a “non-qualified” party could only run as a candidate affiliated with “No Party”. There is absolutely no such language in Proposition 14, or its companion legislation SB 6.
A voter in California is free to affiliate with a non-qualified party on their voter registration. There are 1000s of voters who are still affiliated with the Natural Law and Reform parties, even though those parties became non-qualified several years ago. And voters may affiliate with a non-qualified party merely by filling in a write-in blank on a voter registration affidavit.
Under Proposition 14, this will be recast as a “disclosure of preference for a political party”, whether the party is qualified, such as Democratic, Libertarian, or Green; formerly qualified such as Reform or Natural Law; or the Bull Moose, Constitution, or Salmon Yoga parties. Under Proposition 14, a candidate has two choices. He may have the party preference that he disclosed on his voter registration appear next to his name on the ballot (“I prefer the Bull Moose Party” or a blank space. Only if a candidate had disclosed no party preference, does he have the option of having, “I have no party preference” appear on the ballot.
Proposition 14 makes it easier for write-in candidates to qualify for the November general election ballot. In June 2008, candidates who actively sought the Democratic nomination for the state senate, with no competition from on-ballot candidates in the primary, still failed to qualify.
The write-in provision for the general election is poorly written, and directly contradicts other sections of the Elections Code. It is unlikely to survive a legal challenge. It is not intrinsic to Top 2 type elections. Washington permits write-ins in the primary and general election. Louisiana doesn’t permit write-ins in either the primary or general election.
Obviously the party hack writers of Prop. 14 did not give a damn about the problems of minor parties and independents — thanks to the party hack Supremes since 1968.
What ed or even op-ed folks in CA have some brain cells able to detect P.R. and App.V. ??? — NO primaries are needed.
As to write-ins — 14 Amdt, Sec. 2 is still in the nearly dead U.S.A. Constitution.
How many write-in votes before the OFFICIAL State ballots came along in 1888-1890 ???