The Los Angeles Times has this article about California’s Proposition 14, which focuses on some of the flaws in the measure. The story is a surprise, because before the election, everything in the print version of that newspaper was overwhelmingly favorable to the measure.
I’m surprised by Ron Nehring’s suggestion that the party would use nominating conventions. Party members, I can assume, can still apply some pressure to a candidate to withdraw, but there is probably nothing to stop an intransigent candidate from proceeding all the way to the June Primary.
The smoke-filled room concept of party candidate-selection would be an improvement over Prop. 14 because it wouldn’t limit the November election to only the top two candidates.
Charles Douglas wrote in an earlier post (about Proposition 14):
June 9th, 2010 at 12:43 am
Free elections are over in California. Third parties, this is the death you richly deserve for failing to get your acts together and letting the egos of your petty party bosses drive away the people who should have been on your side.
Phil Sawyer responds:
Unfortunately, there is at least some truth to what Mr. Douglas wrote, I think. A few of us have been warning the people (especially the leaders) in the smaller parties, for many years now, that they need to start operating their parties as good, mature, adults would run any organization. One has to wonder if this political disaster will be a wake-up call to the small parties – at least in the Golden State.
“But party leaders, as well as some political analysts and election experts — admittedly with a vested interest in the status quo — offer a number of reasons that Proposition 14 could do the opposite of what Schwarzenegger suggests.”
#1 Proposition 14 (and SB 6) explicitly recognize the rights of political parties to endorse candidates, in whatever manner they see fit. Further it provides that these endorsement appear on the sample ballot distributed with the voters pamphlet. Such endorsements need not be limited to candidates who express a preference for the party. A party that rarely has candidates of its own, such as the American Independent Party, might choose to use this mechanism to support candidates who are generally aligned with the party’s views.
The situation in California has become more dynamic with this change. While there are apparent disadvantages to independent and third party candidates, there are advantages as well. For one, parties now become more purely private, and they should insist on being able to make their own nomination rules. A party should be able to choose between nomination by convention, by private primary (admittedly costly, but not impossible), or by e-mail or mail in balloting. Also, a party should be able to deny the use of its label to anyone who fails to get its internal nomination.
A general election ballot that has only Democrats and Republicans on it, and no opportunity for write-ins to be counted, is the worst possible scenario for voters who aren’t loyal to the two major parties. The only thing comparable is Ohio general election ballots 1949-1967.
We know Prop. 14 will have that result because those are the results in Washington state in 2008. All statewide races, all congressional races, had one Democrat and one Republican. And with no write-ins being counted in California, no voter can express displeasure with both major parties in November.
No write-in votes = a blatant violation of 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 — around since 1868.
How about a class action case ASAP ???
I wouldn’t use the adjective “surprising” to describe the fact that the L.A. Times waited until after the votes were cast to publish this material. Appalling, yes. Surprising, no.
#5 Proposition 14 makes it quite clear that political parties may make endorsements in any manner they choose. The State of California will even distribute these endorsements on the sample ballots included with the voters pamphlet. This will permit minor parties which typically do not run candidates in most districts to endorse independents or candidates of other parties.
One may still cast a write-in vote in California. Under the pre-2011 system, write-in votes are only counted if the candidate had declared as a write-in count.
See also the law connected with Prop. 14.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html
[Chapter] 1
[Year] 2009
BILL NUMBER: SB 6 CHAPTERED 02/20/09
CHAPTER 1
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE FEBRUARY 20, 2009
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR FEBRUARY 20, 2009
PASSED THE SENATE FEBRUARY 19, 2009
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY FEBRUARY 19, 2009
AMENDED IN SENATE FEBRUARY 19, 2009
INTRODUCED BY Senator Maldonado
DECEMBER 1, 2008
An act to amend Sections 13, 334, 337, 2150, 2151, 2152, 2154,
8025, 8062, 8068, 8081, 8121, 8124, 8142, 8148, 8150, 8300, 8550,
8600, 8605, 8805, 8807, 10705, 10706, 12108, 13102, 13105, 13110,
13206, 13207, 13208, 13230, 13300, 13302, 13305, 15451, 15452, 15670,
15671, 19300, and 19301 of, to amend Part 1 of Division 7 of, to add
Sections 300.5, 325, 332.5, 338.5, 359.5, 8002.5, 8005, 8141.5,
8606, 9083.5, 9084.5, 13109.5, and 14105.1 to, to add Chapter 0.5
(commencing with Section 6000) to Part 1 of Division 6 of, to amend
and renumber Section 6000 of, to repeal and add Section 8125 of, to
repeal Sections 8802 and 8806 of, the Elections Code, and to amend
Section 88001 of the Government Code, relating to elections.
—
LONG text omitted. See the html.
How soon before the law gets amended — for ballot access especially ???
#4: “Proposition 14 (and SB 6) explicitly recognize the rights of political parties to endorse candidates, in whatever manner they see fit.”
Gee, that was really thoughtful of Arnold, (Dis)Abel, and their cohorts to “explicitly recognize” the First Amendment rights of political parties.
Yes, in the “top two open primary,” a party may nominate//endorse candidate(s). The problem is that there is no legal way for the party to prevent other candidates from that party from nevertheless running in the first round of the “top two.”
And of course, there is no assurance that the party’s nominee//endorsee will be in the final, deciding election.
#9: “This will permit minor parties which typically do not run candidates in most districts to endorse independents or candidates of other parties.”
They had better make those endorsements while they can, since the “top two open primary” will ultimately destroy the small parties.
The language in Prop. 14 is –
*a voter-nominated primary election* — amending CA Const., Art. II, Sec. 5.
I.E. to have 3 classes of offices –
partisan offices – down to Prez/VP and party officers
voter-nominated offices – congressional and state elective offices [except Super. Pub. Instruction – made nonpartisan]
nonpartisan offices – judicial, local, SPI.
Good luck in the forthcoming lawsuits by the usual suspects to have ANY of the voter-nominated office language somehow declared unconstitutional.
How come the *explanation* of the various CA propositions is about double the length of the *legal* text involved ??? — to intentionally confuse the voters ??? – make voter pamphlets gigantic – stimulate the printing business ???
See the legal texts of Prop. 14 and the law 2009 Chap. 1 (a mere 67 sections long – affecting a zillion sections in the CA Election Code).
#11 Much of the news coverage has treated as somewhat sinister that political parties would organize their private endorsement activities when it was anticipated all along that this would happen.
#10 “How soon before the law gets amended — for ballot access especially?”
Here are the changes I would make:
1) Move the Open Primary to August; or October, with overseas absentee voters permitted to vote a contingent ballot for the general election (as is done in the progressive State of Louisiana).
2) Move the party elections to coincide with the presidential preference primary, in February or whenever.
2a) Permit parties to hold elections by-mail in intermediate years, with the counties conducting the election at cost to the parties.
3) Deregulate parties. Set the requirements that are necessary for official state-party interaction. And require that participation in party events be open to all registered party members, the public, and the press. Make clear that parties are subject to HAVA, ADA, VRA, ad infinitum. Require a state convention every two years, and that party bylaws be approved by party members.
4) Recognize different classes of political parties. Under Proposition 14, there are several functions for political parties:
a) Presidential primaries.
b) Presidential ballot access.
c) Target of candidate preference for voter-nominated office.
d) Endorsement authority, inclusion of endorsements and other communication in voters pamphlet.
4a) Party qualification should be based on performance in the presidential general election. Given that there is only one office, the percentage should be reduced to 1% or lower.
4b) There is no reason that petition candidates could not have a party designation (see 4c).
4c) Under Proposition 14, candidates can express a preference for a political party so long as they did so on their voter registration. There is nothing in the text of SB 6 that supports the notion that a candidate preference be for a “qualified party”
But the State of California does have legitimate interest in regulating parties that may be preferred. They have concerns relative to party names such as length, name confusion, proscribed words, standardized translations, etc., and that the preference is for an actual party. It is OK to prefer the Mickey Mouse (Party), only if there is indeed an actual Mickey Mouse Party.
The number of required registrants may be made quite minimal. Perhaps 100. With such a low number, the initial qualification can be made by petition only. The counties as part of their verification process would confirm the intent of the voter to change their party registration to the newly qualified party.
During a one-time transition, all existing “Other” and “DTS” registrations would be collected. Registrants with any name more than 100 would contacted to confirm their party preference. If a name has less than 100, then registrants would be informed, and told that their registration would be converted to No Party Preference. Names with more than 100 registrants would be declared to be “dormant”, with some procedure to permit activation within 1 year.
Thereafter, voters would only be permitted to disclose a preference for a recognized party (or no party preference).
4d) At some point it may not be economically justifiable to distribute endorsements of parties with 100 registrants to millions of voters, but the break point is probably much lower than the 100,000 or so that is currently required.
5) Convert the presidential primary to a direct nominating primary, with a blanket primary format, but the party affiliation of the voter marked on the ballot. Party nominations would be based on votes from party members, for candidates designated by each party in advance. The parties would be free to use other votes for whatever purpose they choose.
A candidate nominated in the primary in the primary could withdraw, but could not be replaced by the party except due to death or other calamitous event. The presidential nominee would be permitted to choose his vice presidential running mate and presidential electors.
No Party Preference voters and those who prefer parties not qualified to participate in the presidential primary would be allowed to vote. Any candidate who received enough votes from these groups (say 5000) would qualify for the general election as well.
With a blanket format, it may be feasible to greatly reduce the qualification standard for participation in the primary. Perhaps qualification of the candidate could use the same 5000 threshold for participation of party voters. So perhaps 10,000 members to participate, and 5000 to be quorate.
If the number is lowered, then party elections should be made separate and by-mail only. With a separate ballot per party, you need a big over supply just in case you get a bunch of provisional voters (or same day registration, etc.). But by-mail, you only need print one ballot per voter registered with the party.
Additional candidates could qualify by petition. Candidates who received votes in the primary could supplement their number by petition. A candidate who received 3000 votes could qualify with signatures of 2000 more voters. Parties could recognize qualifying candidates.
6) Write-in votes should be permitted in the general election for voter-nominated offices, but declared write-in candidates should be limited to candidates who did not run in the primary as either an on-ballot or write-in candidate (similar to Washington restrictions).
7) In lieu petition signature requirements should be reviewed. For example, use a fixed offset for each signature gathered (say $3 adjusted for inflation).