State legislators in 2011 are likely to consider bills in some states to move, or in some cases, to abolish presidential primaries. Florida law currently requires a January presidential primary, but the two major parties don’t recognize the results. See this story that tries to predict whether the legislature will move it to a later date or not.
In Washington, Governor Christine Gregoire has proposed abolishing the presidential primary, to save $10,000,000. In California, where the law requires a February presidential primary and a June primary for congress and state office, the legislature is likely to merge the two primaries to save money.
In 2008, the Republican party recognized the results from Florida in the same manner as those from New Hampshire were, awarding 1/2 the delegates that we would otherwise have been awarded. This is pointed out in the article you linked to.
Florida law permits the state political parties to hold direct nominating primaries, so it shouldn’t matter what the DNC wants.
Merging the partisan presidential primary with the Top 2 Open Primary in California might not save much money since it requires party-segregated ballots and contaminates and skews the results of the Open Primary. It might make sense if the primary were moved to August, and converted to a direct nominating primary – as the constitution suggests should be the case.
Washington Democrats ignore the results of Washington primary, despite pandering to the political parties. And since there are no major parties, Washington might not have to do anything. They could always extend Top 2 to the presidential election.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
NO idiotic / expensive party hack or even top 2 primaries are needed.
TO: Jim Riley
You state in post # 1 that the (California) Constitution
suggests that the primary be a “direct nominating primary”
for President. Where in the California Constitution does
it make such a suggestion? Also why August?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
#3 Article II, Section 5:
(c) The Legislature shall provide for partisan elections for presidential candidates, and political party and party central committees, including an open presidential primary whereby the candidates on the ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States, and those whose names are placed on the ballot by petition, but excluding any candidate who has withdrawn by filing an affidavit of noncandidacy.
(d) A political party that participated in a primary election for a partisan office pursuant to subdivision (c) has the right to participate in the general election for that office and shall not be denied the ability to place on the general election ballot the candidate who received, at the primary election, the highest vote among that party’s candidates.
Subdivisions (a) and (b) apply to voter-nominated offices, so I have omitted them.
So subsection (c) requires partisan primaries for president. And subsection (d) requires that if a party participated in the primary, they may have a candidate on the general election ballot. But subsection (d) also says that a party may not be denied the ability to place the candidate who receives the most votes on the ballot.
There are a couple of ways of interpreting this. (1) Let’s say that the California legislature tried to require a party to place the candidate who received the 5th most number of votes on the ballot. The party could then go to court, and under Article II, Section 5 (d) they would be allowed to have the winner of the primary on the ballot. But why would the legislature require the non-winner of a primary to be placed on the general election ballot???
Instead, California could require that non-winners not be placed on the general election ballot. Since the party’s would not be denied the ability to have the winner on the ballot, this would be OK.
Prior to WWII, the statewide primary was in August, while the presidential primary was in the first week in May. As a cost cutting measure during WWII, the two were combined. The 1944 combined primary was mid-May, and from 1948 it was in June.
Eventually, California moved the primary in presidential years to March, and then in 2008 split the two, with the presidential primary in February. But it has never made sense for a June primary, particularly for nonpartisan offices, where you would have 5 months before the runoff. Moving to August would reduce the separation to 3 months. September would be better, but the federal government requires overseas congressional ballots to have 45 days, which means they get sent in September.
If there were an August presidential primary, then the AIP voters could choose among, for example, Alan Keyes and Chuck Baldwin.
TO: Jim Riley,
I do not understand post # 4. At the 2008 AIP Convention no one place Chuck Baldwin’s name in
nomination. Only Dr. Alan Keyes was nominated on a ticket with Dr. Wiley Drake, Sr. for V.P. Don
Grundmann left the convention early.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, 2008 elected Convention
Chairman and the current Vice Chairman of the American Independent Party
#5 The California Constitution says that the state of California could not deny the AIP they right to have the candidate who received the most votes in the primary, Don Grundmann, a place on the general election ballot. Implicit in that if California can not deny a place on the general election ballot for members of a certain class, is that they may deny a place on the ballot for non-members of that class.
Chuck Baldwin or Alan Keyes could have filed under Section 6522, or the Secretary of State could have made a determination under 6520 that they were seeking the nomination of the AIP.
TO: Jim Riley
Don Grundmann was a delegate to the American Independent Party Convention in Sacramento in
2008. He left the convention hall before the
names of any one of the delegates place any name
before the convention body. Not one delegate
placed the name of Don Grundmann or Chuck Baldwin
name before that body. Alan Keyes (for President)
and Wiley Drake, Sr. (for Vice President)was the
outcome of the voting delegates to that convention.
Jim King did sue Secretary of State Debra Bowan and
lost in the Superior Court in Sacramento County over who was to be on the ballot for the AIP.
Your point in # 6 is unclear. Again what does Election Code sections 6522 or 6520 have to do with anything on the General Election Ballot, since the Convention of the American Independent Party picket the presidential electors for the party.
Please explain your point in terms I can understand. I just do not understand your point here.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, elected Chairman of the
2008 convention of the American Independent Party and the current Vice Chairman of the American Independent Party.
#7 The California Constitution strongly implies that the voters of each party should directly choose its nominees, including those for President (with implementation of the Top 2 Open Primary, political parties only nominate presidential and vice presidential candidates, and do not nominate candidates for other offices).
I think this is probably the source of your misunderstanding. You are simply saying, this is not the way we have always done – rather than reading the actual language that is in the constitution. Please re-read the constitution carefully, and discard any prejudice you may have for convention nomination of presidential candidates.
The Constitution provides for party primaries, and says that if a party holds a primary, it can have its nominee on the general election. It goes on to say that a party can not be denied the ability to place the candidate who received the most votes in the primary on the general election ballot.
But it would be pretty silly for California to attempt to keep the candidate who received the most votes off the ballot. So the extra language is to indicate that the candidate who receives the most votes should be on the ballot. While California permits the political parties to nominate presidential candidates, they could also require direct nomination, just as they did for other offices.
In February 2008, Don Grundmann received the most votes in the AIP presidential primary. Chuck Baldwin and Alan Keyes were not on the AIP ballot (Keyes was on the Republican ballot). If the Secretary of State had identified either Baldwin or Keyes as seeking the AIP nomination, she would have placed them on the ballot. If they did not want to be on the ballot, they could then request removal. Either could have also filed for a position on the ballot.
So California already has in place a mechanism to ensure that would-be nominees for president are on the ballot. It just has to finish up and pass laws that would place the primary-winning candidate on the general election ballot. California could permit the candidate to name his running mate and elector candidates.
Had this system been in place in 2008, Hillary Clinton, Don Grundmann, and Christine Smith would have been on the general election ballot. Ralph Nader would have been the nominee of both the Green and P&F parties. If any of Alan Keyes, Barack Obama, Bob Barr, or Cynthia McKinney wanted to be on the ballot, they could have petitioned.