Seth Masket, a professor of Political Science at the University of Denver, delivered this paper for presentation at a recent conference in Ventura, California, at the California State University Channel Islands. The paper concludes, “The district-level results of the 2012 primary in California suggest a legislature that will not be dramaticallly different from those that preceded it.” This is because “If California election law now says that primaries are not the way parties determine nominees, then parties will find some other way to determine nominees.” The paper documents this conclusion.
Professor Masket made a factual error on page four when he said, under the old California system in effect 2001-2010, “unaffiliated voters could register with a party on the day of the (primary) election to participate in that contest.” Actually, under the system in effect for congressional and state office primaries 2001-2010, every independent voter who participated in the primary (either by mail or at the polls) was asked if he or she wished to choose a Republican primary ballot or a Democratic primary ballot. The Secretary of State’s 2010 Poll Worker Training Standards make this clear and can be seen here. The instructions prepared by each county election office instruct poll workers to show each independent voter at the polls a card that says, “VOTERS WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED WITH A PARTY. YOU MAY REQUEST A DEMOCRATIC PARTY BALLOT WITH NONPARTISAN CONTESTS AND MEASURES OR A REPUBLICAN PRIMARY BALLOT WITH NONPARTISAN CONTESTS AND MEASURES.” When an independent asked for a major party primary ballot, his or her voter registration continued to be “independent.”
It is not too surprising that Professor Masket got this wrong. Most organizations that support the top-two system, including IndependentVoting, IndependentVoice, and the California Independent Voters Network, constantly repeat the misinformation that the old California system forced independents to affirmatively ask for a party primary ballot, or even worse, they deny that independent voters could participate at all. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link to the Masket paper.
ANY body in wonderful CA ever heard about P.R. —
NO gerrymander commissions needed.
NO primaries needed.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. — perhaps to happen after the useless Nov. 2012 election happens ???
On pp 6-7, there is a very important sentence that I suspect many readers will gloss over. Referring to the period up to 1952, Maskin writes:
The good government advocates of Top Two need to be careful what they wish for. The wealthy advocates already understand Maskin’s point.
Thanks for the fact-check, Richard. I’ve amended the paper to correct my oversight.
Richard:
You neglected to mention that often during those years, the American Independent Party which DID NOT join in the law-suit which over-turned the late 90’s Unified(?) Primary ballot, ALSO allowed all Decline to State voters to vote in its primary.