California State Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) has introduced SB 712. Like AB 141, it would provide that write-in candidates in June primaries, for Congress or partisan state office, could not appear on the November ballot, even if they placed second in the primary, unless they get a substantial number of write-in votes.
In 2012, there were eight offices for which only one person filed to appear on the primary ballot. In six of them, however, a write-in candidate filed and naturally the write-in candidate (or one of them) then appeared on the November ballot. If this bill had been in effect at the time, none of the primary write-in candidates would have appeared on the November ballot. Instead of two races with only one candidate on the November ballot, California would have had eight such races. It is an insult to a voter to print a ballot with only one candidate on the ballot, and no write-in space, because there is no action for the voter to take that has any effect on the results.
UPDATE: Senator Lara has also introduced a proposed state constitutional amendment, SCA 12. SCA 12 would amend the top-two law to say that only one candidate would appear on the ballot if the candidate who came in second in the primary is a write-in candidate who received fewer than approximately 4,000 votes for US House, and approximately 100,000 votes for statewide office. Even if the legislature passes SCA 12, it would not take effect unless the voters vote for it. It is hard to imagine that the voters of California would vote for a measure to increase the number of one-candidate elections. FURTHER UPDATE: Assemblymember Jeff Gorell has also introduced a proposed state constitutional amendment, ACA 9, which is identical to SCA 12. The Legislative Counsel’s office told Assemblymember Gorell and Senator Lara that their bills would violate the California Constitution, so they will attempt to amend the California Constitution.
It would violate the California Constitution.
Are you sure this isn’t a Secretary of State requested bill?
Richard, what would be an acceptable % or number of votes to qualify?
#2, there is no reason there should be any minimum vote. No one can file as a write-in for the June primary without submitting a petition of either 65 signatures or 40 signatures (depending on whether it is a statewide office or a district office). If a person goes to all that bother just to be a declared write-in candidate, and the person comes in 2nd, why should there be any other barrier to appearing on the November ballot? No state has a minimum number of votes in a partisan primary for a candidate who is on the ballot in the primary (except North Dakota). So why should write-in candidates be treated any differently, assuming they had to show support just to be a declared write-in candidate.
Ah, ha! The plot thickens. Top Two becomes Top One, just like the critics on BAN have been saying. And I don’t think it would be an insult to voters; it simply turns them into Soviet citizens. Also, I’m not at all sure Californians wouldn’t approve this measure.
In Washington’s top=two blanket primary, even if there are only two candidates in the primary, they can’t go on the general unless they poll 1% of the primary vote. This blocks write-in candidates in the primary going to the general. What will happen if both do not get 1%?
This is the natural progression of “top-two.” It is the intent and the reality of “top-two” that it will lead to a one-party state just as in the old USSR.
And in a one-party state, where the “Top-two” party is the only party allowed to have a primary, the only party allowed to place candidates on the ballot and the only party to appear on the General Election ballot in November, it is only a small step to eliminating as many of those pesky second place candidates as possible.
“Just vote for the choice we give you, Comrade. Who needs free elections when you can all be members of the “Top-two” party.”
“Top-two” or top one, it’s all the same for the power elite behind this evil power grab.
All hail the one-party system called “top-two.”
#5 Washington does not require a candidate to be a declared write-in candidate. Washington also has specific rules regarding interpretation of undervotes and overvotes, which requires that the ballots be examined if they could potentially change a result.
For example, an undervote might actually be a write-in vote for a candidate, whether on the ballot or not. An overvote might be a redundant vote, where a voter votes for both a candidate and writes in the name of the candidate (some voters may be confused by instructions that say they should print the name of their favored candidate and do that and put an X by his name).
So in Washington, if there is only one candidate on the ballot, they may skip that race. A few might actually write something – “Not Mike”, “None of the Above”, “Donald Duck”, etc., and some might conceivably vote for someone they think might be a good legislator. Since all ballots in Washington are paper ballots, and voters may fill out the ballot over several days, they may have a tendency to cast more unsolicited write-in votes than a hurried voter using a voting machine.
The number of undervotes might well be over 1%. So in Washington, the election officials must examine all the undervoted ballots, just to make sure that there is no person, even an undeclared candidate who finished 2nd with over 1% of the vote.
In 2012, there was a candidate for one house position who decided to run for the other nomination. Since they were a candidate for one position, they could not formally run for the other position, even as a declared write-in. But they could encourage voters to write-in their name.
They ended up in the Top 2 for both positions. And then they withdrew from the position where they had been on the ballot, to accept the nomination where they had finished second as an undeclared write-in. This denied the voters for the other position of two choices.
There is a bill before the Washington legislature that would require write-in candidates to be declared, and to also up the threshold to 2%.
This would reduce the busywork for county clerks. But if there is a requirement for a declared write-in candidacy, I don’t see any reason to have a threshold.
In the 2012 election in California there were declared write-in candidates in the primary who received 36% and 34% of the vote in the general election. Both would have failed a 2.0% test.
By basing the threshold on the previous general election for the office, it is impossible to calculate the number of votes following redistricting.
Did Senator Lara talk to President Obama, who told him that Illinois has some really bad election laws, and Lara thought “bad” meant good and should import Illinois laws to California?
Senator Lara should instead propose Amending Article II, Section 5 to state:
(c) A voter-nominated primary election shall be conducted to select the candidates for president in California. All voters may vote at a voter-nominated
primary election for any candidate for president, without regard to the political party preference disclosed by the candidate or the voter, provided that the voter is otherwise qualified to vote for candidates for president. Any candidate who receives more than one percent of the vote in the voter-nominated presidential primary election shall compete in the ensuing general election. Any candidate who fails to qualify in the primary may supplement their support by petitions signed by voters who did not vote in the voter-nominated presidential primary.
(d) A presidential candidate in the general election shall designate the vice-presidential candidate and presidential elector candidates who are associated with with his candidacy. Presidential electors shall be allocated in proportion to the votes received by the presidential candidates in the general election.
This eliminates the requirement that the state fund and regulate elections for party central committees, and eliminates the charade where the political parties largely ignore the votes cast in presidential primary.
Statutes could fill in the details. For example, since presidential candidates do not have a “party preference” as defined by California law, the party preference would be based on that of the presidential elector candidates. Statute could also ensure that if a presidential candidate is from California, that his Vice-Presidential candidate is not.
There would be no reason for a so-called “open presidential primary”. Any candidate who actually wanted to be President would file in California.