The California Independent Voters Project has begun the steps to qualify a statewide initiative that would end public elections for political party office. The initiative would amend the California Constitution to abolish public elections for county central committee.
About half the states now have public elections for party office, and half don’t. In the states without elections, party meetings choose party officers. In California, under current law, each party is free to decide whether to use public elections for party office. The only ballot-qualified parties in California that don’t use public elections to choose party officers are the Libertarian and Americans Elect Parties. UPDATE: here is a copy of the proposed initiative. It also attempts to restore the blanket presidential primary used in California in 2000, in which all presidential candidates appear on a single ballot.
So I imagine this type of ballot measure would also work in states like Montana who elect party officers in the primary elections. Could a ballot measure also be used to eliminate all partisan elections, in favor of non-partisan elections statewide?
States that have elections for precinct captains should charge parties for it and deny no party the service. States that restrict the practice to major parties and then do that for free are captives of the major parties and certainly not the voters.
Each contested position in WA costs between $500.00 and $600.00 though most precincts go uncontested, a standard alternative, or minor parties could maintain if permitted.
Shouldn’t the presentation of the new language for Article II, Section 5(d) be:
(d) A political party that participated in a primary election
for a partisan office of President 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 either: (i) the candidate who received, at the primary election, the highest vote among that party’s candidates, or (ii) a candidate selected by the political party through its party-‐nomination procedures.
Where the bolded text text is the added language. This also clarifies that the retained text does provide for a direct primary.
A better approach might be to simply repeal II.5(c) and II.5(d). There is nothing in the changed constitution text that would preclude statutory provision for primary elections for party officials. If the legislature failed to repeal the statutes, a legal challenge might be iffy, based on a combination of funding private activities with public money, and an interpretation of legislative intent of the proposition. Likewise, there would be no constraint on a statutory implementation of a presidential preference primary.
Alternatives would be to simply strike the party election provisions from II.5(c):
(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.
In its proposed form, it may cause the provisions for the voter-nominated primary to be misconstrued. Would independent candidates appear on the presidential preference ballot? And what does it mean for a party to have “participated” in a vote-nominated primary?
Before Proposition 14, a party participated by having an exclusive primary, restricted to voters and candidates of the party, and nominated a candidate for the general election. If before Proposition 14 one asked how a qualified party “participated” in a primary, it would be to
(1) have an exclusive primary;
(2) select a nominee for the general election.
Proposition 14 extirpated those privileges. That was its purpose.
How does a political party “participate” post-Proposition 14? The only answer that the Secretary of State could give would be “you know, participation stuff”.
The proposed amendment is overloading the term “voter-nominated” to mean different things for most offices and something else for president.
A simpler approach would be to completely rewrite the presidential provisions (and excluding the party elections).
(c) The Legislature shall provide for voter-nominated elections for presidential candidates, including a presidential primary. All voters may vote in a presidential primary election for any presidential candidate without regard to the political party preference disclosed by the candidate or the voter, provided that the voter is otherwise qualified to vote for president. Any candidate who receives more than five percent of the vote in the presidential primary election shall qualify for the ensuing general election.
(d) The legislature may provide for supplementary qualification for the presidential general election based on petitions signed by voters who did not participate in the presidential primary election.
(e) The legislature may provide for an indication of endorsement or nomination to be placed next to the name of a qualified candidate on the general election ballot, however, any such endorsement or nomination shall not serve to qualify a candidate for the general election ballot.
The California constitution provides that all judicial, school, county, and city elections be non-partisan.
Proposition 14 added the statewide office of Superintendent of Public Instruction as a non-partisan office. Previously, there had been no explicit provision in the constitution that any statewide office be partisan or not.
A ballot measure that would have made legislative and statewide offices non-partisan was defeated in 1916.
It would be quite straightforward to make particular offices such as insurance commissioner, secretary of state, or state board of equalization, non-partisan.
The only reason that party offices are mentioned in the California constitution is that it is unconstitutional to elect party officials in an election open to non-party members. Proposition 14 was essentially saying that it did not apply to presidential elections and party elections.
Montana statute provides for a role for party officers in selecting temporary appointments to fill legislative and county vacancies. The Montana constitution says that legislative vacancies shall be filled by special election, but that the legislature might provide for appointment.
Montana has concocted an extremely complex system for filling legislative vacancies that involve the party officers.
The ballot measure in Montana is entirely in statute, rather in the constitution. Rather than trying to rip out the really complicated vacancy-filling statutes, they left them in, which required retaining the election of party officers in the first place.
Since the Montana constitution gives the legislature authority to create a convoluted procedure in the first place, it can simply eliminate it entirely, or make it a non-partisan appointment process.
The legislature can (and should) do this regardless whether the voters approve the Top 2 primary.
Washington should amend its constitution to remove a role for party officers in the filling of legislative and county vacancies.
@Richard – the system does not try to “restore a blanket primary” – it specifically says a “voter nominated primary” … the fundamental difference is that a “blanket primary” is still a partisan system; designed to nominated party leaders. The “Voter-nominated system” is a nonpartisan system and there are no separate ballots for each party.
@Jim – “Voter-nominated” was changed in the Presidential language to clarify that the presidential primary should be run just like the state primary. It is not used in a different sense. “Voter-nominated” means a single ballot nonpartisan system under the California Constitution. The old language, which said the State should run an “Open primary” was confusing. Arguably, California’s presidential primary was not conducted in accordance with the Constitutional changes implemented by Proposition 14 in 2012. This initiative would clarify the ambiguity.
Again, the same comment I made to Richard. The nonpartisan primary requires one simple fundamental conceptual change –> The purpose of the new voter-nominated primaries is to change the system from one where the purpose is to elect the best representatives of a partisan group (the party), to one in which ALL voters can express their preference for who who be the best representative.
My guess is that over time this system would produce much better results for third parties, because finally independents, Republicans, and Democrats can vote for viable third party candidates without having to register into the third party.
Jim, I am interested in your language: “Any candidate who receives more than five percent of the vote in the presidential primary election shall qualify for the ensuing general election.”
How could this be practically implemented though? The presidential “primary” is really just a delegate nomination process under traditional systems. Would this language create problems with federal election law?
Although the sponsors of the proposed initiative may not like the term “blanket primary”, their proposal is in fact a blanket primary, because it gives all voters a primary ballot with all the presidential candidates listed, yet it does not limit the choices on the November ballot for President. Under the proposed initiative, all the ballot-qualified parties would have their presidential nominee on the November ballot. That is exactly what a blanket primary is.
The US Constitution gives each State legislature supreme and plenary authority to direct the manner in which presidential electors are appointed. Article II, Section 1.
Congress may not even require that the presidential electors be appointed based on the popular vote. If Congress may not even require that California hold a general election for presidential electors, they certainly can not regulate the manner by which presidential candidates and their associated slates of presidential electors qualify for placement on that general election.
If California holds a presidential primary, it may not restrict suffrage on the basis of age greater than 18, on the basis of sex, on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, or levy a poll tax.
In 1912, California held a presidential primary which chose delegates to national conventions. But the nominees chosen by the September primary for legislative and congressional offices also formed a state convention that chose the presidential elector candidates.
The Republican nominees for the legislature and congress chose elector candidates who supported the election of Theodore Roosevelt and Hiram Johnson, even though the Republican national convention had selected William Howard Taft and James Sherman. In 1912, the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates did not appear on the ballot, and voters could vote for individual electors, rather than the slate. Electors supporting Taft and Sherman had to run as write-in candidates, and voters had to write in the name of (up to) 13 electors.
11 of the 13 electors voted for Roosevelt, and the other 2 voted for Woodrow Wilson (the split was due to not all voters voting for an entire slate, or perhaps not having such voters counted correctly).
How it might work in practice. The presidential candidate would file for a place on the primary ballot. This would require a petition and a fee. In addition they would provide a vice-presidential candidate and a slate of 55 presidential elector candidates, each who would give their consent.
Since most presidential candidates will not be registered California voters, they would be permitted to disclose their party preference when they applied for the a place on the primary ballot. It would be a reasonable requirement that the associated elector candidates share that same party preference.
Candidates who receive more than 5% of the vote would qualify for the general election ballot. If the presidential primary remains in June, or is returned to February or March, then it could be possible for candidates to qualify by petitions signed by voters who did not vote in the primary. This could even include late candidates who did not appear on the primary ballot.
The political parties would be free to use the results of the presidential primary in any way they want. They of course would be able to provide support for any candidates which they want, and California could permit party endorsements appear in the voters pamphlet.
The proposed language says:
“The Legislature shall provide for partisan elections
for presidential candidates, including a voter-nominated presidential primary …”
So it is conflating voter-nominated and partisan in a confusing way.
“voter-nominated” to me means that the nominations are being made by the electorate as a whole, rather than the party or party electorates. It is intrinsic to that then all voters must be permitted to vote for all candidates, but also the candidates placed on ballot be chosen based on the votes in the primary.
The “open primary” language was added to the Constitution in 1972, in response to the 1968 primary where Hubert Humphrey was nominated by the national party despite not appearing on the California primary ballot. At the time the practice of favorite-son candidates was still widely practiced.
“open primary” in this context means “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.”
If it is a direct nomination primary, there is no reason to have the Secretary of State tracking down candidates. If someone wants to be on the general election ballot, they can file themselves.
Unless the primary actually qualifies candidates for the general election ballot, then it will not be helpful for independent candidates.
If voters are merely expressing a preference among partisan candidates, it is no different than a straw poll.