The Assembly Elections Committee will hear ACR 145 on Wednesday, Marcy 30, at 9 a.m., along with ten other bills. ACR 145 expresses the sentiment of the legislature that the Secretary of State should exercise his authority to bring into existence an advisory presidential primary ballot that could be used by independent voters who don’t wish to ask for the presidential primary ballot of one of the three parties that lets independents vote in its presidential primary. Also that advisory ballot could be used by independent voters who would have liked the ballot of one of the three parties that doesn’t let independents vote in its presidential primary. Here is the text of the bill.
Here is the analysis of the bill. Click on the link inside the link.
California had a single presidential primary ballot in 2000, when the state had a blanket primary. That single presidential primary ballot listed the presidential candidates of all seven qualified parties. Any voter could vote for any presidential candidate from any party. However, although the ballots appeared identical, they were computer-coded ballots for voters of each qualified party, which allowed the vote-counting equipment to separate out the votes cast by members of each qualified party, and also to count the votes of independent voters. The election returns, showing how members of each party voted, enabled parties to know how members of their own parties had voted, and use only that data to determine how to allocate delegates to its national convention. The 2000 California presidential primary returns provided fascinating data that is not normally known. For example, it was fascinating to see how many registered Republicans voted for Ralph Nader, who was seeking the Green Party nomination that year. The data can be seen on the Secretary of State’s web page, if one chooses the Statement of Votes for the March 7, 2000 primary.
The analysis points out many problems with the ACR 145, which I will only summarize here:
1. The phrase “open presidential primary” in the Constitution doesn’t refer to the type of “open primary” used in 1998 and 2000. The phrase “open presidential primary” was added to the Constitution in 1972 to mean that the SOS should place on the ballot the names of recognized candidates for President without the need for those candidates (or for delegates who were pledged to support those candidates) to circulate petitions.
2. It is not clear that the SOS has the authority to establish a new advisory voting process absent a change in state law. ACR 145 proposes no such change in state law.
3. Nothing requires political parties to honor votes cast on such advisory ballots. Some political parties already allow independent (NPP) voters to cast ballots in their primaries, and an NPP voter can always re-register as a member of one of the other parties up to 15 days before the election in order to cast a vote in their primaries. A voter who chose the advisory ballot instead of choosing one of the other options would disenfranchise themselves.
4. The SOS doesn’t actually conduct elections; the 58 county RoVs do. It is unclear whether or how the SOS could compel county RoVs to conduct an election that is not provided for under state law.
5. Trying to do this 70 days before the election, when ballots have to be mailed to military and overseas voters nine days after the committee hearing, is extremely difficult logistically.
For these and other reasons, ACR 145 is ill-advised and should not be approved.
The bill’s author, Assemblymember Kristin Olson, believes that the idea can be implemented this year, according to her staff. Supporters of this bill are expected to show up in force.