On March 28, a new bill to create a top-two primary for Montana was introduced. SB 408, though not a proposed state constitutional amendment, would ask the voters if they wish to pass the measure. Because it goes to the voters, it does not need to be signed by the Governor. If it passes, it will be on the 2014 ballot.
On April 2, SB 408 passed the Senate Public Health, Welfare and Safety Committee by a vote of 4-3. All Republicans on the Committee voted “Yes” and all Democrats voted “No.”
The bill appears faulty because it doesn’t re-define “political party.” Currently, in Montana, parties are groups that polled at least 5% (of the winning gubernatorial candidate’s vote total) for any statewide race. It appears that if the bill were enacted, the Democratic and Republican Parties would remain on the ballot because they always poll 5% for President (top-two bills never try to change presidential elections). But there would be no way for a party to remain ballot-qualified unless it could poll 5% for President, because under the bill, except for President, parties wouldn’t have nominees.
No one testified against the bill in committee, except the Secretary of State, because opponents did not know about the bill. The bill is being pushed forward by Republicans who are angry that the Libertarian Party held the balance of power last year in both the gubernatorial election and the U.S. Senate election, and Democrats won both.
13-10-201 (4)(a)
“In a top two primary, each candidate may state the candidate’s political party preference on the declaration of candidacy. A candidate may not declare a preference for more than one party. When identifying a political party preference, a candidate is not restricted to identifying an established party and may use a limited number of characters, according to rules adopted by the secretary of state, to identify a political party preference.”
The bill appears to be similar to the House bill. It does eliminate the possibility of election in the primary. Both versions cancel a primary if two or fewer candidates file for an office.
The senate bill eliminates the contingent sections on ballot format – which had raised possible constitutional issues.
The senate bill provides for separate partisan ballots (for presidential preference and party officers). The nonpartisan and Top 2 races may be included if they are included on all ballots.
In Montana primaries, voters are given ballots for parties with contested primaries. They select a ballot in secret and mark it, and discard the others. If there are nonpartisan races they are included on all party’s ballots.
Few precinct chair races are contested, so in non-presidential years there will likely be a single ballot in most areas. And in presidential years, it would probably save money to print presidential preference ballots for each party, and one general ballot.
Secretary of State McCulloch spoke in opposition to the bill. She was the one who made the goofy ruling on the Libertarian Primary in 2012. It is embarrassing to have a chief elections officer to make such a truly partisan presentation on an election bill. She was concerned that the referendum would be on the ballot in November 2014 when turnout is not as heavy as a presidential election.
A representative from the Montana teacher’s union also opposed the bill. Public sector unions particularly oppose Top 2 because they can differentially suppress turnout in the Democratic primary, while informing members which candidate to support to further their agenda.
Senator Jergeson thought Top 2 would prevent a new party emerging like the Republican Party in 1854. What he does not appreciate is that Top 2 is much more like elections in 1854, than the partisan nomination system.
In 1854 in Illinois, most “Whig” incumbents simply ran as “Republican”, with the parties printing the ballot. In 2016 in Montana, a legislative candidate would simply pay the filing fee ($15) and say they were a “Whig” or “Whatever”.
The only thing holding the Republicans back in a repeat of a 1854 scenario is a June primary. But in the partisan primary system, the “Republican” candidates would have also had to qualify the party.
After reading a statewide Montana Newspaper story we find out that the Republican leadership was pushing SB 408. Friday is a deadline for referendums to pass one house or the other, so this must have been fast tracked on it’s way the the Montana Senate floor. SB 408 should have been heard in the Senate State Administration, but instead they deemed SB 408 to be a public health, welfare and safety issue. Go figure.
Again. We can see it Again!
The political power elite in Montana trying to ensure that they can maintain control and exclude everyone else – so they use the Soviet system of a one-party, state controlled electoral system. In the US this is called the “Top-two” system. This is a retread of the system that kept the Communist Party in power in the USSR.
“Top-two” is the most closed of all primary systems. Under “top-two” there is only one party with one primary. All candidates and all voters are forced by the State to participate in this single party. All other parties – including the Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Greens are eliminated by force. They are no longer allowed to select candidates for the real election – the General Election in November.
The “Top-two” Party becomes the only legal party. It places two candidates on the sham election ballot in November.
The ultimate intent of “top-two” has been revealed by numerous recent bills in CA, only one candidate of the “Top-two” party will be allowed to run with no competition and no write-ins. Worse, some of the “top-two” henchmen have introduced bills to just end the elections in November and declare the “top-two” winner the winner without any General Election at all.
The evil intent of “top-two” is to end free elections in America.
This is what “top-two” really means. The politicians are revealing their intentions. It’s a power grab – pure and simple. Total control of the electoral process to shut out anyone not approved by the State.
“Top-two” means the END of free elections in America.
Wake up America!
It’s time to Fight!
Fight the evil “top-two” cabal. Expose all of its evil supporters for what they are!
** Stop the takeover of more states by the “Top-two” power elite.
** Repeal “Top-two” everywhere! **
Sounds like the Republicans are angry at plurality elections. I don’t blame them, I don’t like plurality elections either.
How about approval voting — then you only have to pay for one election.
#1 makes an indirect reference to the birth of the Republican Party, but it may be too subtle. The Republican Party wasn’t founded until July 6, 1854, so a top-two primary in June in any state would have prevented the Republican Party from running anyone in the fall 1854 elections. In reality, the Republicans won a plurality in the U.S. House in the fall 1854 elections. Modern-day ballot access laws, requiring substantial petitions for new parties, would have thwarted the Republican Party in 1854, especially in states with early petition deadlines. The Republican Party was formed in response to Congress passing the Kansas-Nebraska Act in May 1854. Congressional action was a surprise to the nation, and the Republican Party could not have been formed with the same support before that happened. The Kansas-Nebraska Act reversed the previous status quo that kept slavery out of those two territories, and left it up to the residents of those territories to decide whether to legalize slavery.
A statutory referendum in Montana requires only a majority vote in each house of the legislature. A bill — HB-615 — for a constitutional amendment to require a 3/5ths majority in each house was tabled in committee on 27 March.
I expect SB-408 will be approved by the legislature and submitted by the voters. It may receive some support from Democrats. If it’s on the ballot in 2014, I think the probability that it will pass is high.
#5 It is the June primary which might have been a barrier to a replication of the Republican insurgence. Not a Top 2 primary. And any system that requires pre-registration of parties would be a greater barrier.
Top 2 does not require a June primary. Louisiana holds its Open Primary in November. Washington has an August primary, (September until forced to move by the MOVE Act).
In reality, Republicans did not come close to having a plurality following the 1854-1855 elections. The Whigs imploded after the Kansas-Nebraska act, and there were no Whig (nor Republican) candidates in congressional elections in 1855 (about 1/3 of representatives were elected in 1855). But by the time the 34th Congress met in December of 1855, the remaining Whigs had aligned with either the Republican or American parties.
In the election for the 35th Congress (1856-7) 90% of the Whigs who sought re-election, did so as Republicans.
Many of the incumbents who ran for re-election as Republicans or Anti-Nebraskans in 1854 had been elected under different party labels in 1852-3. This was particularly true in Illinois and Ohio. Top 2 presents no barrier to such party switches.
Partisan primary systems, particularly in states with party voter registration presents an extreme barrier to party switching. See the case in Colorado or of Lucy Killea.
I don’t know if you have listened to the oral arguments in Foster v Love, but Attorney General Ieyoub argued that Louisiana’s election system was so unique and novel that the congressional time regulation simply did not apply.
The lawyer for Love correctly observed that when Congress adopted the uniform election date, that all congressional elections were run in a form similar to Louisiana.
#7, I was in the audience in the US Supreme Court when Foster v Love was argued.
#6, I’m sorry to learn that a statutory referendum only requires a majority in each house instead of 60%. Thank you. I have re-written the post.
#8 Did you ever see the opinion for daughter of Love v Blanco?
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
NO primaries are needed or wanted.