October 22 Hearing Set on Whether Six Opponents of California’s Top Two Primary Must Pay Almost $250,000

Posted on by October 17, 2012
4

On October 22, a San Francisco Superior Court will hold a hearing on whether six individuals, including me, must pay almost $250,000 to the attorneys who intervened in the lawsuit Field v Bowen. Field v Bowen is a lawsuit filed in state court in 2010 that charged that two particular details of California’s new top-two primary law are unconstitutional. In 2011 the lawsuit lost. On August 1, 2012, a Superior Court Judge ruled that the six plaintiffs must pay attorneys fees to the groups that intervened in the case to defend the law. On September 17 that judge recused himself from any further proceedings on the attorneys fee matter, so a new judge will re-consider the matter on Monday, October 22.

Anyone who is interested in this matter is urged to attend the hearing, which is at 400 McAllister, at the corner of McAllister and Polk, just north of San Francisco City Hall. The hearing is at 9:30 a.m., room 302. Attendees must past through a metal detector and sometimes that is time-consuming, so it is better to arrive somewhat before 9:30 a.m.

Here is an article by Steve Hill in the BeyondChron of October 17. BeyondChron is an on-line San Francisco newspaper that has existed since 2004.

Political Scientist Seth Masket Studies California Top-Two 2012 Primary

Posted on by October 17, 2012
4

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.