On September 13, a few minutes after midnight, the California legislature adjourned for the year. The 2013 session was the first one in which all of California’s Assembly members had been elected in the top-two open primary system, also known as Proposition 14.

Proponents of the top-two system said after the November 2012 election that the new Assembly would be less polarized. Specifically, proponents touted two Assembly races in which two Democrats were on the ballot against each other in November. Proponents said that the more “moderate” Democrat beat the incumbent Democrat. When proponents of California’s top-two system talk about “extreme” Democrats, what they really mean are Democrats who vote in accordance with the wishes of organized labor.

In the 10th Assembly district, including all of Marin County and the southern part of Sonoma County, incumbent Michael Allen, who was a former employee of a labor union and who had strong labor backing, lost to Marc Levine. In the 50th Assembly district, in southwest Los Angeles County, incumbent Betsy Butler, who was strongly supported by the Teachers Union, lost to Richard Bloom.

But, during 2013, new Assemblymembers Levine and Bloom also voted in accordance with the wishes of organized labor, as shown by the roll calls on these controversial bills: (1) AB 1373 doubles the statute of limitations for death benefits for public safety officers and firefighters, from 240 weeks from the time of injury to the time of death, to 480 weeks. The bill was supported by labor and opposed by many local governments. No Democratic Assemblymember voted against it. Both Allen and Bloom voted for it. (2) AB 10 increases the minimum wage to $10. The bill was supported by labor and opposed by the state Chamber of Commerce. No Democratic Assemblymember voted against it. Both Allen and Bloom voted for it. (3) AB 241 makes domestic workers, including in-home health care workers, eligible for overtime pay. It was supported by labor and opposed by the state Chamber of Commerce. No Democratic Assemblymember voted against it. Both Allen and Bloom voted for it. (4) SB 7 requires charter cities to use contractors who pay “prevailing wage” rates to employees for public works projects. It was supported by labor and opposed by many local governments. No Democratic Assemblymember voted against it. Allen and Bloom voted for it. (5) AB 857 requires statewide initiatives to use volunteer labor to collect at least 10% of the signatures. This bill is perceived to assist labor, which can use its organizational structure to comply with the new requirement; the bill is perceived to injure initiatives sponsored by big business. The bill was backed by labor. No Democratic Assemblymember voted against it. Allen and Bloom voted for it.

Dan Walters, California’s premier political columnist, wrote on September 13, “Unions Held Whip Hand in California Capitol.” Read his column here.

Ballotpedia has just published a study of the 2012 congressional primaries. Only five members of the U.S. House of Representatives lost a primary to a non-incumbent in 2012. Conventional wisdom, which is wrong, is that more members of Congress fear losing a primary than they fear losing a general election.

On September 11, the Eighth Circuit ruled that First Amendment activity cannot be banned inside a public park, just because the park that day is being used for a special purpose. Brian Johnson wanted to hand out free Bibles to persons attending the Twin Cities Pride festival, which is held annually in Loring Park, a 42-acre public park. Park Board rules said that anyone who wanted to hand out literature should rent a booth, but the Pride Festival officials refused to rent him a booth.

The Eighth Circuit opinion, Johnson v Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, 12-2419, says that the alleged reason Johnson was barred from handing out Bibles, that of keeping congestion under control, is not persuasive. The vote was 2-1. The dissenter said that Johnson was free to stand outside the park and hand out Bibles near the park entrance.

Although this case was not about petitioning, the principles it sets forth would apply equally to petitioning.