The Texas primary is May 29. Here is a statement by the chair of the Fort Bend County Texas Democratic Party, urging the party faithful to help defeat Kesha Rogers in the Democratic primary for U.S. House, 22nd district. Rogers is a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche. She is opposed by a regular Democrat, K. P. George.
According to this Virginia newspaper story, Virgil Goode, Constitution Party nominee for President, is criticizing Mitt Romney for not having fought same-sex marriage in Massachusetts while he was Governor. Goode called Romney “the father of homosexual marriages.”
Political scientists who have studied primary systems invariably find that top-two election systems do not elect more centrist candidates. Here is a summary of that evidence:
1. Professor Todd Donovan of Western Washington University concluded, “The partisan structure of Washington’s legislature appears unaltered by the new primary system” and “The aggregate of all of this (implementation of the top-two system starting in 2008) did not add up to a legislature that looked different or functioned differently from the legislature elected under a partisan primary.” These statements are from his article, “The Top Two Primary: What Can California Learn from Washington?” published in the California Journal of Politics & Policy, February 2012 (vol. 4, issue 1).
2. Professors Boris Shor and Seth Masket studied Nebraska’s non-partisan legislature in 2011 and concluded “Despite a history of nonpartisanship dating back to the 1930s, the Nebraska state legislature appears to be polarizing. How does polarization happen without parties? Using interviews, roll call votes, and campaign finance records, we examine politics in the modern Nebraska unicam. We find that term limits, which began removing incumbents from office in 2006, created opportunities for the state’s political parties to recruit and finance candidates, and they have done so in an increasingly partisan fashion…The results offer a compelling example of parties overcoming an institutional rule designed to eliminate them.” This is from the Abstract to their article “Polarization Without Parties: The Rise of Legislative Partisanship in Nebraska’s Unicameral Legislature” which can be read on-line at this link.
3. Professor Shor also intensively studied polarization and partisanship in all 50 states legislatures, using hundreds of thousands of bits of data, mostly roll call votes and legislative questionaires. He determined which states were most polarized. See his conclusions here. Professor Masket then looked at the Shor data and concluded there is no relationship between type of primary system and degree of partisanship and polarization. See Masket’s article here.
4. Professor Eric McGhee studied partisanship in California’s legislature during the blanket primary years, and concluded “Electoral Reforms won’t fix California gridlock.” That article was published in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 14, 2010. Read it here.
5. Professor L. Sandy Maisel wrote a letter on August 10, 2010, to Ralph Nader, in which he said, “I am against top-two systems for three main reasons. First, I think the argument of proponents – that it will lead to the election of more moderates – does not hold water. It has not been the case in Washington, nor in Louisiana, where the system is similar…Generally, if there is a crowded primary, extremist and/or single-issue candidates will emerge at the top.” Maisel has written many books on U.S. political parties and is considered one of the leading experts on the U.S. party system.
6. Finally, Richard Winger’s examination of Washington state legislative elections under the top-two system in 2008 and 2010, in elections with two members of the same major party running against each other in November, rebuts the idea that top-two elections between two members of the same party elect the more moderate candidate. There were no statewide or congressional elections in Washington state in either 2008 or 2010 between two members of the same major party. For legislative races, there were 8 such races in 2008 and 10 in 2010. In some of them, the incumbent was re-elected, which obviously changed nothing. In the races without an incumbent, top-two proponents believe that the more moderate candidate will win. But this did not happen. In 2010, two Republicans ran against each other, in races with no incumbent, in two districts. In the 2nd district (seat 2), J. T. Wilcox defeated Tom Campbell. Campbell was the centrist, refusing to join his own party’s caucus, and enjoying the support of labor unions; he lost to Wilcox, who was an orthodox Republican. In the 31st district (seat 1), Cathy Dahlquist defeated Shawn Bunney. Dahlquist campaigned by using the label “conservative” prominently in her advertising and listing other “conservatives” who had endorsed her. Bunney campaigned by stressing that he was endorsed not only by the state’s Republican Attorney General, but by the State’s Auditor, who was a Democrat.
In the only 2008 race with one Republican running against another, and no incumbent, Shelly Short defeated Sue Madsen in the 7th district (seat 1). When I asked Madsen which of the two of them was more conservative, she said, “It’s a dead heat.”
Races between two Democrats in November were more difficult to characterize. In 2010 in the 34th district (seat 2), Joe Fitzgibbon, age 23, who was backed by labor, defeated Mike Heavey, son of a former Democratic state legislator. In 2008, in the 46th district, seat one, Scott White, who was endorsed by labor, defeated Gerry Pollet. But also in 2008, in the 36th district (seat 1), Reuven Carlyle, who had some labor endorsements, defeated John Burbank, who had more labor endorsements. In 2010, in the 27th district (seat 1), Washington state’s leading gay activist, Laurie Jinkins, defeated Jake Fey, who was backed by labor unions. Jinkins had been instrumental in defending the state’s civil unions law in 2009 against a referendum, and in 2010 she became the first open lesbian elected to the Washington legislature.
On May 10, a 3-judge panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals refused to block Pennsylvania Democrats from seizing $56,928 from Ralph Nader’s bank accounts located in Washington, D.C. Back in 2004, Nader’s petition had been held to lack sufficient valid signatures. Under Pennsylvania’s unique system for checking signatures on petitions, when a petition is found not to have enough valid signatures, court costs are levied against the candidate. Here is the decision, Nader v Serody, 09-cv-906.
Later evidence revealed that Pennsylvania Democrats used state employees, on state time, for their challenge. They also used state computers for the work of readying the challenge. Some Pennsylvania legislative employees, and even one legislator, were later sent to prison for this. The Pennsylvania state courts had ordered Nader to pay costs before any of this had become known. But the D.C. Court of Appeals said if there is any injustice, the injustice lies in the Pennsylvania state courts, and the federal system requires D.C. bank officials to enforce orders of courts from outside the District in such cases.
Ironically, the D.C. Court of Appeals took so long to decide this case, that even more revelations about the 2004 Pennsylvania process came out after the hearing in D.C. The D.C. hearing was on April 21, 2010, and the judges took over two years to decide the case.
On April 26, the Michigan Judicial Selection Task Force recommended unanimously that Michigan change its method of electing State Supreme Court Justices. Michigan and Ohio are the only states in which parties nominate candidates for the State Supreme Court, and then voters elect them, but no party labels are permitted on the ballot.
Here is the report of the Task Force. The Michigan system has been in place since 1963. Not all members of the State Supreme Court must run in partisan elections. Justices who are running for re-election need not go through the partisan system. But justices who are running for their first term must be nominated in state party conventions. Voters are kept somewhat in the dark, however, because in the multi-candidate elections held after the party conventions, party labels are omitted from the ballot.
Qualified minor parties have the same right to nominate candidates for Supreme Court Justice, and when minor parties do nominate such candidates, they usually get a very large vote. For instance, in 2010, Libertarian nominee Bob Roddis received 262,654 votes, whereas no statewide Libertarian nominee running in a race with party labels received more than 79,407 votes. But the large vote for Roddis didn’t give the Libertarian Party of Michigan any increased attention or status, because virtually no one knew that Roddis had been the Libertarian nominee.
A majority of task force members recommends continued election of State Supreme Court Justices, without involvement by party conventions. A minority favors gubernatorial appointment, with input from neutral bodies so as to limit unfettered discretion by Governors. Thanks to Steve Shumaker for the link.
