In June 2010, Californians will be voting for the second time on the “top-two” election system. Californians voted on it in November 2004, and defeated it 54%-46%. A detailed look at the 2010 ballot measure shows that it is significantly less respectful of voter rights than the 2004 California proposal had been.

1. The November 2004 proposal did not curtail the ability of voters to cast a write-in vote for anyone they wished in general elections. By contrast, the 2010 proposal says, “8606. A person whose name has been written on the ballot as a write-in candidate at the general election for a voter-nominated office shall not be counted.” If this passes, California would be one of only 7 states in which no voter could cast a write-in vote for Congress or state office in a November election, and have that write-in counted. Hawaii, South Dakota, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Nevada are the only states that never print write-in space on general election ballots for Congress and state office. Also, Mississippi prints write-in space, but won’t count the write-ins unless a candidate whose name is on the ballot dies or withdraws.

The termination of write-in voting is especially disappointing, given that three times, Californians have elected someone to Congress by write-in votes at the general election, in 1930, 1946, and 1982.

2. The 2004 California initiative eased the requirements for a party to remain ballot-qualified. It lowered the number of registered members a party needs qualify initially, from 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, to one-third of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. This was to compensate for the fact that under “top-two”, parties don’t have nominees, so the “top-two” measures always automatically eliminate the alternate vote test for a party to remain ballot-qualified. In other words, a party could no longer remain on the ballot by polling 2% for a statewide office in a midterm year, so at least the 2004 measure compensated by lowering the number of registrants a party needs.

By contrast, the 2010 ballot measure does not alter the definition of “qualified party”, so if it becomes law, the only way a party will be able to remain on the ballot will be to have registration above 1% of the last gubernatorial vote. Currently that requirement is 88,991 registrants, but after 2010 it is likely to be close to 100,000 registrants. In October 2008 the Peace & Freedom Party only had 56,350 registrants, and the Libertarian Party only had 83,574, so both parties would need to significantly increase their registration, if the 2010 measure passes.

New York, and half the other states, permit independent candidates to choose a partisan label that may be printed on the ballot next to the independent candidate’s name. The other states confine independent candidates to just the word “independent.”

In 2005, Jimmy McMillan ran as an independent candidate for Mayor of New York city, with the ballot label “Rent is Too Damn High.” This year, McMillan again petitioned successfully for a place on the ballot, and he asked for the same label. But the New York City Board of Elections told him his label cannot be longer than 15 letters. When he didn’t respond, the Board on its own motion printed “Rent is Too High.” McMillan is asking the Board to change that to “Rent is 2 Damn High”, but since the absentee ballots have already been printed, the Board will probably refuse to alter the label. See this New York Times story.

On October 6, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed bill 18-345 on first reading. It changes many election laws, and lets people register to vote on election day. It does not improve ballot access, even though the District of Columbia requires more signatures for an independent presidential candidate, or the nominee of an unqualified party, than any state, excepting Oklahoma, North Carolina and Wyoming.

The bill will receive a second reading on November 3, and it could still be amended between now and then.