Two California journalists, Dan Morain of the Sacramento Bee and Pete Golis of the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, have opined that it is “shameful” for anyone to try and correct the existing Title of California’s Prop. 14, the “top-two open primary.”

The bill that passed Proposition 14, in February 2009, dictated that the title should be “Elections. Primaries. Greater Participation in Elections.” A lawsuit was filed to change that title. The Election Code says the title of ballot measures should be neutral.

“Greater Participation in Elections” is puffery and bears no relation to the truth. California has six ballot-qualified parties, but Proposition 14 says only two candidates may run in the summer and fall season. Obviously, with only two candidates in the last six months of the election season, four (or possibly five) parties will be squeezed out. Proposition 14 even disallows write-ins. It also makes the barriers for a party to remain ballot-qualified considerably more difficult, and would eliminate the Peace & Freedom Party and seriously threaten the Libertarian Party. Finally, when similar systems were implemented in two other states, Louisiana and Washington, primary turnout dropped.

But when a lawsuit was filed to change the Title, and the Defendant (the Legislature) agreed to change the title, the Sacramento Bee described this as “talks to spell the demise of an open primary measure”, something that is “an especially underhanded play”. Dan Morain, the author of this article, then quoted supporters of Proposition 14 as saying the legislature’s action was “frankly embarassing”, and quoted the attorney for Proposition 14 as saying “I must say I have never seen a more cynical or shameful attempted abuse of power.”

The Santa Rosa Press-Democrat picked up that lead. Pete Golis headlined his story, “State lawmakers’ Latest Shame”. He writes, “As politics slips into the ooze…the politicians we elect decide whether government will represent the public’s best interest.” The paper also ran this editorial, echoing the same idea, although the editorial is somewhat more nuanced.

Neither of these articles questions the legitimacy of lawsuits that were filed over the wording of Proposition 8 in 2008, or lawsuits over the wording of the statewide ballot measures in May 2009.

In 2009, a group in Daytona Beach, Florida, set out to qualify three separate city initiatives for the ballot. The group decided that its work would be easier if it could use a packet in which all three petitions were grouped together with carbon paper in-between. That would have made it possible for a voter to sign his or her name and address just once, yet effectively sign all three petitions. The city did not approve the idea, so the group sued. On March 9, the case received oral arguments in Circuit Court in Volusia County. The judge did not decide the issue at the hearing, but will issue an opinion fairly soon.

The group was also prepared to let voters who wished to sign one petition, but not all three, sign a separate petition. The web page of the group that is backing the initiatives is here.

Hawaii HB 2397, which moves the primary from September to August, has a hearing in the Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee on Friday, March 12, at 9:30 a.m. The bill also moves the deadline for a new party to submit its petition from April to February. The bill doesn’t change the law that says such a petition is due 150 days before the primary. But, when the primary moves, the deadline automatically also moves.

Very early petition deadlines for new parties are unconstitutional. No published opinion has ever upheld a deadline for a new party petition, or other procedure to get a new party on the ballot, if that deadline was earlier than May. It would be desirable if HB 2397 were amended to decrease the 150-day requirement. Hawaii certainly doesn’t need 5 months to check a petition of fewer than 1,000 signatures.