The Center for Government Studies has issued this 102-page report on California’s Proposition 14, the “top-two” ballot measure on the June 8, 2010 ballot. The study, by Molly Milligan, studies whether Proposition 14 would create more moderate California politicians. The study suggests that the measure would tend to create more moderates in the State Senate.

The study also finds that campaign spending would increase, because many candidates who now have a completely safe primary process would need to spend enough money to win twice before the entire electorate. The study also says, on page 17, in footnote 11, that in the Massachusetts special U.S. Senate election of January 2010, if Massachusetts had used top-two, Scott Brown would not have qualified for the second round. In the real world, Brown won the election.

Finally, the study concludes that there would be a good share of legislative races, and some U.S. House races, in which the November election would be between two Democrats. However, the study does not believe there would be November elections between two Republicans.

The study does not mention that Proposition 14 makes it more difficult for ballot-qualified minor parties to remain ballot-qualified. It makes passing references to the aspects of the measure that eliminate write-in voting, and that make it very unlikely that any minor party or independent candidate would qualify for the November ballot, except in instances at which only one major party member is running. The study does not mention the adverse impact that Proposition 14, if passed, would have on Proposition 15, the public funding measure. Finally, the study does not mention the problem of no party labels for candidates who are members of unqualified parties.

The San Luis Obispo Tribune has this op-ed in the April 8 edition, about California’s Proposition 14. It is by Michael Latner, assistant professor of political science at Cal Poly. The title is “California Needs More Moderates.”