California Fight on Whether Prop. 14 Ballot Title Should Include “Greater Participation in Elections”

Proposition 14 will be on the June 8, 2010 ballot in California. It provides for a “top-two open primary”. The original language that was to appear on the ballot was: “Elections. Primaries. Greater Participation in Elections”, all in bold print. Then, in smaller print, “Reforms the primary election process for congressional, statewide and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference.”

On March 2, Allen D. Clark, a union official, had sued to overturn that language. He proposed, “Elections. Primaries”, in bold print. Then, “Changes primary election process for congressional, legislative and statewide races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Does not require candidates to disclose their registered political party preference. Eliminates political parties’ rights to be on the general election ballot. Ensures that only the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of their registered political party preference. Does not change primary election for President, party committee officers, and nonpartisan offices.”

On March 5, the legislature and the plaintiff agreed to settle out-of-court. The compromise settlement was for this language: “Elections. Primaries.” (in bold print). Then, “Changes the primary election process for congressional, statewide and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. A candidate may choose to have his or her party preference, or lack thereof, indicated on the ballot. Provides that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference. Eliminates the existing constitutional right of a political party that participated in the primary election to participate in the general election.”

The proponents of Proposition 14 do not agree with this compromise and have obtained a court hearing, set for March 9, to intervene in the lawsuit. As will be noted, the biggest difference between the various versions is that the proponents of Proposition 14 want to have “Greater Participation in Elections” as part of the Title of the measure (not just the description of it on the ballot, but as part of the name). However, when Washington state first used a top-two open primary in 2008, primary turnout was lower than it had been in 2004, when Washington used a classic open primary. Also, when Louisiana first used a top-two system for state office in 1975, turnout was lower than it had been in the closed Democratic primary of November 6, 1971, and turnout in 1979 was also lower than it had been in 1971.

California Fight on Whether Prop. 14 Ballot Title Should Include "Greater Participation in Elections"

Proposition 14 will be on the June 8, 2010 ballot in California. It provides for a “top-two open primary”. The original language that was to appear on the ballot was: “Elections. Primaries. Greater Participation in Elections”, all in bold print. Then, in smaller print, “Reforms the primary election process for congressional, statewide and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference.”

On March 2, Allen D. Clark, a union official, had sued to overturn that language. He proposed, “Elections. Primaries”, in bold print. Then, “Changes primary election process for congressional, legislative and statewide races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Does not require candidates to disclose their registered political party preference. Eliminates political parties’ rights to be on the general election ballot. Ensures that only the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of their registered political party preference. Does not change primary election for President, party committee officers, and nonpartisan offices.”

On March 5, the legislature and the plaintiff agreed to settle out-of-court. The compromise settlement was for this language: “Elections. Primaries.” (in bold print). Then, “Changes the primary election process for congressional, statewide and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. A candidate may choose to have his or her party preference, or lack thereof, indicated on the ballot. Provides that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference. Eliminates the existing constitutional right of a political party that participated in the primary election to participate in the general election.”

The proponents of Proposition 14 do not agree with this compromise and have obtained a court hearing, set for March 9, to intervene in the lawsuit. As will be noted, the biggest difference between the various versions is that the proponents of Proposition 14 want to have “Greater Participation in Elections” as part of the Title of the measure (not just the description of it on the ballot, but as part of the name). However, when Washington state first used a top-two open primary in 2008, primary turnout was lower than it had been in 2004, when Washington used a classic open primary. Also, when Louisiana first used a top-two system for state office in 1975, turnout was lower than it had been in the closed Democratic primary of November 6, 1971, and turnout in 1979 was also lower than it had been in 1971.

Washington State Legislature Fails to Pass Bill to Force One Remaining County to Use All-Mail Ballots

In Washington state, each county decides for itself whether to use all-mail ballots, or whether to retain polling places. For some time, Pierce County (which includes Tacoma) has been the only county still using polling places. The Washington house had passed HB 1572 earlier this year to convert the entire state to mail ballots, but the Senate did not get to the bill, and now the legislative deadlines for passing bills have passed. See this story.

Ben Westlund, Former Oregon Independent Senator, Dies

Ben Westlund, a former independent State Senator in Oregon, and an independent candidate for Governor in 2006, died on March 7. At the time of his death, he was the elected State Treasurer of Oregon. He had started his career as a Republican, had switched to being an independent, and then had become a Democrat. See here.

As a Senator, Westlund authored a bill to repeal the Oregon primary screenout. A “primary screenout” is a law saying primary voters may not sign an independent candidate’s petition. The Oregon legislature had passed that law in 2005, but in 2007 Senator Westlund tried to get it repealed. It was finally repealed in 2009.

Westlund qualified for the ballot as an independent candidate for Governor in 2006, but complying with the law was so expensive, he dropped out of the race before turning in his county-verified signatures to the Secretary of State, because petitioning had eaten up so much of his campaign funds.

Second Major Alabama Newspaper Editorializes in Favor of Ballot Access Reform

A ballot access improvement bill, HB 142, is pending in the Alabama legislature. The bill has already received editorial support twice from Birmingham’s daily newspaper, the Birmingham News. On March 8, the Montgomery daily newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser, also editorialized in favor of the bill. Here is that editorial.