California newspaper reporters and political columnists have mentioned recently that Californians will be voting on the “top-two” system in June 2010. These articles constantly repeat the idea that the California legislature is now filled with ideologues of the left and right, and that “top-two” will replace them with “moderates” (these articles also constantly refer to “top-two” as “the open primary”).

History suggests that “top-two” won’t replace “ideologues” with “moderates”. In 1996, the voters of California passed an initiative for the “blanket primary”, and that system was used in the primaries of 1998 and 2000. The “blanket primary” is identical to the “top-two” system, in the operation of the primary and the primary ballot. In both systems, all primary voters get an identical ballot, a ballot that lists all candidates of all parties (although under the blanket primary, independents did not run in the primary). The big difference between the blanket primary and top-two is that in a blanket primary system, the top vote-getter from each party goes on the November ballot.

In the California 1998 primary, not one incumbent state legislator was defeated for re-nomination. If the proponents of a top-two primary were correct, there should have been many state legislators defeated in the 1998 primary. After all, the primaries of 1996 (which had elected all Assemblymembers) and the primaries of 1994 and 1996 (which had elected all Senators), were completely closed. Independent voters could not vote in those primaries.

Top-two proponents say that California legislative districts are so gerrymandered, the same party always wins the general election for state legislature. They also say that the “ideologues” win the primaries because the “moderate” independents are locked out of the primaries. But, the evidence from 1998 disputes that.

Another piece of evidence is found in the fact that California allows recall elections with the nation’s easiest procedures. Yet, there are no viable recall petitions proceding against any California state legislator, on behalf of the “moderates” who feel their own legislator is an “ideologue” or “extremist”. When California holds a recall election, it simultaneously holds an election to replace the office-holder, just in case the office-holder is recalled. These special elections that are simultaneous with recalls are conducted under the top-two model (except there is no run-off). Every voter receives the same ballot, and it lists the candidates from all parties. Whoever gets the most votes wins. The reason there are no recall petitions circulating is because people know that California state legislators, “extreme” or not, generally represent public opinion in their own district.

Almost all California Republican legislators are opposed to raising taxes. Their own districts support them. Almost all California Democratic legislators are opposed to cutting benefits for the poor, or for education. Their own districts support them. Changing to a top-two system will not cause state legislators to be replaced with different kinds of legislators.

A final piece of evidence that top-two won’t change the identity of California state elected officisls is that each of the two most recent Governors of California was elected in a system very like top-two, in their first election to office. Current Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in the 2003 recall election, and previous Governor Gray Davis was elected in the blanket primary of 1998.

On July 14, the San Juan County Green Party in Washington state, and four voters, asked the Washington State Supreme Court to stop the practice of printing unique bar codes on ballots, in the 24 counties where that is done. The case is White v Reed, no. 83342-7. Here is the complaint. The lead plaintiff is Tim White, a member of the Green Party who was recently the Cemetary District Commissioner for Orcas Island, an elected non-partisan post.

The lawsuit asks the State Supreme Court to take the case without first requiring it to be heard in lower courts. However, in case that request is denied, there is a parallel case pending in lower state court in San Juan County, called White v Henley.

Washington state has 39 counties, and 15 of them do not print unique bar codes on individual ballots. The lawsuit depends on the state Constitution, which says that the Legislature will “provide for such method of voting as will secure to every elector absolute secrecy in preparing and depositing his ballot.” Thanks to Brent McMillan for this news.

The Los Angeles Times has this story about the U.S. District Court hearing in Alan Keyes v Barack Obama, cv09-82, held on July 13 in the Central District of California (in Santa Ana). The case, brought by attorney Orly Taitz, argues that President Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President should be evaluated. U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter, a Clinton appointee, asked the U.S. attorneys present in court to work with Taitz to see that the Defendants are properly served, so that the case can proceed.

The plaintiffs in the case now are Alan Keyes, Wiley S. Drake, and Markham Robinson of the American Independent Party. Taitz plans to add some co-plaintiffs who are members of the U.S. military, to fend off the opposition’s inevitable argument that Keyes, Drake and Robinson lack standing. Members of the military are already plaintiffs in certain other cases concerning the constitutional qualifications, on the theory that they need not obey orders if the Commander-in-Chief does not meet the constitutional qualifications.