Thomas D. Elias has this op-ed in favor of the “top-two” system in the June 17 issue of the Long Beach, California, Press-Telegram. The op-ed has several important factual errors.

The op-ed says the system is “just like special elections”, but in California, special legislative and U.S. House elections are not like “top-two”. The first round in California special elections is an election. An election is defined as an event that can elect someone. The first round in the California “top-two” proposal is never an election. No one can be elected in the first round under “top-two.” The first round is nothing but an exclusionary device to keep candidates off the general election ballot.

The op-ed says under current California law, “voters can only cast ballots (in the primary) for candidates in the party where they’re registered.” In reality, independent voters may vote in California Democratic primaries for all office, and in California Republican primaries for all office except President.

The op-ed says the California legislature is “loaded with ideologues”, but the op-ed doesn’t say who they are. Proponents of “top-two” constantly make this claim but they never have the nerve to list which legislators they mean.

The op-ed says Louisiana has been using “top-two” “for more than 50 years”. Louisiana started using its current system for state office (in which there are no party primaries) 34 years ago. Also the Louisiana system is not quite the same as “top-two” because in Louisiana, the first round is an election.

Elias ignores all evidence of how “top-two” worked in Washington state in 2008, the first time it had been used there. Only one incumbent state legislator (out of 124 seats that were up) was defeated in the primary, and the percentage of Washington state legislative seats that switched parties was lower than in California that same year. Also, Washington state’s first “top-two” primary, in 2008, had a lower voter turnout than in 2004, when Washington state used a classic open primary. “Top-two” proponents commonly assert that turnout increases under “top-two”, but ignore the actual evidence.

On June 18, the Tennessee legislature adjourned for the year. The only interesting election law bill that passed was SB 547, which expanded the size of the State Election Commission, so that Republicans could have a majority on that commission.

Bills that didn’t pass included bills to provide for registration by party, to require voters at the polls to show government photo ID, to require new registrants to submit documents proving that they are citizens, to elect the Secretary of State and the Lieutenant Governor, and to provide for no-excuse absentee voting.

Current law requires vote-counting machines to create a paper trail, effective in 2010. A bill to postpone implementation of that rule to 2012 had been expected to pass, but it did not pass.

No bills were introduced in 2009 to ease procedures for new and previously unqualified parties to get on the ballot. The legislature seems unaware of the pending federal lawsuit filed in January 2008 by the Libertarian, Constitution and Green Parties of Tennessee, challenging those requirements, which are so strict they haven’t been used since 1968. That lawsuit has long been stalled because the Attorney General’s office has failed to respond to the answers to its interrogatories, which were filed last year. The attorney for the political parties expects to file a motion for summary judgment next week, since the state seems uninterested in contesting the evidence.

The June 19 issue of the St. Petersburg Times has this editorial, praising the State Supreme Court decision that struck down a law, permitting initiative signers to remove their names months after they have signed the initiative.