On September 29, Steve Peace, a former Democratic State Senator from San Diego, filed a proposed initiative with the California Attorney General that would establish the “top-two” election system in California. The proposal is more similar to Washington state’s “top-two” law, than it is to Oregon’s “top-two” initiative. The California initiative would abolish the practice of asking voters about party membership, on voter registration forms. By contrast, the Oregon initiative, on the ballot in the current election, retains partisan registration.

The California initiative appears to have been drafted hastily and carelessly. It fails to re-define “political party”. Under existing law, the chief means that parties have for getting on the ballot is by persuading people to join that party, as shown on voter registration forms. Since the initiative abolishes partisan registration, one would have expected the initiative to re-define “political party”. However, it does not do that.

The initiative also says that a the list of people who vote in any party’s presidential primary would be given to that party, but not to anyone else. Similar laws have been held unconstitutional this year or last year in Michigan and New Hampshire. The initiative has careless mistakes, such as referring to the existing California elected office known as “Superintendent of Public Instruction” as “Superintendent of Public Education.” The initiative has no intent to change the name of that office, since in other places it refers to the office by its original name.

Here is the text of the initiative. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for the news.

On October 2, the 9th circuit issued an order in Washington State Republican Party v State, 05-35774. The U.S. District Court is directed to “allow the parties to further develop the record with respect to the claim that Initiative 872 unconstitutionally constrains access to the ballot and appropriates the political parties’ trademarks, to the extent these claims have not been waived or disposed of by the Supreme Court.” Thanks to Richard Shepard for this news.

On October 1, at 4 p.m., an employee of the California Secretary of State’s office verbally stated that the Democratic and Republican Parties had not yet submitted their presidential elector candidates, although at that time the deadline was an hour away. A particular activist in a minor party, who was at the Secretary of State’s office at 4 p.m., remained in the office until closing time and believes that they were not filed by 5 p.m. That same activist again visited the Secretary of State’s office on October 2, but no one would discuss the matter. The activist asked for a list of the presidential elector candidates but the office refused to give the list to him.

There would be no practical consequences if the Democratic and Republican Parties were late with their California elector candidates. The ballots are already printed. California absentee ballots are available October 6. But, if it is true that the legal deadline was ignored, that is more reason to grant leniency when minor party and independent presidential candidates make similar mistakes.