Very early in the morning of February 19, California legislators promised to pass ACA 6, by Assemblymember Charles Calderon. In return, Senator Abel Maldonado promised to vote for the state budget. As a result, ACA 6 will appear on a special election in May 2009.
ACA 6 converts elections for state office so that the election itself will be in June of even-numbered years. All voters will get the same ballot, and that ballot will contain the names of all candidates. The ballot will contain the party membership of each candidate. Based on past experience with the blanket primary, in 85% of all California state elections, one person gets a majority of the vote in such elections. When no one gets 50%, there will be a run-off in November between the top two vote-getters.
It seems likely the voters will vote “Yes”, because popular opinion in California is extremely negative toward state government just now, because of the longstanding dispute over the state budget.
Note that the ACA 6 system is not the same as the “top-two” system used in Washington state. In Washington state, the first round is not an election, because no one can be elected in the first round. In Washington, the first round is merely a ballot access barrier. All elections in Washington are in November.
UPDATE: it turns out that the California legislature has not explicitly promised to pass ACA 6, and the final details are not settled yet. It is possible the deal will involve putting a “top-two” system on the May 2009 ballot instead. FURTHER UPDATE: the New York Times says the measure would go on the ballot in June 2010, not May 2009, which contradicts other news reports. Check back.
California’s ACA 6 is like Louisiana’s system for state and local elections. Louisiana, which also has party registration, also puts each candidate’s party affiliation on the ballot.
Washington state’s “top two” also applies to congressional elections.
Richard: Is ACA 6 a proposed constitutional amendment? If so, the ballot measure would, of course, be a referendum.
ACA 6 is a constitutional amendment.
Sacramento Bee is reporting that ACA6 would appear on the June 2010 ballot. The amendment itself is silent on dates.
This will kill third parties.
I don’t konw how much hope we could have for proportional represenation in CA if we’re electing all state offices like this.
Joel, we don’t have proportional representation in CA now anyway.
If ACA6 states that a 50% +1 candidate in June is “elected,” then it violates federal law, if applied to congressional races. Here is the U.S. Supreme Court’s summary of FOSTER, GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. v. LOVE ET AL. (1997):
Since 1978, Louisiana has held in October of a federal election year an “open primary” for congressional offices, in which all candidates, regardless of party, appear on the same ballot and all voters are entitled to vote. If a candidate for a given office receives a majority at the open primary, the candidate “is elected” and no further act is done on federal election day to fill that office. Since this system went into effect, over 80% of the State’s contested congressional elections have ended as a matter of law with the open primary. Respondents, Louisiana voters, challenged this primary as a violation of federal law. Finding no conflict between the state and federal statutes, the District Court granted summary judgment to petitioners, the State’s Governor and secretary of state. The Fifth Circuit reversed.
Held: Louisiana’s statute conflicts with federal law to the extent that it is applied to select a congressional candidate in October.
Michael, I’m aware of the fact we don’t have PR now, but I think eventually we will with the increasing number of municipalities adopting alternative voting systems, and the developing movement for a constitutional convention in CA.
This proposed “blanket primary” is not as good as the one that we used to have in California; the one that allowed the nominees of all parties to go on to the general election. It is, however, better that Washington’s terrible “top two” system.
It is my humble opinion that we should stay with our current system (although I did like the older “blanket primary” and that would work for me as well).
What I meant to write was “better than,” not “better that.”
Phil Sawyer Says:
February 21st, 2009 at 10:19 am
The bottom line is that a “top two†system that does not allow the nominees of all political parties to go on to the general election is a very terrible thing.
If the California voters are somehow tricked into voting in such a “top two†system (which I do not think will happen), then the smaller political parties – including the Republican Party in the year 2012 because that ship is sinking fast – will need to start working better together and form temporary coalition candidates that will oppose the Democratic Party candidates.
#8: “[The California proposal is] better than Washington’s terrible “top two†system.”
Say what? Like the Washington state “top two,” the California measure (1) applies to both state and congressional elections, (2) lists all candidates, including independents, on the same ballot, and (3) ALWAYS has a runoff between the top two vote-getters, regardless of party.
The California proposal is indeed terrible, because it’s practically a carbon copy of the Washington “top two.”
Well, it depends upon what the actual bill says. There has been a lot of confusion about this lately.
Phil Sawyer Says:
February 21st, 2009 at 10:19 am
The bottom line is that a “top two†system that does not allow the nominees of all political parties to go on to the general election is a very terrible thing.
If the California voters are somehow tricked into voting in such a “top two†system (which I do not think will happen), then the smaller political parties – including the Republican Party in the year 2012 because that ship is sinking fast – will need to start working better together and form temporary coalition candidates that will oppose the Democratic Party candidates.