A large chunk of SB 6 is to recast the current voter registration status, which is not “party member” but rather “intent to affiliate with the party at the next primary”. But now a voter will “disclose his party preference”. Instead of declining to state which party he will affiliate with, an “independent” voter will choose to not disclose his party preference.

But the rest of the party registration code remains intact. And in California one is entirely free to express an intent to affiliate with a non-qualified party. If a party is disqualified, the voter affiliation does not change. There are likely thousands of voters who have expressed through their voter registration their intent to vote in the Natural Law Party primary next June. And the only practical way to qualify a new party is by voters first to register with the party. The laws that require county election officials to scan through their voter rolls and find registrants of various non-qualified parties is not changed. Currently, the Anarchy and Poverty Party, Christian Party, Free Parliamentary Party, Golden State Party, More Money for Women Party, New World Party People for Direct Democracy Party, Reform Party, and Utopia Manifesto Party are attempting to qualify. Only the Reform Party has a significant number of registrants. Second is the Christian Party with 100 voters who have expressed their intent to affiliate with the party at the next primary.

So clearly voters may express a preference for a non-qualified party, and that preference is not changed merely through disqualification of the party.

A candidate for office will be able to indicate on the ballot, their party preference or lack thereof that they had previously disclosed. So a voter could disclose a preference for the Constitution Party, and then run for office with his previously disclosed preference indicated on the ballot (one provision of SB 6 requires 10 years of party registration history to be posted on the county election web sites).

True, the law could be revised. But it might be something that either the California or Federal Courts would overturn. “What is the role of the Democratic and Republican, etc. parties?” “To hold presidential primaries and nominate presidential candidates. They may not nominate candidates for statewide, federal, or county offices.” “So what is the purpose of this law?” “To restrict candidates to expressing a preference for only certain parties that may not nominate them.” “Isn’t this just a subterfuge to get around the constitution?” “Err…”

Since participation in the primary is open to all voters and candidates without regard to party preference, how can the State by law add a restriction? Since expression of a party preference is not an indication of endorsement or nomination it would seem like the State would have to be careful about restricting the 1st Amendment right of a candidate to express his preference for any party.

As to (1), the petition requirements for qualifying for the open primary are the same as the current requirements for the partisan primaries. Why would they be changed, if they haven’t already been?

BTW, Washington’s Top 2 primary is entirely in statute. There was a proposed bill by the Secretary of State that would restrict candidate preferences to minor parties that had petitioned (100 signatures). Washington does not have party registration, so the only way to maintain major party status is through performance in the presidential election.

Under the California proposal, (2) would become a huge problem as small parties lose ballot status. Unlike Washington, this proposal doesn’t let you state that you are a member of a party that doesn’t have ballot status.

But, at the start, (1) would not be much of a problem because the signature requirements are so friendly to ballot access concerns. What is important about (1) is that it is part of the statute, not the constitutional amendment. It could, and almost certainly would, be amended very quickly. Then it would become clear that this proposal effectively eliminates small parties.

I think that Jim Riley is right and I was wrong (#8) on this point. Thank you.

Washington also elects 3 legislators from each legislative district, one senator and two house members, so that there may be less challenges of incumbents. A newcomer could simply wait for one of the seats to open up (if a senatorial seat opens up, it is common for one of the representatives to seek the senate seat, which opens up the representative seat).

So Washington had a system where legislators had become successful at appealing to a broad range of interests in their district. Incumbents were rarely defeated. Remember that these nominally partisan legislators passed the Top 2 primary, only to have it blocked by Governor Gary Locke’s ill-advised veto. It was only after the veto that the Washington Grange started their initiative petition drive.

Many legislators were elected in 2000 and 2002 under the blanket primary, in 2004 and 2006 under the pick a party primary, and under the Top 2 primary in 2008. It would be either naive, disingenuous, or dishonest to expect large differences.

And of course, the Supreme Court ruling did not come down until March 18, 2008. There was a certain degree of uncertainty about the use of the Top 2, as the political parties continued to litigate as part of their FUD campaign. It would be unrealistic to expect strongly funded or supported candidates to seek election under a system that might changed.

In the limited cases where there were open seats, the system did work to the extent that it permitted all voters to participate in the election of the new legislature.

Top 2 is one more distraction dreamed up by populist MORONS.

P.R. and A.V. — NO party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions are needed.

Richard Winger wrote: “In reality, independent voters may vote in California Democratic primaries for all office, and in California Republican primaries for all office except President.

You are arguing that it is irrational for the political parties to continue to do so.

I’m simply suggesting that “independent” voters can not and should not depend on the privilege (certainly not a right) to vote in partisan primaries when it is up to the discretion (or whim) of the political parties to do so, and where the current practice may be irrational.

Choice 1) Independent voters may participate in all elections for all statewide and congressional offices (county elections in California are already nonpartisan).

Choice 2) Independent voters may participate in elections that in many cases effectively choose who takes office, only at the discretion of the political parties. In some cases, they may have to choose between voting for the Democratic nominee for Congress
or the Republican nominee for the Assembly.

So a party whose registration was below 1% of the previous gubernatorial vote would not qualify to conduct a presidential preference primary; nor be able to elect its party officers at the June primary; nor would it be able to have a sample ballot with any endorsements distributed to its affiliated voters.

The requirement that political parties choose their party officers in a public primary likely would not withstand a court challenge.

And the state parties may currently disregard the results of the presidential preference primary. In 2008, the Democratic, Libertarian, Green, and American Independent parties did not place the winner of their presidential primary on the general election ballot).

So how important is it that a political party be able to have a presidential preference primary?

Given the ease by which a candidate may qualify for the gubernatorial or presidential ballot, how likely is that the current standard for qualifying as an independent presidential candidate would stand up in court?

Wouldn’t it be better to reform the presidential ballot qualification process, rather than to retain the partisan “nomination” of State Treasurer candidates so that minor parties can maintain a place on the presidential ballot?

Second, it weakens the motives voters have to register as members of a party. Let’s rephrase this to: “it removes the requirement that voters affiliate with a political party in order to fully participate in the electoral process, and permits voters
to freely exercise their 1st Amendment political association rights without State interference or coercion.”

Under California’s system, a party registrant is not a member of party, but rather simply expressing an intent to affiliate with at the next primary election (see Elections Code 2151). As you well know, there is no requirement that a voter affiliate with a “qualified” party, and even if a party becomes de-qualified a voter’s party affiliation does not change.

SB 6, passed by the legislature and approved by the governor in February is the enabling election for the opening primary. It will become operative when (if) the voters approved the Constitutional amendment.

SB 6 recasts voter registration from “intent to affiliate at the next (party) primary” to a “disclosure of party preference”, but does not otherwise change the general concepts of party affiliation. For example, whether a party is “qualified” (to hold a presidential preference primary, elect party officers, and have a presidential candidate on the general election ballot depends (in part) on the percentage of voters who express a preference for the party. Similarly, a voter may express a preference for a non-qualified party. Just as a voter may now continue to express an intent to affiliate with the Natural Law Party at the next primary, they may disclose a preference for the Natural Law Party.

When a candidate files a declaration of candidacy, they have a choice of having the party preference that they disclosed on their voter registration printed on the ballot, or to have it omitted.

Read through the current Elections code and also SB 6, and see if you can find anything that would restrict a party preference to an established or “qualified” party.

SB 6 sets the petition requirement for US representative at 40 signatures. How does that compare with the current requirement for an independent candidate in California?

So in actual fact, the open primary makes it remarkably easier for candidates who do not prefer the established parties to run for office.

Elias’ e-mail to me:

Thanks for your note, Mr. Julian, but freedom is not an issue here. All minor parties are completely free to run candidates in primary elections, voicing all their views. And if they are sufficiently appealing to enough voters, they will begin to make runoff elections. But there would be no more crutch for them in the form of a guaranteed November forum, even if their views are so far from the mainstream that they would have no hope of making a runoff on their own merits.

That’s not a lack of freedom; rather it’s a wakeup call to minor parties to become relevant or be consigned to primaries only. Plus, there would be no minor parties to siphon off votes from significant candidates and throw elections out of whack, the way Ralph Nader did in 2000 and the way occasional minor party candidates have done in other past elections. That would also be an improvement.

Again, this is not a freedom issue; it’s a matter of forcing parties to become truly relevant if they want to play a role in runoff elections.

tom elias
Tdelias@aol.com