Here is the exact language that from SCA 4:

“Nothing in this measure shall restrict the parties’ right to contribute to, endorse, or otherwise support a candidate for state elective or congressional office. Political parties may establish such procedures as they see fit to endorse or support candidates or otherwise participate in all elections, and they may informally “nominate” candidates for election to voter-nominated offices at a party convention or by whatever lawful mechanism they so choose, other than at state-conducted primary elections.”

They may endorse or informally “nominate” candidates, but the State of California will not recognize that candidate as a “nominee” on the ballots published by the government.

Remember that Dennis Kucinich was prevented from appearing on the ballot in Texas because he wouldn’t pledge to support the “nominee” of the Democratic party.

SCA 4/SB 6 does not change the mechanism by which California appoints its presidential electors. But if California wanted to have the same candidates on the presidential ballot as other States, they could simply have an open presidential primary in which any candidate could run, and any candidate who received a certain percentage of the vote would appear on the November ballot.

I contacted the gubernatorial candidates, but none has responded, and one of them even quit the race.

#32. I have never seen a decision that was specific to congressional elections, and the decisions were all related to the qualification standard in which candidates qualified for the election on the basis of partisan nomination.

Further, Judge Coughenour has dismissed the ballot access claims by the Libertarian and Republican parties.

Scalia was writing for the majority in Jones In the Washington case, Justice Thomas writing for the Court wrote “Petitioners are correct that we assumed that the nonpartisan primary we described in Jones would be constitutional.”

Note his use of “we”.

#33 Webster’s definition is in incomplete. The winners of partisan primaries are “partisan-voter-nominated”. When you refer to the electorate as a whole, you don’t need to qualify it, as you do when you refer to a restricted subset of the voters.

“voters… nominate…”

Thus the winners of party primaries are indeed “voter-nominated” candidates.

This is why I predict that, if Washington state wants to keep using the “top two” for congressional elections, it will ultimately have to have the first round for those elections on the first Tuesday in November. If the state wants to have a runoff, that will have to come at a later date.

The timing of congressional elections is one more defect in the California “top two” proposal.

You keep referring to what Justice Scalia wrote about the “top two” in California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000). I would remind you that Scalia opposed the Washington state “top two” in the March 2008 ruling.

“But instead of a first election to choose party nominees; it would be to choose the nominees of the voters.”

You have a strange definition for “nominees.” Suppose the parties decided to nominate candidates in advance of the first round of the “top two.” Would the top two vote-getters in the first round then be considered to be twice-nominated?

The purpose of the first round of the “top two” is to winnow the field to two candidates. In their book Primary Elections, incidentally, Merriam and Overacker refer to this as a “double election.”

“There should be no way to keep candidates from running for office assuming that they meet minimal qualifications.”

Anyone who seeks a party’s nomination is indeed “running for office.” If you don’t believe it, ask Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney.

“There should be no assurance that a party… has a candidate in the general election.”

Well, let’s see now. In all 50 states, each qualified party has the power to have a presidential candidate in the general election.

In 49 states– all but Washington– each qualified party is authorized to have a candidate for the US Senate and each US House seat in the general election.

In 48 states– all but Washington and Louisiana– each qualified party is empowered to have a candidate for all or most state offices in the general election.

So if you’re going to reverse this trend, you’ve got one helluva job ahead of you.

“There should be no assurance that there won’t be two candidates from the same party in the general election.”

Why not? Again, given the numbers I’ve cited above, you’ve got a lot of work ahead of you (BTW, the second round of the “top two” is a runoff general election, but I digress).

“You are identifying features of Top 2, not defects.”

I’ve identified defective features of the “top two.”

“The national and California Republican parties supported different presidential candidates in 1912. Are you lamenting the destruction of the Whigs?”

Yes, and a Democrat won the 1912 presidential election, didn’t he? That’s what usually happens when a party is split in the general election– it loses.

The Whigs went out of existence in the mid-1850s. What’s your point?

I keep wondering, Jim, when you’re going to tell at least one member of the Texas legislature about the glories of your beloved “top two.” Don’t you think your fellow Texans have suffered under the yoke of party primaries long enough?

It would be a misnomer to call a system in which only one candidate was nominated a “Top 2″ system. I’m not sure why you ended your sentence with a question mark.

“Would that be a case of a “vote-nominated” candidate enjoying his or her right to a relaxing general election?”

Why do you suggest that a voter-nominated candidate has a right to a relaxing general election?

““Voter-nominated” begs the question, which voters?”

The voters collectively, without regard to their party affiliation or that of the candidates. All voters may participate in both the primary and the general election.

“If I vote for a Libertarian in the first round, have I nominated that candidate?”

His party affiliation would not have anything to do with it. Since nomination is a collective activity, you could not individually nominate a candidate. You could vote for that person as part of the nomination process.

“Why is it that aggregates of 30% of the voters are needed before a candidate can be considered “voter-nominated?””

The standard of two candidates qualifying is somewhat arbitrary, but it does have the property that the general election will be decisive. If you have 3 candidates, then there is a possibility of a 3 candidates with around 30% of the vote. Justice Scalia in Jones used “two” and “whatever”, indicating that two is one possibility, but that a State might well choose another number.

It is what Nebraska has used for its non-partisan primaries for the past 70-odd years, and it is what is used for most cities that use non-partisan primaries. When San Francisco first considered going away from plurality election (around 1970), they considered switching to a Top 2 primary system. They later switched to a runoff for mayor, and eventually applied it to other single-member offices.

If I were choosing the standard, I might use something like 2 candidates if collectively they had 2/3 of the vote, 3 if they had 3/4, and in general N candidates if they had N/(N+1) share of the vote.

Or they might have been comparing turnout for the election, and ignoring that at least 4.4% of voters in the general election did not vote in the senatorial race.

I used the results on the Georgia Secretary of State web site.

#27/23 I don’t understand what your point is. #23 was discussing terminology. California would continue to hold a primary election in June (the date is set by law, it was held in March just a few years ago).

But instead of a first election to choose party nominees; it would be to choose the nominees of the voters.

#27/24 The “Crawford County System” was a way to conduct primary meetings and county conventions. Democratic organizations in other counties continued to use the primary meetings in townships to elect delegates to county conventions where nominations were actually made. Those delegates may or may not have been instructed to support particular candidates.

Some township primary meetings in 1842 passed resolutions opposing the “Crawford County System” arguing that the general election was the best place for settling intra-party disputes.

Under SCA 4/SB 6, parties could not “nominate” candidates, (ie they could not designate which candidates names appear on the ballot). They may endorse candidates, and the State would pay for the publication and dissemination of those endorsements to the voters prior to the election. They would not be restricted to endorsing members of the party. They could also provide material support in the primary, which political parties often decline to do.

There should be no way to keep candidates from running for office assuming that they meet minimal qualifications.

There should be no assurance that a party (or faction) has a candidate in the general election.

There should be no assurance that there won’t be two candidates from the same party in the general election.

You are identifying features of Top 2, not defects.

The national and California Republican parties supported different presidential candidates in 1912. Are you lamenting the destruction of the Whigs?

In advance of the first round of the “top two,” a party may endorse/nominate candidate(s) by any method that it chooses. It may, at its own expense, even conduct a party primary. But there’s no legal way in the “top two” to prevent other candidates from that party from also running in the first round, and there’s no assurance that a party will have a candidate in the runoff. There’s also no assurance that the two runoff candidates won’t be from the same party.

Another feature of the “top two” is that a national party and its state affiliate may support opposing candidates in the same election– as has happened in Louisiana.

#25: The article that I saw said that the turnout in GA’s December 2008 runoff for US senator was 54% of the November turnout.

#23: “California would be switching to a voter-nominated primary.”

And I suppose that those who participate in party primaries are Martians??

EVIL bad old days – NO secrecy of the ballot — party hacks watching how you vote — vote wrong — get purged — lose jobs, get harassed, etc.

Chambliss received 66% as many votes in the runoff as he did in the general election, Martin 52% as many.