Comments on: California Author of “Top-Two Open Primary” Sets Up Organization to Campaign for His Measure http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/12/26/california-author-of-top-two-open-primary-sets-up-organization-to-campaign-for-his-measure/ Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:28:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=7014 By: Gardner Recall http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/12/26/california-author-of-top-two-open-primary-sets-up-organization-to-campaign-for-his-measure/comment-page-1/#comment-783022 Gardner Recall Mon, 04 Jan 2010 04:11:33 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=9691#comment-783022 The citizens of Gardner, KS are currently working to recall two members of their City Council. The recall is tied up in the courts at the moment, but it should go to a vote in March of 2010. The citizens of Gardner, KS are currently working to recall two members of their City Council. The recall is tied up in the courts at the moment, but it should go to a vote in March of 2010.

]]> By: Demo Rep http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/12/26/california-author-of-top-two-open-primary-sets-up-organization-to-campaign-for-his-measure/comment-page-1/#comment-782671 Demo Rep Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:54:02 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=9691#comment-782671 Since many New Age folks are unable to detect P.R. and A.V. in their math challenged so-called brains at the moment, at least the top 2 proposal is a mini-step to help WIPE OUT the party hack regimes. Have perhaps ONE election with top 2 (after defeating the ANTI-Democracy usual suspect party hacks in a zillion court cases) -- with the same old minority rule gerrymander math results -- then go for P.R. and A.V. -- and have top 2 be a footnote in political history. Since many New Age folks are unable to detect P.R. and A.V. in their math challenged so-called brains at the moment, at least the top 2 proposal is a mini-step to help WIPE OUT the party hack regimes.

Have perhaps ONE election with top 2 (after defeating the ANTI-Democracy usual suspect party hacks in a zillion court cases) — with the same old minority rule gerrymander math results — then go for P.R. and A.V. — and have top 2 be a footnote in political history.

]]> By: Steve Rankin http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/12/26/california-author-of-top-two-open-primary-sets-up-organization-to-campaign-for-his-measure/comment-page-1/#comment-782659 Steve Rankin Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:00:04 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=9691#comment-782659 I reviewed <i>Mississippi Democratic Party v. Barbour</i> (2008), and the 5th Circuit notes that the Democrats in 2003 sought preclearance to be able to block Republicans from voting in Democratic primaries. This was allowed by the "challenge" law, but the Dept. of Justice found the party's submission to be too vague. I reviewed Mississippi Democratic Party v. Barbour (2008), and the 5th Circuit notes that the Democrats in 2003 sought preclearance to be able to block Republicans from voting in Democratic primaries. This was allowed by the “challenge” law, but the Dept. of Justice found the party’s submission to be too vague.

]]> By: Jim Riley http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/12/26/california-author-of-top-two-open-primary-sets-up-organization-to-campaign-for-his-measure/comment-page-1/#comment-782657 Jim Riley Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:02:11 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=9691#comment-782657 #20 Changing the persons who are qualified to vote in an election is a change in procedure change that would require preclearance. Just because political parties in covered jurisdictions have failed to do so does not mean that they are not required to do so. Didn't the 5th Circuit tell the Mississippi Democratic Party to change their rules and then seek preclearance? In <i>Tashjian</i> Scalia was willing to address the political association issue, even though he agreed with Stevens about the equivalency of the electorates. #20 Changing the persons who are qualified to vote in an election is a change in procedure change that would require preclearance.

Just because political parties in covered jurisdictions have failed to do so does not mean that they are not required to do so.

Didn’t the 5th Circuit tell the Mississippi Democratic Party to change their rules and then seek preclearance?

In Tashjian Scalia was willing to address the political association issue, even though he agreed with Stevens about the equivalency of the electorates.

]]> By: Jim Riley http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/12/26/california-author-of-top-two-open-primary-sets-up-organization-to-campaign-for-his-measure/comment-page-1/#comment-782656 Jim Riley Tue, 29 Dec 2009 06:51:42 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=9691#comment-782656 #21 Note highlighted text. (a) Purpose. The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act is hereby by the People of California to protect and preserve the right of every Californian to vote for the candidate of his or her choice. This act, <b>along with legislation already enacted by the Legislature to implement this act</b>, are intended to implement an open primary system in California as set forth below. #21 Note highlighted text.

(a) Purpose. The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act is hereby by the People of California to protect and preserve the right of every Californian to vote for the candidate of his or her choice. This act, along with legislation already enacted by the Legislature to implement this act, are intended to implement an open primary system in California as set forth below.

]]> By: Demo Rep http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/12/26/california-author-of-top-two-open-primary-sets-up-organization-to-campaign-for-his-measure/comment-page-1/#comment-782648 Demo Rep Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:31:49 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=9691#comment-782648 CA Top 2 proposal - relevant language ------- First—This measure shall be known and maybe cited as the “Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act.” Second—The People of the State of California hereby find and declare all of the following: (a) Purpose. The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act is hereby by the People of California to protect and preserve the right of every Californian to vote for the candidate of his or her choice. This act, along with legislation already enacted by the Legislature to implement this act, are intended to implement an open primary system in California as set forth below. (b) Top Two Candidate Open Primary. All registered voters otherwise qualified to vote shall be guaranteed the unrestricted right to vote for the candidate of their choice in all state and congressional elections. All candidates for a given state or congressional office shall be listed on a single primary ballot. The top two candidates, as determined by the voters in an open primary, shall advance to a general election in which the winner shall be the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes cast in an open general election. *** (d) Open Candidate Disclosure. At the time they file to run for public office, all candidates shall have the choice to declare a party preference. The preference chosen shall accompany the candidate’s name on both the primary and general election ballots. The names of candidates who choose not to declare a party preference shall be accompanied by the designation “No Party Preference” on both the primary and general election ballots. Selection of a party preference by a candidate for state or congressional office shall not constitute or imply endorsement of the candidate by the party designated, and no candidate for that office shall be deemed the official candidate of any party by virtue of his or her selection in the primary. *** Third—That Section 5 of Article II thereof is amended to read: SEC. 5. (a) A voter-nomination primary election shall be conducted to select the candidates for congressional and state elective offices in California. All voters may vote at a voter-nominated primary election for any candidate for congressional and state elective office without regard to the political party preference disclosed by the candidate or the voter, provided that the voter is otherwise qualified to vote for candidates for the office in question. The candidates who are the top two vote-getters at a voter-nominated primary election for a congressional or state elective office shall, regardless of party preference, compete in the ensuing general election. (b) Except as otherwise provided by Section 6, a candidate for a congressional or state elective office may have his or her political party preference, or lack of political party preference, indicated upon the ballot for the office in the manner provided by statute. A political party or party central committee shall not nominate a candidate for any congressional or state elective office at the voter-nominated primary. This subdivision shall not be interpreted to prohibit a political party or party central committee from endorsing, supporting, or opposing any candidate for a congressional or state elective office. A political party or party central committee shall not have the right to have its preferred candidate participate in the general election for a voter-nominated office other than a candidate who is one of the two highest vote-getters at the primary election, as provided in subdivision (a). *** How many repeats of the top 2 primary language ??? - (1) First (2) Second (a) (3) Second (b) (4) Third -- Art. II, Sec. 5 (a) [THE legal language]. (5) Third -- Art. II, Sec. 5 (b) A mere FIVE times -- as if ONE time is not enough. Make a copy and stick it on a wall or computer near you. SOOOO - are the party hacks sweating bullets ??? -- NOT being able to dictate which extremist party hack gets on the general election ballots. Which part of the above will be attacked in court by the party hack usual suspects if the proposal is approved ??? CA Top 2 proposal – relevant language
——-
First—This measure shall be known and maybe cited as the “Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act.”
Second—The People of the State of California hereby find and declare all of the following:
(a) Purpose. The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act is hereby by the People of California to protect and preserve the right of every Californian to vote for the candidate of his or her choice. This act, along with legislation already enacted by the Legislature to implement this act, are intended to implement an open primary system in California as set forth below.
(b) Top Two Candidate Open Primary. All registered voters otherwise qualified to vote shall be guaranteed the unrestricted right to vote for the candidate of their choice in all state and congressional elections. All
candidates for a given state or congressional office shall be listed on a single primary ballot. The top two candidates, as determined by the voters in an open primary, shall advance to a general election in which the winner shall be the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes cast in an open general election.
***
(d) Open Candidate Disclosure. At the time they file to run for public office, all candidates shall have the choice to declare a party preference. The preference chosen shall accompany the candidate’s name on both the primary and general election ballots. The names of candidates who choose not to declare a party preference shall be accompanied by the designation “No Party Preference” on both the primary and general election ballots. Selection of a party preference by a candidate for state or congressional office shall not constitute or imply endorsement of the candidate by the party designated, and no candidate for that office shall be deemed the official candidate of any party by virtue of his or her selection in the primary.
***
Third—That Section 5 of Article II thereof is amended to read:
SEC. 5. (a) A voter-nomination primary election shall be conducted to select the candidates for congressional and state elective offices in California. All voters may vote at a voter-nominated primary election for any candidate for congressional and state elective office without regard to the political party preference disclosed by the candidate or the voter, provided that the voter is otherwise qualified to vote for candidates for the office in question. The candidates who are the top two vote-getters at a voter-nominated primary election for a congressional or state elective office shall, regardless of party preference, compete in the ensuing general election.
(b) Except as otherwise provided by Section 6, a candidate for a congressional or state elective office may have his or her political party preference, or lack of political party preference, indicated upon the ballot for the office in the manner provided by statute. A political party or party central committee shall not nominate a candidate for any congressional or state elective office at the voter-nominated primary. This subdivision shall not be interpreted to prohibit a political party or party central committee from endorsing, supporting, or opposing any candidate for a congressional or state elective office. A political party or party central committee shall not have the right to have its preferred candidate participate in the general election for a voter-nominated office other than a candidate who is one of the two highest vote-getters at the primary election, as provided in subdivision (a).
***

How many repeats of the top 2 primary language ??? -
(1) First
(2) Second (a)
(3) Second (b)
(4) Third — Art. II, Sec. 5 (a) [THE legal language].
(5) Third — Art. II, Sec. 5 (b)

A mere FIVE times — as if ONE time is not enough.

Make a copy and stick it on a wall or computer near you.

SOOOO – are the party hacks sweating bullets ??? — NOT being able to dictate which extremist party hack gets on the general election ballots.

Which part of the above will be attacked in court by the party hack usual suspects if the proposal is approved ???

]]> By: Steve Rankin http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/12/26/california-author-of-top-two-open-primary-sets-up-organization-to-campaign-for-his-measure/comment-page-1/#comment-782646 Steve Rankin Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:45:34 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=9691#comment-782646 #16: You didn't cite any examples of political parties seeking permission under Section 5 to open or close their primaries to independents. <i>Tashjian</i> was an interesting (5-4) ruling, aside from Marshall's penchant for fancy words. Scalia concurred with Stevens's dissent, and Scalia also wrote his own separate dissent. #17: It sounds like the Maldonado website is confusing the "top two open primary" with California's blanket primary, which the US Supreme Court struck down in 2000. As Richard says, in the "top two open primary," the top two vote-getters, <i>regardless of party,</i> advance to the November ballot. #16: You didn’t cite any examples of political parties seeking permission under Section 5 to open or close their primaries to independents.

Tashjian was an interesting (5-4) ruling, aside from Marshall’s penchant for fancy words. Scalia concurred with Stevens’s dissent, and Scalia also wrote his own separate dissent.

#17: It sounds like the Maldonado website is confusing the “top two open primary” with California’s blanket primary, which the US Supreme Court struck down in 2000.

As Richard says, in the “top two open primary,” the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the November ballot.

]]> By: Demo Rep http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/12/26/california-author-of-top-two-open-primary-sets-up-organization-to-campaign-for-his-measure/comment-page-1/#comment-782643 Demo Rep Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:29:07 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=9691#comment-782643 # 17 The ONLY thing that counts is the OFFICIAL LANGUAGE -- IF it is approved by the voters -- ALL the other EVIL misleading stuff means ZERO -- websites, postings, speeches, press releases, etc. etc. http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2010-elections/june-8-2010-ballot-measures.htm PDF of the top 2 primary OFFICIAL LANGUAGE. The voters allegedly have enough brain cells to detect ALL the lies about ANY proposal -- by the supporters or opponents. # 17 The ONLY thing that counts is the OFFICIAL LANGUAGE — IF it is approved by the voters — ALL the other EVIL misleading stuff means ZERO — websites, postings, speeches, press releases, etc. etc.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2010-elections/june-8-2010-ballot-measures.htm

PDF of the top 2 primary OFFICIAL LANGUAGE.

The voters allegedly have enough brain cells to detect ALL the lies about ANY proposal — by the supporters or opponents.

]]> By: Richard http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/12/26/california-author-of-top-two-open-primary-sets-up-organization-to-campaign-for-his-measure/comment-page-1/#comment-782642 Richard Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:11:02 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=9691#comment-782642 The Maldonado website is horribly inaccurate. It is only the top two vote-getters who can be on in November. The Maldonado website is horribly inaccurate. It is only the top two vote-getters who can be on in November.

]]> By: rosa http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/12/26/california-author-of-top-two-open-primary-sets-up-organization-to-campaign-for-his-measure/comment-page-1/#comment-782637 rosa Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:51:07 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=9691#comment-782637 As usual, I'm confused. On the website, in the How Would It Work section it says this: "The top vote-getters from each political party would then face each other in the November general election, as they do under the current system." If "the top vote-getters from EACH political party" is on the November ballot, doesn't that mean there'll be a Democrat, a Republican, a Peace and Freedom candidate, a Green, Libertarian, and so on? Just as there already is? Are the website makers being deliberately misleading or do they not understand a) English grammar, and/or b) their own proposition? As usual, I’m confused. On the website, in the How Would It Work section it says this:

“The top vote-getters from each political party would then face each other in the November general election, as they do under the current system.”

If “the top vote-getters from EACH political party” is on the November ballot, doesn’t that mean there’ll be a Democrat, a Republican, a Peace and Freedom candidate, a Green, Libertarian, and so on? Just as there already is?

Are the website makers being deliberately misleading or do they not understand a) English grammar, and/or b) their own proposition?

]]>