A new web page, www.savevoterchoice.com, has been set up to publicize some arguments against the measure, which will be voted on by the voters on June 8, 2010. See it here.
The web page does not mention some of the arguments against the measure. It does not mention that the measure says write-in votes must not be counted in November, for Congress and state office. It does not mention that the measure makes it far more difficult for ballot-qualified minor parties to retain their recognized status. It does not mention that some candidates who desire a party label would not be able to have a label.
Perhaps the people who set up the web page felt these points are too complicated to explain.
Under “How Would an ‘Open Primary’ Affect You?,” the first sentence is, “The ‘Open Primary’ or as it is also known, the ‘Top Two’ system, allows voters to vote in any party’s primary election.”
This is misleading, since, under the “top two open primary,” there are no party primaries.
Here’s a good definition of this monstrosity: All candidates, including independents, run in the same election. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, move on to the runoff.
Also, write-in votes will not be counted!
How many extremist leftwing / rightwing party hacks are paying for the website ???
Are they sweating gerrymander bullets more and more ???
P.R. and A.V. — NO primaries are needed.
The website is obviously being financed by the Donkey / Elephant party hack minority rule incumbents in the many gerrymander districts who do NOT want ANY REAL opposition in the general election
— from the same party hack party (Donkey or Elephant) or the other larger party hack party (Elephant or Donkey).
Top 2 will do ZERO about the minority rule gerrymander math — half the votes in half the gerrymander districts = about 25 percent minority rule by the Donkey / Elephant party hacks — BUT may knock off some of the more extreme party hacks in the many 60 plus percent one party safe seat gerrymander districts.
P.R. and A.V.
Free and Equal is working to get its own anti-top-two web page set up.
“It does not mention that some candidates who desire a party label would not be able to have a label.”
Perhaps they recognize that there is nothing in the text of either the constitutional amendment or the implementing legislation to support such a conclusion.
Under current California law, a voter who is affiliated with a non-qualified party, may not vote in any party primary. The option whereby a party may open its primary is limited to opening it to Declined To State (DTS) voters. Throughout its registration procedures, California makes a clear distinction among registrants with (a) qualified parties, (b) registrants with parties attempting to qualify; (c) registrants with miscellaneous other parties; and (d) decline to state voters.
It is the clear intent of the People that SCA 4 not change current registrations, other than to recast party affiliation to party preference (“declaration of intent to affiliate with party at next primary” to “disclosure of party preference”), and that no registration be changed without a new filing by the voter.
A voter has a 1st Amendment right to declare an intent to affiliate with any party at the next primary, and California’s entire regulatory scheme for party qualification is based on the idea that voters may register with non-qualified parties. Remember that voter registration affidavits must be signed by the voter as to the truthfulness and correctness of the application, subject to a perjury prosecution.
If someone prefers the Constitution Party and he writes on his voter registration affidavit that he prefers the Green Party or has No Party Preference simply to have his application processed by some bureaucrat, he is not being truthful, and the State of California would be coercing speech.
SB 6, defines “affiliated with a political party” for purposes of a Voter-Nominated office to mean a candidate’s party preference which the voter disclosed on his voter registration.
When a candidate files for office, he has the option of having either (a) his disclosed party preference; or (b) nothing (blank) appearing next to his name. If he has not disclosed a party preference, he can choose between: “No Party Preference” and nothing (blank).
Your interpretation would apparently have a candidate who had disclosed a preference for the Constitution Party not permitted to have that preference appear on the ballot next to his name; or worse require him to state that he had “No Party Preference”. Declarations of candidacies must be sworn and notarized.
Your interpretation would abridge the right of voters to vote for any candidate regardless of the candidate’s party preference, by making a distinction with respect to the party preference, which is a violation of the intent of SCA 4, and also equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
#1 Under “How Would an ‘Open Primary’ Affect You?,†the first sentence is, “The ‘Open Primary’ or as it is also known, the ‘Top Two’ system, allows voters to vote in any party’s primary election.â€
This is misleading, since, under the “top two open primary,†there are no party primaries.
Dave Gilliard is a paid political consultant. It is his job to mislead. You would deny his right to work?
The site also does not mention that the Open Primary would remove the quite reasonable modicum of support requirements that have limited frivolous independent candidates for Congress to 9 for the entire state (over 900 races) stretching back to the 1970s and will result in ballot overcrowding.
“the measure says write-in votes must not be counted in November”
Existing California law (as amended by SB 6) says:
(1) Voters have a right to cast a write-in ballot in all state elections*;
(2) Candidates have a right to run as a write-in candidate in all state elections;
(3) Ballots must contain a blank where a candidate’s name may be written in;
(4) For votes to be counted for a write-in candidate, the candidate must file a declaration of write-in candidacy.
(5) Possibly some additional requirement in Elections Code 8606 – subject to interpretation as to what it means – it is gobbledygook as written.
Can the right to vote be restricted by gobbledygook language?
If 8606 is interpreted to mean that votes for declared write-in candidates are to be counted, but that even if a write-in candidate receives more votes than any other candidate, that the candidate can not be elected. would a court actually uphold such a system?
*There have been decisions by the California Supreme Court to the contrary, but they apply only to municipal elections conducted under terms of a city’s charter.
#2 In the Top 2 primary, write-in votes for declared write-in candidates will be counted, and the threshold of support that is in place for partisan primaries is eliminated.
If you are a declared write-in candidate, and receive 1 vote and are in the Top 2 (including ties), you will be placed on the general election ballot.
There is a question about the effect on write-in votes in a general election for a voter-nominated office. There is a provision apparently directed at such votes (Elections Code 8606) but it makes no grammatical sense. An incoherent restriction on the right to vote might be unenforceable, the provision is severable, or the legislature could simply strike it out. Even if it were coherent, it conflicts with other statutes, including ones that specify the right to cast a write-in vote, the right to run as a write-in candidate, and a requirement that a write-in space be included on the ballot for all offices, and that votes for declared write-in candidates be counted. And even were that not sufficient, there are US Supreme Court rulings that suggest that a limitation on write-in votes may not be valid if there are not equivalent alternatives. The long period between filing for office and the general election may require write-ins to be available.
#10 – 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 is still part of the Constitution — regardless of MORON lawyers and Supremes.
Such 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 was deemed MUCH more important than 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 in the debates about the 14th Amdt.
See the Congressional Globe 1866.
“It does not mention that the measure makes it far more difficult for ballot-qualified minor parties to retain their recognized status.”
Any currently qualified party that gets 2% of the vote for any statewide office in the November 2010 general election will retain its status through the 2014 election, including the right to have a presidential preference primary and a presidential candidate in 2012, to have sample ballots distributed to voters at the 2012 and 2014 June primaries, and to hold party officer elections at the 2012 and 2014 primaries. There is no consequential effect prior to 2016.
So instead of thinking about how you can help the political parties maintain the current barriers to voter and candidate participation, let’s presume that the Top 2 Open Primary passes, what adjustments would you make?
How about switching the presidential primary to be a direct nominating primary? Any candidate for president simply files a petition with 100 signatures, the same as any other statewide candidate, along with a list of 55 presidential electors.
Any candidate who receives 1/10 of 1% of the vote qualifies for the general election. Tabulate the vote by political affiliation of the voters (as was done in 2000) for whatever purposes the political parties want to use that result for.
Assuming the primary is in February, distribute ballots to voters who have yet to participate in the primary in April, June, and August, adding their votes to the preferences already expressed, including newly declared candidates.
Any candidate may withdraw, transferring their votes to another candidate, or alternatively simply reducing the qualification threshold. Two candidates may merge their candidacies, designating one as the presidential candidate and the other as the vice-presidential candidate and combining their support.
Any candidate who fails to meet the qualification threshold will be presumed to be a declared write-in candidate.
The state executive committee of a political party may endorse any of the qualifying candidates, with the consent of the candidates.
Set a qualification standard that parties must satisfy in order that a candidate can have his preference expressed on the ballot: (1) A set of bylaws filed with the Secretary of State; (2) A functioning state executive committee; (3) a republican form of governance; and (4) 500 registered voters.
Set a qualification standard the parties must satisfy in order to have endorsement appear on a state-distributed sample ballot: 5000 registered voters in the state. To make an endorsement in a district race, the party must have a proportional registration in that district (63 for an assembly race, 95 for a congressional race, 125 for a senate race). Any endorsement must be made by party members from the district, or an endorsement committee chose by party members.
Rip out all the Elections Code purporting to govern internal operations of political parties. Replace with basic principles: (1) bottom up governance, with governing bodies chosen from base units made up of one or more election precinct, and limited to not more than one county and one assembly district; (2) biennial state convention; (3) bylaw changes proposed by convention and ratified by members.
Conduct party elections in odd years. Parties may choose to use either conventions or by-mail elections. In the case of conventions, the state will distribute notices of the conventions. In the case of elections, the state will conduct the election on behalf of the party.
# 12 Just totally wipe out all mentions of the party hacks in all laws.
Exception — party hack labels for P.R. candidates — chosen by the candidates.