Although California’s Proposition 14 increases the ballot qualification rules for parties to be ballot-qualified, no California newspaper story had yet mentioned that characteristic, until this San Francisco Chronicle story of March 10. It appears on page one.
Proposition 62, the earlier California top-two open primary measure from 2004, did not increase the difficulty for a party to remain ballot-qualified. To compensate for effectively eliminating the 2% vote test (which, under current law, is the easiest method by which parties remain ballot-qualified), Proposition 62 in 2004 lowered the registration test from 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, to one-third of 1%. That way, no qualified party would have lost its qualified status if Proposition 62 had passed.
The backers of Prop. 14 were free to have taken that step as well, but they chose not to do that. The quote in the story represents the first time any backer of Prop. 14 has been confronted with the question of why they are making it more difficult for parties to remain ballot-qualified. As anyone who reads the story can see, the backers breezily said, in response, “They’ll just need to keep their numbers up.”
Back in 1981, the California legislature was threatening to pass a bill to raise the registration requirements for a party to remain ballot-qualified. The bill failed to pass after 40 newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations editorially condemned the bill. Ironically, Proposition 14 is more severe than the 1981 bill, which required one-half of 1% of the total number of registered voters. Proposition 14 raises it, in effect, to 1% of the last gubernatorial vote.
The Sacramento Bee of March 11 has this story, pointing out that opponents of Proposition 14 are so far not spending any money against it.
May Prop 14 author Maldonado rot in Hell for all time with devils sticking pitchforks in his ass.
Who needs any party hack registration stuff ???
P.R. and A.V.
NO primaries are needed.
The party hacks can operate their own clubby stuff (i.e. choosing party hack officers) at their own expense.
The bottom line is this:
Using state petition restrictions or a state one-party (top-two) voter test to eliminate the access of candidates to the general election ballot restricts freedom of choice.
“Top-two†is a state sponsored one-party system.
“Top-two†is a euphemism for a communist style, ONE PARTY electoral system. “Top-two†forces every individual to participate in a single party with a single primary.
It is NOT a “no party” system, for if there were no parties then there would be no primary and every candidate would appear in the general election, with no party label or designation of any kind. They would all be independent.
Under the “top-two” one-party, communist system, there will be less choice than there was in the old USSR.
“TOP-TWO†is COMMUNISM.
Civilized Iraq just held a national election using open list P.R.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_parliamentary_election,_2010
P.R. and A.V. — to END the rule of the EVIL party hacks in the U.S.A.
It is an absolute falsehood that under Proposition 14 a candidate who was registered a Republican could appear on the ballot as preferring the Democratic party. I have written Mr. Buchanan about this error in his article.
Under Proposition 14, a candidate may either have the party preference that he has disclosed on his party registration appear on the ballot or have a blank space.
Proposition 62 would have required a candidate to express a preference for a “ballot-qualified” party. If a candidate actually preferred a non-qualified party, and had stated that preference on his voter registration, he would nonetheless been compelled to state that he had “No Party Preference” or have the party preference left blank.
A voter registration affidavit must be signed by the voter, to signify that its information is truthful and correct, subject to perjury charges. A declaration of candidacy must be sworn and notarized. Proposition 62 could have required a candidate to either swear to something a candidate knew was false, denied to him his right to free speech, or encouraged him to commit perjury on his voter registration affidavit.
Fortunately, the legislature saw fit to omit this offensive provision when they wrote Proposition 14. They were free to have included it – so it must be presumed to be a deliberate action on their part to not include it.
The proponents of Proposition 62 lowered the ballot-qualification standard in concert with their requirement that candidates only be permitted to express a preference for a ballot-qualified party. By removing this latter requirement, there is less reason to change the party qualification standard.
Proposition 14 will not take effect until January 1, 2011. The next gubernatorial election will not be until 2014. Since parties will not have nominees in 2014, they will be unable to maintain their qualification on the basis of election performance. This will mean that they might lose their presidential preference primary and presidential ballot access in 2016.
There is plenty of time to make changes to party qualification. At minimum, ballot qualification should be changed to be based on the presidential election. In a post-Proposition 14 world, presidential elections are the main effect of “ballot-qualification”. It makes absolutely no sense to have the State conduct a presidential preference primary (4 of 6 parties ignored the preferences of the voters in 2008 anyway) based on how well the party had done two years earlier in the Insurance Commissioner Race.
So a simple change that can be made in statute would be to change party qualification to be based on performance in the presidential election, beginning with the 2012 presidential election. There is no reason that the 175,000+ signature requirement for independent presidential candidates could not be lowered at the same time.
The State might consider a split-standard for presidential elections, with a higher level of support required for conducting a presidential primary vs. that needed for nomination. Only 12,482 persons voted in the Peace&Freedom Party primary, less than 1/725 of the primary turnout, and probably less than one voter per precinct. If the State did not have to conduct a presidential preference primary for each party, then the standard for November ballot qualification could be lowered.
Alternatively, California could simply switch to an open presidential preference primary, where presidential candidates could qualify for the November ballot in their own right. If a ballot-qualified party wanted to make a candidate their “nominee” they could do so. Otherwise, the candidate would appear on the general election ballot as an independent candidate.
Reporter Wyatt Buchanan did not make the error Jim Riley says he did. He wrote, “A Democrat”, not “a registered Democrat.” Any person who is a Democrat in his or her heart is free to re-register as a Republican on the day of filing for office (under top two) and appear on the ballot as a Republican.
#3: “[The ‘top two’] is NOT a ‘no party’ system, for if there were no parties then there would be no primary and every candidate would appear in the general election, with no party label or designation of any kind.”
The “top two” is a nonpartisan– “no party”– system because the parties have no way of officially nominating candidates, and because a party is not assured of having a candidate in the final, deciding election. Putting party labels on a “top two” ballot is for the voters’ information and does not make it a partisan election. Louisiana, for example, has put party labels on its “top two” (“open primary”) ballots since its inception in the 1970s.
Some refer to the two rounds of the “top two” as the “nonpartisan primary” (an oxymoron) and the “nonpartisan general election.” I would argue, however, that the first round is the general election, and the second round is a runoff general election.
“‘Top-two’ forces every individual to participate in a single party with a single primary.”
What is the “single party” in Louisiana and Washington state? Democratic or Republican? If Prop. 14 passes, what will be the “single party” in California? Republican or Democratic?
“Under the ‘top-two’ one-party, communist system, there will be less choice than there was in the old USSR.”
In the USSR, there was only ONE choice on the ballot, the Communist candidate. In the “top two,” there are TWO choices in the second round.
As I have asked repeatedly: Why should the voters be limited to just two choices in the final, deciding election?
# 7 Obviously with only 2 candidates on the general election ballots the gerrymander district winners will each get a Majority — aka giving the EVIL illusion of Democracy (aka majority rule) — when in fact the ENTIRE EVIL SYSTEM is a giant ANTI-Democracy minority rule OLIGARCHY of EVIL party hack MONSTERS.
Half the votes in half the gerrymander districts is about 25 percent MINORITY RULE.
Prop 14 is a super obvious scheme by the Elephants to try and knock off some of the more extremist gerrymander Donkeys — in a top 2 primary or in the general election.
P.R. and A.V.
In CA, under a “top-two” communist system there will be a single party. It will not be the Democratic or Republican party, it will be the party of the state – the communist party of California.
The fact is that in the old USSR there were often two or more candidates nominated by the single party on the ballot which allowed the voters to choose between the candidates of this single party. Yeah, just like the single, state communist party being created by “top-two.”
In the old USSR the average number of candidates per office was just a bit under two. Under “top-two” we could easily end up with a lower average when the uncontested lower level offices are included.
This is no accident. The creators and supporters of “top-two” know that they are creating a one-party communist style election system. It will allow the state and the power brokers to control access to elections thoroughly and prevent free elections for as long as the system is allowed to stay in effect. This is the intent of the plan.
“Top-two” is communism.
“Top-two” is communism.
“Top-two” is communism.
Wake up California!
“Top-two” is communism.
#9 Mr. Buchanan wrote:
“The initiative also would change the way candidates are listed on the ballot, requiring them to list their party preference instead of their party registration. A Democrat could, theoretically, state that they prefer the Republican party and vice versa.”
Richard Winger wrote:
“He wrote, “A Democratâ€, not “a registered Democrat.†Any person who is a Democrat in his or her heart is free to re-register as a Republican on the day of filing for office (under top two) and appear on the ballot as a Republican.”
It is clear from the context that, Mr. Buchanan believes that under SB 6 that there is a distinction between “party preference” and “party reference”. That is why he inserted instead.
This is in complete contradiction to both the language of the constitutional amendment and the implementing statute SB 6.
Given the decision in the Fuller-Berryhill case, it would be interesting to hear your rationale why the Secretary of State can impose different qualifications on candidates for the legislature depending on whether they want to run as a party candidate, an independent candidate, or a write-in candidate? Even if strict scrutiny is not applied, what is the rational state interest in requiring partisan candidates to reside in their district in March, independent candidates in summer, and write-in candidate in October?
And if a candidate is free to move about the country, why isn’t he free to move about the political spectrum?
#7 The number of candidates in the general election need not be two. See Jones, where Justice Scalia said that the number of candidates could be “whatever”.
So you would be happy with a Top 3 Open Primary?
I note again that the State of Nebraska manages to survive with a top 2 nonpartisan primary for the one house Nebraska legislature — since about 1934 (repeat 1934) — 4 year terms — 24 or 25 elected each 2 years.
Thus – will a CA top 2 primary be a major step for the DOOM of the EVIL party hacks ??? Stay tuned.
Think DOOM of the Hitler regime in May 1945 or even the DOOM of the King George regime in America at Yorktown, VA in Oct. 1781.
If California’s Prop. 14 did not include congressional elections, it wouldn’t be so bad. But federal law, since 1872, has said that congressional elections must be in November. There are national campaigns across the nation for Congress. Remember Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” campaign in 1994, when a photo of all the Republican nominees for US House was taken on the Capitol Steps, and they all signed the “Contract”, and promised that if the party won a majority in the House, they would implement 10 concrete ideas. When one state, like California, deprives parties of the ability to run in November, that wrecks any party unified congressional campaign.
#11: “So you would be happy with a Top 3 Open Primary?”
Several times previously on this site, I have suggested that you should be promoting a “top three” or a “top four” instead of a “top two” system. That would be an improvement over the “top two,” since the voters would have more choices in the final, deciding election.
I believe that parties deserve to be able to officially nominate candidates for state and federal offices. I am therefore strongly in favor of keeping party primaries for those offices.
#13: We have to keep reminding ourselves that most advocates of the “top two” monstrosity don’t give a damn about political parties.
“If California’s Prop. 14 did not include congressional elections, it wouldn’t be so bad.”
California had a special referendum in October 1915 for a “top two” for STATE offices. The voters, who just a few years earlier had approved nonpartisan “top two” elections for CITY AND COUNTY offices, rejected the 1915 measure with 58.2 percent.
And, of course, California voters in 2004 said “no” to the “top two” for STATE AND CONGRESSIONAL offices, as it lost in 51 of the state’s 58 counties.
#13: “When one state, like California, deprives parties of the ability to run in November, that wrecks any party unified congressional campaign.”
Just to make sure that all of your readers understand what you mean here, I want to expand on this. If the “top two” takes effect, the first round will be in June (?), with all candidates, including independents, on a single ballot. For each office, the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, will advance to the November general election.
Thus, there is no assurance that a party will have a candidate for Congress– or any other office– on the November ballot.
Yes, that it was I was trying to say.
#14 I would use Top N that have a greater share than N/N+1 of the vote, with a minimum of 2.
Why is it important that the government give official recognition of the endorsements of the political parties.
#18: When a political party nominates candidates by primary, that’s certainly stronger and much more democratic than a mere endorsement.
49 states– all but Washington– obviously consider it important that the parties’ nominations for Congress be officially recognized.
And 48 states– all but Louisiana and Washington– consider it important that the parties’ nominations for all or most state offices be officially recognized.
I would add that all 50 states and the District of Columbia officially recognize the parties’ nominations for U. S. president.
#19 There is a Democratic congressional nominee in Texas that the Texas Democratic Party has now decreed is a non-person. If you go through their list of candidates and pictures, they simply skip over that district (23 follows 21, sort of like office buildings that don’t have a 13th floor, and elevator goes from 12 to 14.
So now Texas recognizes the nomination by the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party bosses don’t support the candidate.
#20 4 of the 6 California parties did not place the candidate supported by the most voters in their primary on the general election ballot.
# 19 — Since when does each State have to have the same party hack nomination system ???
P.R. and A.V. — end the rule of the party hacks.
#21: Those California presidential primaries were evidently “beauty contests.”
#22: “Since when does each State have to have the same party hack nomination system ???”
All of the states don’t have the same nomination system.
#23/21 That is not what your Proposition 60 in 2004 said.