On December 9, the plaintiffs in Field v Bowen filed this reply brief in the California Supreme Court, S188436. This is the case that challenges certain aspects of California’s “top-two” election system. The issue pending in the California Supreme Court only concerns the system’s discriminatory policy on ballot labels. The part of the case concerning write-ins is not presently before the Supreme Court.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Sorry Richard, I respect the people trying to stop the “top two” proposition that passed in CA, but I don’t think they will succeed; the voters approved of it and I doubt it can be overturned in court.
Lots of ballot measures get overturned in court, including Prop. 8 in California (in U.S. District Court) recently.
Where is there ANY mention in the U.S.A. Constitution that X percent of party hack Electors/Voters have an ABSOLUTE constitutional right to nominate and put persons with party hack labels on the PUBLIC general election ballots ???
Solve for X.
WHEN did the FIRST State have primary and especially general election ballot access restrictions for candidates — that were upheld in court cases ??? —- in the 1890s, repeat 1890s ???
If some version of the California and Washington “top two” is upheld, I believe that the two states will have to hold the first round of their congressional elections on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November– as Louisiana does in its “top two.”
This assumes, of course, that the timing of the congressional elections is challenged in court.
#1: In 1996, nearly 60% of California voters approved the blanket primary. The two lower federal courts upheld the blanket primary in California Democratic Party v. Jones.
The US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 ruling, reversed the two lower courts and struck down the blanket primary.
Lots of ballot measures get overturned in court, including Prop. 8 in California (in U.S. District Court) recently.
= Yet its still in Court.
Jim Riley Says [in an earlier post]:
December 7th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
#5 The California Constitution says that the State may require a party to place the winner of a primary on the general election ballot. In 2008, this would have meant that Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader, Don Grundmann, and Christine Smith would have displaced Barack Obama, Cynthia McKinney, Alan Keyes, and Bob Barr from the ballot. Maybe the State (or voters through the initiative) will implement this by then. Or maybe Top 2 will be implemented for Presidential elections as well.
Wouldn’t it make sense to move the party committee elections to be coincident with the presidential primary, so that election officials don’t have to mess with partisan ballots at the regular primary, which then only have non-partisan and voter-nominated offices, and propositions. Also if county central committees are elected in February, then you won’t have lame duck committee members making endorsements for the voter-nominated or nonpartisan offices. In non-presidential years, an all-mail ballot in February could be used.
Until WWII, the California primary was in August. It was moved to June to be combined with the presidential primary as a cost saving measure during the war. Now that the presidential primary has been moved to winter, wouldn’t it make sense to restore the primary to August?
Have the Sacramento County Central Committee defined their procedures for making endorsements which will appear on the sample ballot for voter-nominated offices? IIUC, that authority is vested in the county parties, though I suppose a party rule could require county parties to use a decision arrived at by the state or district party.
Phil Sawyer responds:
The above message does not make any sense to me in any way at all. That is one of the main problems with the “top-two” system. This (“top-two”) is a new method of organizing elections that creates all kinds of new problems and the proponents are not able to solve them in any logical and rational way. So, they make up answers that have no basis in reality.
In regard to “Demo Rep” (#3) above:
While it is understandable that some people on this website would feel safer in not utilizing their real names when they post comments, I have to draw the line at comments that make so little sense and/or that call other people negative names. Not every person who is a member of a political party is a “party hack.” It seems to me that if people were required to use their real names, they might put a little more thought into what they write. Most of the time, I have not even bothered to read what this person posted (it seemed to be mostly the same thing over and over again). I do not think that I have missed anything important.
With regard to Steve Rankin (#5) above:
Thank you for your comment. The blanket primary seemed to be very good to me while it lasted. Now days, we have to deal with this complete mess that is known as the “top-two” system. I am hoping and praying that it gets struck down in the court system.
To Cody Quirk (#6) above:
Yes, Proposition 8 is still in the courts. This is a subject that good and reasonable people differ on and almost certainly will have to be finally settled in the United States Supreme Court.
Exactely.
#7 Read the California Constitution as amended by Proposition 14.
Whether it is a good idea or not, California is stuck with partisan primaries for president, and partisan elections for party central committees, at least until the constitution is amended.
a) The constitution specifies that the State may require that the winner of the presidential primary be placed on the general election ballot. So why not encourage the legislature to pass implementing legislation? What do you not understand about that?
b) Since there will continue to to elections of county central committees, wouldn’t it be better to move those to the be part of the presidential primary, since election officials will already be giving separate ballots to voters of different parties? In addition, since the main role of political parties for voter-nominated offices will be to endorse candidates on the sample ballot, wouldn’t it be better to have the party officials elected prior to the election at which they would be making endorsements? Since there is no presidential primary in gubernatorial election years, the party officers could be elected in a February all-mail election. What do you not understand about that?
c) Until WWII, California had a presidential primary in June. The regular primary was in August. As a cost cutting move during WWII, they were combined in June. Since then, the presidential primary got moved to March, then February. For a while the regular primary got dragged along with it. But now it has been separated. So why not move it back to August?
d) For voter-nominated offices, each party may make endorsements which will be printed on the sample ballot. The parties may go about determining their endorsements in what ever manner they believe is appropriate. Now that you are a party official, don’t you think it appropriate that the party which you are an official of define its procedures for making endorsements? What do you not understand about that?
Write-in votes
14th Amdt, Sec. 2 is still around.
#7: California’s use of the blanket primary in 1998 and 2000 was a factor in the voters’ approval of the “top two” in June 2010.
“This (“top-two”) is a new method of organizing elections that creates all kinds of new problems…”
Louisiana has used the “top two” for state and congressional elections since the 1970s (with the exception of the 2008 and 2010 congressional elections). The Louisiana system is part of the residue of the old one-party (truly NO-PARTY) system, in which elections were decided in the Democratic primary, with a Democratic runoff if necessary.
Five times between 1966 and 1979, the Mississippi legislature enacted the “top two” (aka “open primary”) for state and local elections, but its implementation was blocked each time. Meanwhile, Louisiana copied the Mississippi proposal and got it approved for the Bayou State.
For that matter, California voters first rejected the “top two” for state offices in 1915. And North Dakota voters rejected it in 1921.
What’s “new” about the “top two” is its recent enactment by Washington state and California voters for their state and congressional elections.
Louisiana uses the “top two” (“open primary”) for all offices except president.
In the blanket primary used by California in 1998 and 2000, all candidates of all parties were listed on a single ballot, and the top vote-getter from each party advanced to the general election, where any independent candidates were also on the ballot.
The main problem with the US politics is that the same tired and half-baked ideas keep getting recycled. Real anti-duopoly reform could be achieved by electing state legislatures via PR, and the superiority of Approval Voting has been pointed out many times on this blog.
Five times between 1966 and 1979, the Mississippi legislature enacted the “top two” (aka “open primary”) for state and local elections, but its implementation was blocked each time. Meanwhile, Louisiana copied the Mississippi proposal and got it approved for the Bayou State.
How does WASHCORP decide that it’s bad for MS but fine for
Louisiana?
#14: “How does WASHCORP decide that it’s bad for MS but fine for Louisiana?”
Mississippi’s “open primary” was vetoed by governors in 1966 and 1975. Implementation of the 1970 law was blocked in 1971 by a three-judge federal panel under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In 1976 and 1979, the “open primary” was rejected by the Dept. of Justice under Section 5. The main reason for this was Mississippi’s history of black independent candidates.
Gov. Edwin Edwards shepherded the “open primary” through the Louisiana legislature in 1974. The Bayou State did not have a similar history of black independent candidates; also, Edwards used his considerable charm to get Justice to approve the “open primary.”
Edwards, of course, is now rotting in federal prison.
When did the first State have top 2 NON-PARTISAN primaries ???
— and has managed to survive.
Reciting old stuff is like reciting the EVIL machinations in the EVIL divine right of kings regimes [monarchies / oligarchies] — foreign wars, civil wars, domestic oppressions, etc.
Democracy NOW — regardless of ALL ANTI-Democracy stuff in ALL constitutions — especially in the 1787 U.S.A. Constitution, as amended — i.e. the 3 ANTI-Democracy gerrymander systems – House of Reps, Senate, Electoral College — that has produced the nonstop EVIL in the U.S.A. regime since 4 Mar 1789 — especially the INSANE deficits and the EVIL un-declared wars since 1950.
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. and App.V.
To Steve Rankin (#11) above:
Well, in calling the “top-two” system “a new method of organizing elections,” I was incorrect. Thank you for pointing that out to me. You are right that it is not new; it remains a very terrible idea, though. It creates all sorts of new problems for voters, election officials, and candidates who are members of the smaller parties and/or independents. I do not agree that the Golden State’s prior use of the blanket primarty was “a factor” in the voter approval of Propostion 14 – except for indirectly (i.e., the rejection by the court system of the blanket primary set the stage for and gave an opening to the proponents of the “top-two” monster).
We are currently stuck with the “top-two” system in California and, if it is not rejected in court (which I am hoping and praying will happen), we will just have to deal with it and try to work around the worst parts of it. It hardly makes sense to debate the merits or demerits of this ridiculous system anymore – except for in court (which is now the proper place for such arguments).
Note for CA folks — the top 2 primary and the latest and greatest gerrymander commission will have about ZERO effect on the gerrymander math in both houses of the CA legislature.
— 1/2 votes x 1/2 gerrymander districts = 1/4 votes to control
Thus the nonstop zillion ballot petitions in CA.
ANY body in CA with some brains capable of doing a basic P.R. and App.V. petition ??? — perhaps even to save Western Civilization from the party hack gerrymander MONSTERS in the gerrymander U.S.A. Congress and all 50 gerrymander State legislatures.
Same in NV with its 1860s Constitution – in somewhat plain English.
Circa total 18 States with petitions for State constitutional amendments.
By the way, in reference to my comments (#17) above:
It is not that I was entirely incorrect with my description of the “top-two” system being “new”: To the best of my knowledge, this system has never before been utilized in California. In that sense, it is a “new” system. New and terrible, I would say.
See the top 2 results in WA State – esp for State Rep.
— a mere 20 of 98 gerrymander monsters elected with NO opposition (likely to change with new gerrymander districts in 2012).
ONE nonconformist elected –
(Prefers Independent Dem. Party) — whatever that is.
HOWEVER — 23 of 98 got elected with *only* 50 to 54 percent of the gerrymander district votes — sweating gerrymander bullets in 2012.
Overall 56 Donkeys – 32 Elephants — par for the gerrymander course in one more rigged gerrymander regime.
P.R. and App.V.
Phil #17: It’s going to be interesting to watch the “top two” litigation play out. If Washington state’s parties have any success in their federal litigation, don’t be surprised if California’s parties file a federal suit.
The US Supreme Court, to be sure, said in March 2008 that WA’s “top two” is constitutional on its face. What will the justices say when an as-applied case reaches them?
What if WA and CA are ordered to start holding the first round of the “top two” for their congressional elections on the first Tuesday in November? Will the two states continue to hold the first round for lower offices at an earlier date, or will they hold the first round for ALL offices in November? (Louisiana holds its state and parish elections in the year before presidential elections.)
In the paragraph above, I’m assuming, of course, that some version of the “top two” is held to be constitutional.
#19: California has used the “top two” for years to elect the state superintendent of public instruction, as do many states. CA also uses the “top two” to elect its county and municipal officials.
I figure CA’s use of the blanket primary in 1998 and 2000 contributed to the passage of the “top two.” In both systems, voters are permitted to cross party lines in the first round of voting.
Prior to the passage of the “top two” last June, the CA Republican Party adopted a party rule providing for the endorsement//nomination of candidates in the event that the “top two” was enacted. I forget the details of that.
It’s also worth noting that, for years prior to passage of the “top two,” California has used a blanket primary for special elections.
#20 Typo —
Overall 56 Donkeys – 42 Elephants — par for the gerrymander course in one more rigged gerrymander regime.
49 gerrymander districts – voters elect 2 reps separately [overlap stuff].
Thank you, Steve, for providing all those details.