The Alameda County, California Superior Court that is hearing Rubin v Bowen will hold oral arguments in Oakland on October 29 at 9 a.m. Rubin v Bowen is the case filed by the Peace & Freedom, Libertarian, and Alameda County Green Parties, against the restriction of voting rights in the general election caused by Prop. 14, the top-two primary measure.
No California court has yet ruled on the issues in this case. The lawsuits filed in San Francisco did not concern these issues. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on these issues in any top-two case, neither the Washington state one, nor any California case. The 9th circuit mistakenly said in the Washington top-two case that the U.S. Supreme Court had already settled this issue in March 2008, but footnote eleven of the U.S. Supreme Court decision of March 2008 said the Court was not considering that issue. And this month’s refusal by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Washington state case again cannot be taken to mean the U.S. Supreme Court expressed any opinion on the ballot access issues.
Where did the 9th Circuit say that the US Supreme Court had settled the ballot access issue?
Judge Coughenour in his 8/20/2009 order dismissed the ballot access claims (page 11 to 15). The political parties appealed. The 9th Circuit on 1/19/2012 upheld the district court (Section 2.B).
The 9th Circuit doesn’t say in so many words that SCOTUS settled the ballot access claim. But it’s own treatment of the ballot access claim logically requires the assumption that SCOTUS did just that.
Note the word “therefore”. Whether the Washington district court’s dismissal of the ballot access claim was “proper” is a question that does need to be settled. But the 9th Circuit’s logic doesn’t settle it.
When SCOTUS refused to grant certiorari it either didn’t notice the 9th Circuit’s sleight-of-hand, or didn’t care.
The 9th Circuit cited the 2000 Supreme Court decision, not the 2008 Supreme Court decision.
The facts are that the Supreme Court in 2008 said that it was not deciding the issue. The 9th Circuit in its remand told the district court to address the issue. The District Court did dismiss the ballot access claims in a written opinion; and the 9th Circuit in its de novo consideration of the issue said that the district court had properly dismissed these claims.
The word “therefore” applies to the entirety of Section 2.B, not just to the preceding sentence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ovlfSkkKK6s
SCOTUS is brain dead ignorant about having —
ALL voters pick nominees
OR
ONLY some voters in a faction pick nominees (with or without some other voters in other factions).
in each case — according to LAW.
——
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Top 2 primary is a bogus reform — NOT worth ALL the time and effort it took to get enacted in ANY State.
In my opinion, the fact that the 9th Circuit cited the 2000 Jones decision here, rather than 2008 Washington I decision, makes its conclusion even less convincing rather than more so.
#5 The Rubin plaintiffs are not making a different argument than was made by the plaintiffs in Washington, and they do not appear to be making a claim based on the California constitution.
Top 2 has been used for 80 years in Nebraska.
The Rubin plaintiffs dispute the claim that five months between rounds is the same thing as two or three months between rounds. That does not make them right and Jim Riley wrong. But it does show that he is misleading readers of this blog when he says they are “not making a different argument”. They think they are.
The issue in this thread, however, is not whether Rubin’s analysis differs from the analysis of the Washington plaintiffs. The issue here is whether the Washington ballot access claim has been properly resolved. I don’t think it has.
Nebraska has nothing to do with the sufficiency, or lack thereof, of the decisions in the Washington case.
#7 A June primary is not intrinsic to Top 2, nor is it mandated by the California Constitution.
It is disingenuous bordering on dishonesty to suggest that it is OK to have partisan and non-partisan primaries in June, but not Open Primaries.
A decision by a California court is unlikely to lead to any resolution, proper or otherwise.
Again – what part of the U.S.A. Constitution says that X percent of the voters (i.e. a FACTION) in a sovereign State have a constitutional right to have the FACTION candidates on official public general election ballots — with the FACTION robot party hack label/name ???
Report ASAP if you find ANY such language.
—–
For advanced folks – the SCOTUS morons issued one more UN-constitutional JUNK opinion in the 2000 CA Dem- Jones case — See # 4 above.
Nominations are done by PUBLIC Electors according to PUBLIC L-A-W-S — NOT according to the desires of robot party hacks in FACTIONS.
Are ANY U.S.A. Const issues being raised in Rubin v Bowen ??? — to somehow stop the top 2 primary being in the CA Const ???
Jim Riley is advocating the end of democratic elections in America.
He supports a system that forces all individuals to participate in a single state controlled party with a single primary. Allowing two candidates to survive instead of one does not change the fact that it is a single party controlle by the state. Holding a restricted runoff after the initial one party election changes nothing. This is creation of essentially the same electoral system the voters faced in the former USSR.
Top-two is evil. Its supporters are evil.
Tired of chasing your own tail year after year? Try pure proportional representation (PR)!
That’s where 1/1001ths (or .0999%) plus one vote elects each of the 1000 members of parliament (MPs) with a minimum guaranteed satisfaction level of 99.9% plus 1000 votes.
1000 X .0999% (plus one vote) = 99.9% (plus 1000 votes)
Join the 99.9% today! Many levels, Cabinet Ministries and regions to choose from, just like a virtual parliament! 99.9% (plus 1000 votes) Guaranteed voter satisfaction every time!
To learn more, check out the 9th USA Parliament’s new Vote Counting School:
http://usparliament.org/votecountingschool.php
Very truly yours,
–James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
Volunteer vote counter
(415) 686-1996
“Why do you THINK they called it Google?”
Forget about them, quit talking smack and make your own team better!
Join the 99.9%!
#10 Participation by candidates and voters in a Top 2 primary is voluntary. Your claim of forced participation is bogus.
Top 2 makes the flowers bloom in the desert.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ovlfSkkKK6s
#10 Some supporters of top two are indeed evil. They support it because they understand its real purpose and (to a limited extent) its real result. They believe that both major parties no longer represent big business. They don’t want to build a new pro-business party because they understand that a multiparty system wouldn’t be very good for them either. Instead, they want to spend money on directly on candidates rather than funnel it through the party organizations, which they perceive has having gotten out of their control.
But many other supporters of top two aren’t bad people. They’re just the victims of wrong thinking. I think much of it flows from blaming political parties as such for problems that are in fact the result having exactly two of them. They don’t realize that weakening political parties in favor of so-called “independent” candidates and supposedly “non-partisan” campaigning doesn’t benefit the people they want to benefit. Instead of making thoughtful decision-making more important, it makes campaign spending more important. In short, weakening political parties makes the problem of money controlling election outcomes worse instead of better.
#8 Jim Riley says that I “suggest that it is OK to have partisan and non-partisan primaries in June, but not Open Primaries.” This is an astonishing sentence.
First of all, I did not suggest that I think five months between a partisan primary and a general election is “OK”. In fact, I think its something we have to live with unless we want to move general elections from November to (say) May or June. That doesn’t make it “OK”.
Second, there is no such thing as a “non-partisan primary”. A primary election is an event at which members of a political party choose its candidates. At least in California, election law habitually refers the first round of a two-round runoff as a “primary election.” That’s a misuse of the term. Repeating the mistake in discussions such as this one can have no result other than obfuscation.
Third, while there is such a thing as an “open primary” — twenty some-odd states have open primaries — top two is not a form of open primary. It is something very different (and much worse). In this case, the obfuscation is conscious and deliberate. Supporters of top two know that the phrase “open primary” is popular with many voters. So they misuse it as part of the sales pitch for top two.
Fourth, and most important here, lengthening the time between the first and second rounds makes top two even worse than it otherwise is. This is true in a way and to an extent that differs from two-round runoff elections and partisan primaries. For small party candidates, ballot access restricted to the preliminary round is even less relevant (not that it’s especially relevant to begin with) when the main round is further off in the distance.
Having the first round in June is not built in to top two, but it is an important feature of California elections. It would be politically difficult to change it. And Rubin v. Bowen is an “as applied” challenge. The implementing legislation is part of the challenge.
@13 Come on Riley, no one is stupid enough to believe that horseshit argument:
“Jim Riley Says:
October 14th, 2012 at 9:57 am
#10 Participation by candidates and voters in a Top 2 primary is voluntary. Your claim of forced participation is bogus.”
Sure, you can ignore politics and give up your right to choose the leaders of our nations. You can abstain and refuse to vote and let the fascists, like Jim Riley, rule over you unopposed. This is what Jim Riley and his evil cronies hope you’ll do.
The fact is that “top-two” does indeed create a one-party state, with that party controlled by the government itself. It is the same as in the old USSR. To paraphrase Jim Riley: ‘You can join us “comrade” or you can stay home.’
In a free country there is a General Election where every candidate has the option to appear on the ballot without restriction: the candidate can run as an “independent” or seek the nomination of an unlimited and unrestricted number of parties, with every party allowd to place its candidates on the ballot.
In a free country, primaries, conventions and other processes are the means by which each party chooses its candidates, the method being up to the party to choose, and are not subject to regulation or purview of the government or its agents, such as Jim Riley.
The General Election in the United States is in November of even numbered years for most important offices.
The goal of “top-two” and its evil supporters, including its cheerleader Jim Riley, is to make sure that the people who go to the polls have only two state selected and approved candidates to choose from,both selected in a single primary representing a single party where two dominate corporate factions will rule, and that all others are excluded institutionally in advance of the general election.
“Top-two” must be stopped before it is too late.
“Top-two” is NOT a reform.
“Top-two” is a takeover of the entire electoral system by a fascist-socialst-corporate cabal.
#14 Opponents of the Top 2 Open Primary often focus on the result rather than the process.
The purpose of an election in a republic is so that the sovereign People may choose their officers. In an Open Primary, all voters and all candidates may participate in a first, or primary, election, which winnows the candidates to the two strongest. Voters then choose between these two candidates in a second election. This ensures that the winner has broad popular support, and gives voters a chance to focus on the Top 2 candidates. Its virtue is that it is simple and achieves the fundamental purpose of an election.
Those who focus on the result, argue that sometime the People do not choose the “right” person. At the extreme, this results in conclusions such as those by the League of Women Voters, who once argued that an elected school board in San Francisco was essential to a democracy. In essence, they believed that the voters might not choose the “right” school board members. They had forgotten whose school board it was.
Minor party advocates want to use the second election as a vehicle to present their party’s wares. But they have lost sight of why the election is being held in the first place.
This of course does not necessarily mean that the League of Women Voters and minor party advocates are evil, but merely misguided.
#17 If the purpose of top two were what Jim Riley says it is, then its supporters would instead support ordinary two round runoff (a majority in the first round wins outright). That’s not as good as IRV but a hell of a lot better than plurality — provided, of course, that political parties, big and small, play their necessary and proper role in the nomination of candidates.
But the supporters of top two aren’t pushing two round runoff. That tells me that its purpose must be something else.
The very UNlucky # 13 has in part —
“Top 2 makes the flowers bloom in the desert.”
—-
Sorry – The EVIL bogus Top 2 scheme keeps the 100 percent EVIL minority rule gerrymander system going a bit longer.
—–
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Top Two is on the ballot here in Arizona and I hope voters in this fine state will see what a sham Top Two is. The biggest obstacle we face is The Arizona Republic. Our fine paper stumps in favor of Top Two on a regular basis and they rarely give voice to opposition. Most people I chat with think it’s a bad idea. Paul Johnson, Ted Downing and the folks bankrolling Top Two in AZ must have an ulterior motive. If they really cared about legitimate change they would favor true reformation measures in AZ like instant runoff voting or lowering the petition signature burden for independents.
#18 The purpose of an election is precisely what I stated it was. Top 2 Open Primary fulfills that purpose.
Louisiana does use an ordinary conditional runoff, yet opponents of the Top 2 Open Primary are as vehemently opposed to the Louisiana version as they are to the Washington and California versions. Nebraska has used Top 2 Open Primary for electing its legislature for close to 80 years. On occasion, a candidate who receives a majority of the vote in the primary is defeated in the general election. There is no harm in that.
Bob Richard asserts that IRV is better than Top 2 Open primary but provides no supporting argument.
Nomination by organized parties is absolutely not a necessary condition for election of public officers. Top 2 Open Party does not preclude organized parties from recruiting or supporting the election candidates. It in no way inhibits the exercise of First Amendment rights on either an individual or collective basis.
#20 Top 2 Open Primary requires equal ballot access for all candidates. As a practical matter, candidates like low ballot access standards. They understand that qualifying for the ballot is busywork.
When California switched to Top 2 Open Primary it reduced the number of signatures to run for the legislature or Congress from 5000 to 15,000 signatures to 45 signatures (A 99% reduction)
In Arizona, ballot access for independent candidates will be identical to that for partisan candidates.
To eliminate all of Jim Riley’s deliberate, evil obfuscatory remarks we need remember this:
In a free society with free, democratic elections, every independent candidate and every party must be allowed equal and easy access to the General Election ballot – in the US that means November in the even numbered years for the most important offices.
“Top-two” is an evil, fascist-socialist-corporatist cabal designed to prevent that from happening and instead to allow only two candidates to appear who were selected in a one-party, one primary environment.
The voters have no choices in the General Election except two candidates representing the same party.
“Top-two” represents the end of free elections in the USA. It is the goal of its supporters to accomplish exactly that end.
#23
Gee – has the State of Nebraska with its top 2 NONPARTISAN primary for its ONE house State legislature been the center of EVIL in the U.S.A. since about 1936 ???
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V
NO primaries.
ONE election day.
@24 The NE legislature is an oddity that is confined to that body alone. Other offices in Nebraska are elected with full participation of parties and independent candidates and separate party primaries.
Being confined to a single body means that the candidates are still identified and supported by party and the rest of the elections in NE go on in a more democratic fashion. However, the exclusion of alternative candidates from the ballot does mean that the Nebraska legislature is not a freely chosen democratic body in and of itself.
It’s interesting that the change to the currently used electoral system for the legislature in Nebraska was made only to allow legalized gambling on horse races.
Stone Age EVIL gerrymander math –
1/2 votes x 1/2 pack/crack gerrymander areas = 1/4 control.
Top 2 may cause even worse math — if 2 Donkeys or 2 Elephants are the top 2 primary nominees.
i.e. Some/many voters will not vote for the lesser of the 2 perceived evils — thus quite possible to have 15-25 percent EVIL de facto minority rule.
Stay tuned for the CA top 2 / rigged gerrymander results on election night – or wait of course until Weds.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.