Top Two In The News

  • On August 24, a California Superior Court ruled that Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado, and the California Independent Voters Network, and the campaign committee for “Yes on 14″ , should all be allowed to intervene in the lawsuit that challenges two restrictive aspects of California’s “Top-two” system. The case is Field v Bowen, cgc10-502018, San Francisco. All three intervenors have the same set of attorneys.

  • A San Francisco Superior Court Judge ruled this morning that Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado can continue his fight for open primaries.

    The lieutenant governor, formerly a state senator representing Santa Cruz County and parts of Santa Clara County, had petitioned the courts to intervene in a lawsuit challenging Proposition 14, the voter-approved measure that advances the top two voter-getters to a general election, not the political parties’ top candidates.

  • Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado May Need An Intervention
    SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado, the California Independent Voter Network and the Yes on Prop 14 campaign have asked the courts to allow them to intervene as defendants in the lawsuit against state Senate Bill 6. A hearing regarding whether they have legal standing to intervene [...]

  • Gautam Dutta, the plaintiffs’ attorney, is opposing Maldonado’s intervention, saying it is the sole job of Attorney General Jerry Brown to defend the state against the lawsuit.

    A hearing on the request has been scheduled for 9 a.m. Tuesday.

  • Proposition 14 are touting their proposals to change the implementation of the new system. The suit alleges that Senate Bill 6, accompanying legislation to enact the new primary system, disenfranchises voters and minor party candidates. Plaintiff Richard Winger, publisher of Ballot Access news, and Stop Top Two founder Christina Tobin will be on hand for the 10:30 a.m. news conference at the Capitol’s south steps.

  • SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Richard Winger, elections expert and plaintiff in the lawsuit against Senate Bill 6 (SB 6) and Christina Tobin, CEO and founder of Free and Equal Elections Foundation and StopTopTwo.org creator, will give a press conference on the south steps of the California State Capitol, near the corner of 11th [...]

  • SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Richard Winger, plaintiff in the lawsuit against Senate Bill 6, and Christina Tobin, CEO and founder of Free and Equal Elections Foundation and StopTopTwo.org creator, will give a press conference on the south steps of the California State Capitol, Tuesday, August 17, 10:30 a.m.
    Richard Winger is publisher and editor of Ballot Access [...]

  • thumbnail

    Limiting voters’ choices

    August 12, 2010

    If Proposition 14 is allowed to stand, this November will effectively be the last time California voters can vote Peace and Freedom, Green, Libertarian or American Independent in state or federal races, except for president.

  • SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Christina Tobin, CEO and founder of Free and Equal Elections Foundation is proud to announce exciting changes for StopTopTwo.org as it transitions to a new, nationwide focus, after the June 8 election.
    “StopTopTwo.org will be taking a new direction in California and will expand efforts against the spread of this bad reform to [...]

  • “If you vote for a write-in candidate, your vote will not count. It will not be counted, and that is flat out illegal,” he said.

    Supporters of an open primary system, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado, say the will of voters should not be overruled by “Sacramento special interests” and “party bosses.”

    Dutta called those labels laughable.

  • SACRAMENTO, Calif. – As reported in the San Jose Mercury News yesterday, Thursday, July 29, a lawsuit was filed charging that state Senate Bill 6 is unconstitutional. SB 6 is the legislation that put Proposition 14, the Top Two election system, on the June 8 California ballot.
    Specifically, the lawsuit claims that SB 6 bans the [...]

  • The implications of the law haven’t been thought through, according to Christina Tobin, founder of the Free and Equal Elections Foundation, a nonpartisan advocacy group that supports the lawsuit.

    “We want the Legislature to be forced to hold open hearings on top-two, which they should have done in the first place instead of putting it on the ballot as part of a 3 a.m. secret backroom budget deal,” Tobin said. “This lawsuit is purely tactical, very smart and well-implemented. I’m certain it will be effective.” [...]“This is the first of many steps to come that Free and Equal Elections will take to stop top-two,” said Tobin.

  • A coalition of voters and minor-party advocates has asked a judge to block the state from transitioning to a top-two primary, saying it disenfranchises voters.

  • The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of San Fransisco County [official website], challenges the constitutionality of two provisions, one which disallows state election officials from counting write-in ballots while still providing a space for write-ins, and one that only allows primary candidates to list their party affiliations if they are members of one of six parties qualified for the ballot by the state. The complaint alleges that the write-in provisions violate the free speech, due process and equal protection rights of voters under the US and California [texts] constitutions.

  • The lawsuit claims SB6 violates the California Constitution because it bars the counting of write-in votes during general elections and allows only state-recognized parties to appear on the ballot.

    One of the plaintiffs, Steve Chessin of Mountain View, said, “SB6 is a hastily and poorly written law that was the result of a political backroom deal to secure the tie-breaking vote to pass the 2009 state budget.”

  • The Green Party is planning a suit over the replacement of party primaries with the “top two” system, which is likely to exclude third-party candidates from the runoff ballot in virtually all contested elections. Democratic and Republican leaders, who opposed Prop. 14, are considering separate challenges.

    Thursday’s suit in San Francisco Superior Court was more limited, targeting two sections of the new law. However, the plaintiffs asked a judge to block enforcement of Prop. 14 until legislation is passed to remove those two provisions.

  • Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today issued the following statement after a lawsuit was filed in the San Francisco Superior Court to block the implementation of the open primary system approved by California voters under Proposition 14:

    “It comes as no surprise that Sacramento special interests are trying to overturn the government reforms Californians overwhelmingly support. I will fight these special interests at every turn to protect these reforms that will break through Sacramento’s dysfunction.”

  • If the lawsuit were to succeed, Proposition 14 would not be rolled back, but the legislature would have to pass a new bill in order to implement an open primary election — reversing the prior dynamic, where legislation in effect awaited voter approval.

    “We’re going after a law the state passed,” Dutta said. “We’re not going after Proposition 14.”

  • The complaint filed Wednesday calls the measure unconstitutional. The motion for injunction filed today seeks to block implementation of the new primary.

  • Six people who oppose California’s open primary law are suing to block the state from moving ahead with a new election process.

    At the heart of the lawsuit is whether voters can write in a candidate’s name on a general election ballot.

  • As Capitol Alert reported last night, the plaintiffs argue that provisions in Senate Bill 6, accompanying legislation directing the execution of the new system, disenfranchise candidates from minor parties and voters.

    Read the complaint, filed this morning in San Francisco Superior Court, here.

  • “People who vote for write-in candidates in the general election will not have their vote counted. They’ll be throwing their votes away without even being told that by voting for a write-in your vote won’t count. And candidates who are from smaller parties will not be able to list their party of choice on the ballot when they run for office,” Dutta said.

    Under prop 14 candidates from parties other than state-recognized parties are only allowed to state that they have “No Party Preference” on the ballot.

    Dutta’s called that fundamentally “undemocratic”. He’s suing the Secretary of State and county election officials on behalf of candidates from the Socialist Action and the Reform Party and voters from four counties, including Los Angeles and Orange counties.

  • Opponents of Proposition 14 plan to file a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court tomorrow seeking to block the state from transitioning to a “top two” primary system. [...] The opponents said in a press release that the lawsuit will argue that the measure disenfranchises voters’ rights by eliminating write-in candidates and discriminates against candidates from parties not recognized by the state.

  • Proponents of Proposition 14, which was bankrolled by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and big business, outspent opponents by 50:1 to pass a “top two” primary that is deform masked as reform.

  • Prop 14 sounds radical, but it doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. We’re still left with a Tweedle Dee Dee and Tweedle Dee Dum choice between least undesirable candidates.

  • Having won over California voters, Peace’s movement is going national. New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has impaneled a commission that is, among other things, exploring an open primary initiative for New York City’s November ballot. (Bloomberg is the founder of Bloomberg LP, which owns Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek.) Voters elsewhere may soon be considering the option as well.

  • Without much fanfare or debate, California voters, weary, frustrated and apparently getting more passive by the proposition, approved Prop 14 this past June.

  • Sean Haugh, executive director of The Free and Equal Elections Foundation, expressed his opposition to the proposition, explaining, “The two candidates with the most name recognition and money to start with will be more successful, leaving others off the general election ballot. Just as significant is that there will be no voice for people to organize… [and be] heard by those who can be elected.”

  • “We believe Proposition 14 will fall. It sets an unacceptably high threshold for participation in the general election,” said Michael Feinstein, a former Santa Monica mayor who is national co-chair of the Green Party.

  • Supporters of the “top two” system are talking of importing it to other states, and Colorado would seem to be a prime target. (StopTopTwo.org – 15 articles from 12 states plus D.C. pushing Top Two.)

  • California, first with its Proposition 11 two years ago and with its Proposition 14 this year, is setting the trend. (StopTopTwo.org – 14 articles from 11 states plus D.C. pushing Top Two.)

  • Washington state’s electoral system is different from the rest of the country, unlike the party primaries and general elections that we’re used to. And that system is spreading — so pollsters around the country better get used to it.

    Washington state uses the “Top Two” electoral system.

  • Instead, in an uncharacteristic show of reasonableness, Californians told the political parties where they could go: off the ballot. Earlier this month, voters on the left coast approved Proposition 14, which replaces primaries with what are essentially non-partisan elections, of the sort we use in city races. (StopTopTwo.org – 13 articles from 10 states plus D.C. pushing Top Two.)

  • Sooner or later, it’s coming to Idaho. (StopTopTwo.org – 12 articles from 9 states plus D.C. pushing Top Two.)

  • I agree. Our political culture is far too partisan in part because of our system for choosing candidates. Adopting open primaries might well just open the door to a better and fairer political system.

    In any event, it is worth a try. (StopTopTwo.org – Texas, Arizona, Virgina/2, New Mexico, Florida, and Michigan/2.)

  • Proposition 14 is really the great vote silencer.

  • Green Party gubernatorial candidate Laura Wells has her campaign issue against Democrat Jerry Brown – Proposition 14. She says that Brown, who came out in favor of the open primary measure Tuesday – a week after voters approved it – aided the measure’s victory by rigging the ballot language. “It’s not the voters’ fault, but the fault of Brown and the corporations who fully intend to manipulate the rest of us for their financial gain,” Wells said in a statement.

  • “It makes me sick, this state is so dysfunctional,” says Los Angeles real estate developer Brian Harvey, who contributed $100,000 to support the measure. “I think this will attract more moderate candidates.” Other backers such as Netflix (NFLX) Chief Executive Officer Reed Hastings ($257,000), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) ($100,000), and the California Chamber of Commerce ($720,000) hope that the new system, in which the top two candidates chosen by all registered voters would face off in general elections, will bring more moderation to California politics. “I’m a lifelong Democrat, but I’m a centrist,” says Los Angeles philanthropist Eli Broad, who gave $100,000 to the Prop 14 cause. “Because of labor interests on the left and antitax folks on the extreme right, nothing gets done.”

  • The downside, though, is that the state’s primary essentially becomes the first of two general elections — meaning candidates need to spend the time and money reaching out earlier to voters outside their party.

    One thing everyone agrees on, though, is what’s on California voters’ minds: a desire for something different.

    “All they’re looking for is something that’s going to fix what they see as a broken political system,” said Republican Dan Schnur, director of the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

  • Further, a lot of voters wouldn’t find “choice” in the general election. You could still end up with two right-wing Republicans or two left-wing Democrats on the November ballot. In this conservative area, liberals may not even get to cast a symbolic vote for a Democrat — they’d likely have to choose between two Republicans or sit out the election. But I’d argue that if 60 percent of primary voters opt for a conservative, that’s a pretty good indication of the type of person the general population wants in office. … Like Michigan. Can we try it here? (StopTopTwo.org – Texas, Arizona, Virgina/2, New Mexico, Florida, and Michigan.)

  • And that explains why Virginia might need a proposition 14 here.

  • Third and even fourth and fifth parties have been an American tradition. They seldom win elections but their presence on a general election ballot is an opportunity to be heard. Liberal and conservative, they have always been with us. Proposition 14 puts an end to this American tradition.

  • Under the current imperfect administration of the Universe, most new ideas are false, so most ideas for improvements make matters worse. Given California’s parlous condition, making matters worse there requires ingenuity, but voters managed to do so last Tuesday.

  • Beware of wealthy “reformers” bearing promises to weaken the influence of America’s political parties in the name of creating a more perfect union.

    It usually turns out that raw hunger for power, not the civic good, is their motive.

    A case in point is California’s recently passed Proposition 14, which will replace party primary elections for nearly all offices in the state with a system in which candidates compete in an open primary and the top two finishers advance to a general election.

    It’s a deeply flawed idea that the rest of the nation must avoid.

  • Last week the voters of California took a radical step and more or less abolished party primary elections. If it’s true that what happens in California politics eventually gets exported to Florida, this raises interesting questions for us. (StopTopTwo.org – Texas, Arizona, Virgina, New Mexico, and Florida.)

  • The theory is that if all voters get to screen all candidates at primary time, rather than partisans selecting from fellow partisans, then those on the ideological extremes may be weeded out.

    But the theory is largely untested, and the costs could be high. Minor parties and independents and mavericks would likely have a harder time finding a path to the November ballot. Moreover, leaders of the two major parties fear that without an enforceable party role in the nomination of candidates, the struggle to counter the divisive forces represented by wealthy interest groups and self-financed, ambitious or famous individuals will not just infect politics but dominate it. They argue that, especially in light of the Supreme Court decision, elections could become auctions.

  • Last week, voters in California may have come up with an answer. Proposition 14 will scrap the traditional primary system, with GOP voters selecting one nominee and Demo voters the other. Instead, all candidates get thrown into the same pot, and the two with the most votes advance to the general election.

    It is hoped the change will end the traditional electoral square dance, where Republican candidates promenade right and Democrats promenade left for the primary, then both try to do-se-do back to the center for the general election. (StopTopTwo.org – Texas, Arizona, Virginia, and New Mexico.)

  • A recently approved California law has the potential to save the centrists. Proposition 14 has become Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s pet proposal. He fought hard for the idea and raised $5 million to support a revised primary plan called the Top Two Primary system. (StopTopTwo.org – First Texas, then Arizona, now Virginia.)

  • California voters have endorsed a dramatic change that will likely be challenged in court. Isn’t everything? But this idea is not far-fetched. There is a nascent effort to impose such a fully open primary system on Arizona’s polarized politics. Watch for it.

    There’s no guarantee it would improve the quality of candidates or campaigns. Past election reforms, like public funding and term limits, didn’t help. (StopTopTwo.org – First Texas, then Arizona.)

  • “I am 100% for both of these reforms. The polarization that led to gridlock in California is going to be the norm in Texas.” – (Top Two coming to you next, and they are already mistakenly calling it an open primary.-StopTopTwo.org)

  • “I’d say this is extinction for third parties,” says Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News, a 25-year-old publication focused on election law and political parties. To advance to a general election contest, third-party candidates will now have to compete against usually better organized and funded Democrats and Republicans in the wide-open primary contests — matchups in which they are highly unlikely to finish in the top two. And the new measure does not allow write-in candidates.

  • “Proposition 14 is like a Trojan Horse that needs to be stopped,” said Christina Tobin, … and chairwoman of StopTopTwo.org, an anti-Prop 14 Web site.

    The group is upset because “only two candidates will appear on the November ballot, even two candidates from the same party, and write-in candidates will no longer be allowed,” it writes on the site, adding, “Currently in the November election each party’s candidates competes against each other along with any independents, giving voters more than two choices along with the write-in option.”

  • In this morning’s press release, Christina Tobin, chair of StopTopTwo.Org, an anti-Prop. 14 group, writes:

    “Proposition 14, also known as the Top Two Primaries Act, is a dangerous ‘electoral reform’ measure … The measure eliminates party primaries, enables candidates to mask their party affiliation from voters, and only the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, limiting voter choice. Under Prop 14, voters could be forced to choose between two republicans or two democrats in the general election or not vote at all. Smaller parties and independents would not stand a chance.”

  • “There’s no evidence out there that shows a top-two open primary shows any of the bipartisanship or breaks any gridlock, like in Louisiana or Washington state where it’s been implemented. These are not models of smooth and well-functioning government,” said Standriff. “It does nothing the proponents say it would do. It was put together by a secret back-room deal to pass a budget last year.”

    “Baseball doesn’t work if you don’t have teams, and democracy doesn’t work if you don’t have political parties. Otherwise you have chaos.” said Standriff. “And the only bipartisanship Prop. 14 has achieved is getting all six ballot-qualified parties to say we hate it.”

  • Green Party member Owen Smigelski cast his vote against Proposition 14, the primary election measure, saying it would undermine third-party candidates.

    “If Proposition 14 passes, only the two top vote-getters in the primary will get on the ballot,” he said. “So it’s pretty guaranteed that no third-party candidate will get on the general ballot — a Green Party candidate, a Libertarian, any type of third-party candidate.”

  • The smaller parties will be crushed; and since their being listed on the voters’ registration form depends on how many votes they received in a recent election they could be dropped off future registration forms, a case of out sight, out of mind.

    While the present system is highly flawed, it is better than creating even larger flaws and claiming they are reforms.

    Until a better bill than Prop 14 comes along, the devil we know is less evil than the devil we haven’t met yet.

  • Unfortunately, the nominating process will be reduced from over 5 Million registered Republican voters-who are now free to vote to nominate candidates-to a few thousand Republicans at a convention. But the pushers of Prop 14 want it that way. They want to make party nominations more difficult-even non-existent. So they are taking the process out of the realm of a popular vote and pushing it to a limited number of party activists.

  • To hear proponents of Proposition 14, you would think that implementing an open primary in California would provide greater choice to voters, fix the state’s budget mess, and bring peace and harmony to Sacramento (and the world at large). Sadly, this “reform” will not improve the state’s electoral system—much less its budget problems—and will only disenfranchise more voters by reducing their choices and their freedom of association with the political party of their choice. The good news is that better electoral and budgetary reforms are out there, and Californians should embrace them before the state gets mired even deeper in its current morass.

  • Please don’t be fooled by the well-heeled proponents of Prop 14 who claim it is a “reform” that will give you more “choices” at the ballot box.

    Prop 14 is a thinly-disguised power grab by big business interests who want consolidate their stranglehold over the election process in California.

    They want to rig the system to ensure only candidates they like will win the primaries and that those will be your only “choices” in the general election.

  • Prop 14: No. Passage of this proposition will lead to a system that tampers with the will of people registered and involved with a specific party while hindering the ability for third party candidates to compete. Furthermore, additional elements of the proposition will prohibit write-in candidates in the general election and allow candidates to conceal their party affiliation from the voter (undermining the transparency needed in a healthy democracy).

  • Prop 14: No. Prop 14 prevents candidates for statewide office from having to identify their party affiliation. In theory, a candidate can go through an entire election cycle able to hide their party affiliation and provide precious little information about what they stand for. It’s difficult enough to identify issues and positions of candidates today, particularly with so many millions of dollars being poured into misleading advertising. A law like this one only opens the door for even more political chicanery, allowing candidates to more easily sidestep the issues in the name of political expediency.

  • Every so often, a proposition comes up that seems to be the cure to the ills that plague our state but in reality is nothing but a replacement for the tough reforms that have to be made. Proposition 14 is one example of such populist pandering. … Further, we are concerned about the effect of this ballot proposition on third party voices that would effectively be shut out between the primary and the election. This measure’s supporters do not have much empirical evidence to support their claims, but the danger of Prop. 14 is clear. Vote ‘no’ on 14.

  • In all, proponents have spent more than $4.6 million on the measure. It’s being bankrolled by Gov. Schwarzenegger’s political committee ($2 million) and the state Chamber of Commerce ($750,000). Other noteworthy donors include Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix ($257,000), the state hospital association ($250,000) and the state association of health underwriters ($200,000). Among other donors are Steve Bechtel, former head of the giant construction concern ($10,000), former eBay executive and Democratic candidate for governor Steve Westly ($5,000), and the Jack in the Box hamburger chain ($2,500.)

    Opponents have spent less than $250,000.

  • Corporatocracy through discrimination, repression and disenfranchisement is what Proposition 14 would bring to California’s political arena if passed according to Linda Piera-Avila.

    Noted Los Angeles resident and human rights defender, Piera-Avila is the Green Party Candidate for the 41st Assembly District.

  • Special note to our California friends; Proposition 14 (the open primary initiative) is just plain stupid for Californians, and for California Republicans it’s worse than that. In a state with so many Democrat voters we would literally have our political opponents picking the Republican candidate they want to run against. Don’t laugh.

  • * Proposition 14 (“Top two” runoff in partisan elections — effectively bans third parties): Vote no. This measure will restrict voters’ options and prevent qualified candidates from running in a general election. Instead of voters of each party putting their best candidate forward, this jury-rigged system is designed to disguise the difference between the parties and force those pesky third parties off the general election ballot entirely. In 2004, California voters defeated a similar measure, Proposition 62.

  • Critics point to Washington state and Louisiana, which have tried this specific type of open primary system. Neither state has seen a reduction in partisanship. So it might not even work as planned. But even if it does create more moderates —- more people like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado —- how would that help the state? These types of politicians have been the ones least likely to stand up for any particular principle.

    Most disturbing, the top-two system would destroy third parties in California, which would no longer be likely to field candidates in the general election. This could reduce debate just as the state needs a livelier political discussion.

  • Proposition 14 would be wrong for California. The majority of California voters are registered Democrats. The possibility of the two top vote getters in a primary election being Democrats is a reality. This would result in a runoff between two Democrats, which would be very unfair to conservative thinkers who would normally vote for a Republican.

  • Gary Bryant, Libertarian Party candidate for California Assembly, 3rd district, has produced his own radio ad against Proposition 14, the top-two ballot measure on the June 8 ballot. He uses his own voice, and the ad lasts one minute. It cost him $205 to have it air four times on Monday, June 7, on KNCO, [...]

  • Opponents claim the proposition actually would reduce voter choices, with only two candidates in the general election. They assert that intraparty general elections would leave little ideological contrast, forcing personality-based campaigns and mudslinging. The single ballot primary, they allege, would strongly favor those candidates with the deepest pockets.
    “Literally, it would squeeze voters out of the entire electoral process,” Tobin said.

  • “Proposition 14 was placed on the ballot by Sacramento politicians; it was NOT put on the ballot through a statewide petitioning effort,” states another website stoptoptwo.org opposing the measure, “Governor Schwarzenegger and his dysfunctional Sacramento political friends put this on the ballot as part of a “deal” to get the 2009 budget passed.

  • Supporters of the mislabeled open primary initiative say it would produce more ‘moderate’ state leaders. In reality, Prop. 14 would increase the corrupting influence of money in politics and remove smaller parties from the general election ballot.

  • Foes of the initiative, who have organized a “Stop Top Two” campaign, note that, “The top two vote getters, even if both of them get less than 10% and they are from the same party, would advance to the November election.”

    Worse yet, “Proposition 14 forbids voters from write-in candidates for the November election, so if Top Two passes California voters will no longer have more than two choices in the November election; except for the Presidential race.”

    That’s a constrained democracy that offers voters less rather than more.

  • Opponents claim the proposition actually would reduce voter choices, with only two candidates in the general election. They assert that intraparty general elections would leave little ideological contrast, forcing personality-based campaigns and mudslinging. The single ballot primary, they allege, would strongly favor those candidates with the deepest pockets.

    “Literally, it would squeeze voters out of the entire electoral process,” Tobin said.

  • “It’s the political cleansing of candidates,” charges Christina Tobin, chair of a* “No on 14″ campaign. She fears that if voters are allowed to cross party lines during the primary, they’ll place candidates on the November ballot who stand for nothing and cater to the middle-of-the-road vote. And she argues that third-party candidates, such as the Libertarian and Green parties, will face nearly impossible obstacles.

  • The major parties will no doubt find ways around Prop 14 (Republicans are already saying as much in the press), but the minor parties will, no doubt, suffer. Should their candidate not be one of the top two vote getters in June — an unlikely case in most races — that party will no longer appear on the November ballot. Also left out of Prop 14 — write-in candidates. The measure’s architect, Steve Peace, maintains that both problems can be addressed by the Legislature and governor modifying the state’s election’s code.

  • IN THIS STATE, the Democratic and Republican parties rarely agree on anything – but both oppose Proposition 14. Although its misleading ballot title promises to increase the “right to participate in primary elections,” the measure actually imposes major new limits on voters.

    By eliminating party primaries, Proposition 14 would deny all political parties – and their voters – the right to choose a nominee to run in a general election.

  • “If Proposition 14 passes, the Green Party, the Peace and Freedom Party, the American Independent Party, and the Libertarian Party, to name a few, will be denied spots on general election ballots” said Schelen.

    Added Pruner, “it is completely un-American to deny an opportunity in elections to other ideas and political parties. All political parties start out as small parties at one time or another.”

  • The title and wording of Proposition 14 is extremely misleading. It claims to increase democracy when, in fact, it actually diminishes democracy by denying small parties a voice in the November elections.

    Proposition 14 is funded and supported by Gov. Schwarzenegger’s “Dream Team” of corporate interests. Its real purpose is to eliminate diversity of choice and to further consolidate power in the major, corporate-funded and corporate-controlled Republican and Democratic parties.

  • It is being sold as a way to crush Party inner circle poobahs from having too much power in choosing who gets to be the candidate. But third party activists from the Libertarian Party to Ralph Nader see it as just a way to ensure there is no possible third party choice for voters in [...]

  • But there are too many side effects to Prop. 14 for us to endorse it, not the least of which is an exclusion of political parties from the electoral process.

    We’re all for nonpartisan campaigns, but in a primary election, Democrats need to stand behind Democrats, Republicans behind Republicans, and so forth, to guarantee that the chosen candidate for a particular party gets a spot on a general election ballot. Sometimes, tradition is good, and we mean in the tried-and-true sense.

  • As the writers point out, Proposition 14 will reduce our choices of candidates. Only two voices will be heard between the primaries and the general election in November, rather than many. A race on the November ballot will have only two candidates, and they would almost certainly be a Democrat and a Republican, or two Democrats, or two Republicans.

    If you don’t like either candidate, Proposition 14 will prevent you from writing in another candidate.

  • Louisiana used a Top Two system for nearly 30 years (1978-2006), during which only one incumbent member of Congress was ever defeated. Under the Top Two system in Washington state in 2008, only one incumbent was defeated in 140 total races. The degree to which this measure suppresses competition in the general election makes Prop 14 better named “The Incumbent Protection Act.”

    I urge voters who care about keeping more choices in the general election to vote No on Prop 14.

  • “I really don’t think you want two parties that are similar,” Poizner told a town hall meeting at the La Jolla Recreation Center. “You want two parties that are different. Let them battle it out.” He also said California’s four minor political parties — the American Independent, Green, Libertarian and Peace and Freedom Parties — would be virtually precluded from participating in general elections because their candidates would almost never finish in the top two. “It’s going to destroy third parties,” he said.

  • Prop. 14 also has a hidden zinger in it that would remove the Peace and Freedom and Libertarian parties from the ballot. But so far only one daily newspaper has mentioned it — the San Francisco Chronicle, in a March 11 story by Wyatt Buchanan. The state ballot pamphlet says nothing about this particularly nasty detail of Prop. 14.

  • WHAT if you opened up your November ballot and discovered that your only two choices for attorney general were both Republicans? Or that your only two choices for lieutenant governor were both Democrats? It makes no sense to give any party a monopoly in our elections. It makes no sense to rashly embrace the [...]

  • Here are the top two reasons to reject Prop 14, also called the “Top Two” Primary. First, Prop 14 will stifle political competition and debate. Second, Prop 14 will deprive voters of a full range of candidate choices.

  • Just like term limits were supposed to help solve Sacramento’s problems and only made things worse, this proposal too will do nothing to solve the real root of the problem—too much money from special interests pouring into campaigns… With the new system, members of party A might vote for the “weakest” candidate of party B to get elected in the primary so that party A has an easier-to-beat opponent in the general. Here’s another example. The new system is like saying that members of the Ku Klux Klan should be able to vote in the elections of the American Civil Liberties Union, and vice versa. Does that make any sense? Vote No!

  • The Green Party of California opposes Proposition 14 because it would reduce voter choice and political voice across political lines, while unfairly favoring incumbents, big money and party insiders.

    By eliminating party primaries, expanding the number of voters that primary candidates have to reach and effectively front-loading the election process, Proposition 14 would put even greater emphasis on name recognition and early fundraising, increasing the corrupting influence of money and making it harder for competing candidates and movements to survive, let alone contend.

  • Proposition 14 would abolish party primaries and establish a single, nonpartisan, open primary. Voters will be asked to choose a single candidate from among all candidates running from all parties, plus independents and write-ins.
    Only the two candidates who get the most votes will appear on the ballot in the general election. [...]

  • In California, the measure is being backed by an eclectic roster of businessmen and politicians, including Lewis Wolff, a real estate developer and the owner of the Oakland A’s baseball team; Steve Westly, a former Democratic candidate for governor; and John W. Thompson, chairman of Symantec and a supporter of President Obama.

  • In Washington and Louisiana, where this system has already been tried, only one incumbent in each state has been defeated in a primary election. That isn’t one per election — that is one, total. In Louisiana, this is for a period of 35 years!

  • Prop. 14 is the result of collusion between an ambitious politician, newly appointed Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, and entrenched Sacramento spending interests. A year ago, then-Senator Maldonado, a Republican, sold his vote for the most massive tax increase in the history of all 50 states, in return for an agreement to place a measure [...]

  • On May 24, twelve minor party and independent activists demonstrated in front a Sacramento restaurant. Inside, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared. Guests paid $5,000 each to be at the event, and the money went toward the campaign for Proposition 14, the top-two measure on the June 8 ballot.
    Two of the guests said that they have no [...]

  • There’s no doubt that California’s political system isn’t working well right now, but Proposition 14 doesn’t guarantee that it will make it work any better. In the long run, the unintended consequences of Proposition 14 make it an unpalatable choice. Vote no on Proposition 14.

  • Often times the cure is worse than the disease. June 8, we’ll be looking at another initiative, Proposition 14, that seems likely to exacerbate every disease it seeks to cure…

  • When runoff elections happen right away, via instant run off voting, or withing just a couple of weeks, they are part of the same campaign. This proposition will force candidates to run two district-wide campaigns, almost half a year apart. This could make running for office more expensive. Increasing that cost is not attractive, since [...]

  • This proposition would allow candidates to not name a party affiliation or preference, and allow the top two vote getters to face-off in the General Election. We do not believe that this is in the interest of the voter, or that candidates should be allowed to not name their party affiliation. Voters have [...]

  • thumbnail

    No on 14 and 15

    May 19, 2010

    In practice, experts suggest this means that voters in many California districts will choose between two Democrats, while perhaps in a handful of districts two Republicans will survive the primaries and run against each other. They also ponder the likelihood that this shift will merely put more emphasis on candidates’ ability to raise money early [...]

  • We think the argument for the idea, endorsed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, sounds better than the reality. The proponents assume that a “top two” primary system will push candidates to the middle, eliminate the stranglehold the far right and left have over the Republican and Democratic parties, and help moderate the Legislature. We don’t [...]

  • CRP passed a measure at its March convention that would allow state and county GOP central committees to anoint the preferred Republican candidate in the primary.

    This would not prevent other Republicans from running in the primary, but it would give the chosen one a leg up by allowing them to campaign as the GOP endorsed candidate. That candidate would also be the only one the GOP could spend money on to help get elected.

  • For registered members of California’s minor parties, Proposition 14 isn’t just about winning or losing elections.
    It’s a matter of survival.
    “It pretty much wipes us out,” said John Reiger, former congressional candidate for the Peace and Freedom Party.

  • Duane Roberts, Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate, says Prop 14 is a “power grab” by big business interests that will disenfranchise millions of Californians by limiting their choices at the polls. Roberts urges voters to reject this “unprecedented attack on democratic rights”

  • “Essentially the two candidates with the deepest pockets, the ones with the most wealth will be the ones on the ballot in the general election,” said Christina Tobin, who heads the Web site StopTopTwo.Org
    Tobin pushes proportional representation as an alternative to the top-two, open primary system.

  • thumbnail

    blackvoicenews.com

    May 13, 2010

    (scroll down to bottom of web page to see endorsements)
    PROPOSITION 14 NO, the current system serves us well by having those members of party affiliation voting for their members. Open primaries will allow for political party manipulation in the primary.

  • Expanding the electoral process to encourage more people to vote is a noble objective. Rigging the system in a way that could deceive voters is not.
    California has tried several times to reform its primary process in a way that erases the line between political parties and encourages more people to participate, [...]

  • The reality is, Prop 14 isn’t what it claims to be. Not only will it drastically limit “voter choice,” but it will alter the structure of the electoral system in such a way that it will give big business interests and the wealthy an upper hand on the kinds of candidates that get elected to public office.

  • Proposition 14 on the June 8 ballot would make two dramatic changes to the system of elections in California. In the primary election, state and congressional (but not presidential) candidates from all political parties would compete together in a single open primary. All candidates from all political parties would appear on the same ballot. In the general election, only candidates who finished first or second in the open primary would compete against each other in a run-off — even if those candidates were from the same party.

  • Sacramento was witness to a rarified event on May 11th. According to at least one reporter, she had never seen a press conference where each of California’s political partys stood together – literally and figuratively – and so it was at the “No on Prop 14″ press conference. The Republican Party, the Democrat Party, the [...]

  • By eliminating party primaries, Proposition 14 would put greater emphasis on name recognition and early fundraising, increasing the corrupting influence of big money and making it harder for competing candidates and movements to survive, let alone contend. Because of the additional pressure not to “split the primary vote” of their [...]

  • It’s not often you find labor unions, anti-tax groups, consumer attorneys, the Democratic, Republican, Green, Peace and Freedom, Libertarian and American Independent parties all singing the same political tune on the campaign trail.
    But that coalition of strange political bedfellows has come together in opposition to Proposition 14, the “top-two primary” [...]

  • Prop 14 was put on the ballot through the backroom dealings of State Senator (not Lt. Gov.) Abel Maldonado, the very last holdout on the budget this year. He used the budget crisis for his own profit and one of his demands was to put this measure on the ballot. Now, his reckless action is being opposed by every political party in California and numerous electoral reform groups, groups ranging from the NAACP to the Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition.

  • A press conference uniting leaders across the political spectrum will be held in Sacramento on Tuesday. The speakers will discuss their opposition to Proposition 14, the Top Two Primaries Act.
    California leaders from the American Independent, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, and Republican Parties will be in attendance.

  • Democrats, Republicans and other local independent groups say that Proposition 14, the Top Two Primaries Act, blurs party lines and encourages infighting among people of the same political preference.

  • If two Democrats file, and there are six Republicans and two Democrats on the August 2010 primary ballot, it is highly likely that the two Democrats will place first and second, leaving no Republican on the November ballot…

  • As often recounted in this space, the capitol’s most enduring conflict pits business groups against a “Big 4″ coalition of labor unions, environmentalists, consumer advocates and personal injury attorneys….

  • On June 8, Californians will be voting on whether to adopt a completely new system of electing Governors, Senators, Assembly Members and Congressional Representatives – all courtesy of Prop 14. I could not be more against this particular initiative and have written at length about it. This article is dedicated to demonstrating why Prop 14 actually will reduce voter participation – not increase it.

  • Proposition 14 on the ballot in the June primary was placed there by a reluctant legislature to secure the vote of then-Senator Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria) for the 2009 budget deal. Maldonado’s idea would eliminate party primaries with the hope that political strife in California would decline if more moderate legislators [...]

  • Proposition 14, falsely dubbed an “open” primary, has found support among some prominent California newspapers. The Sacramento Bee says it will be a “win for democracy.” The San Francisco Chronicle says it will “create real competition.” The San Jose Mercury News says it will result in “a [...]

  • Although the article does not mention any details about how the Chronicle, the Mercury News, and the Bee determined their support for Proposition 14, it should be noted that the Chronicle only invited proponents to speak to the editorial board, and did not invite opponents to come to speak. The [...]

  • At the height of a royal mess last year when the state budget was long overdue and the two-thirds majority needed to pass it was still out of reach by one vote, Republican Sen. Abel Maldonado struck a deal with Democrats. He said he’d support the budget — if the majority party [...]

  • A “top two” system would likely offer even more protection for incumbents than our current primaries. “Top two” primaries have been used in Louisiana from the 1970s to 2006 and in Washington in 2008, and in all those races, only two incumbent Congress members were defeated for re-election (not counting one [...]

  • It will be Democrat vs. Democrat in many California elections if the “open primary” initiative is enacted by voters, a new study says.

  • Proposition 14 advocates never seem to mention that a “top-two” system has already been tried in two states, Louisiana and Washington. Proposition 14 advocates insist that a “top-two” system will elect more moderates, and fewer left-wing Democrats and fewer right-wing Republicans. But that is not what has happened in [...]

  • There’s a conceit among self-described “moderate” and “centrist” pundits that their politics are the only legitimate politics – and that those on the left and right are not as legitimate. When denunciation of the two “extremes” fails to arrest the collapse of the center, the moderates’ next move is to rig the system to [...]

  • Proposition 14 replaces our traditional party primary system with the “blanket” primary used by that paragon of political dysfunction, the state of Louisiana. Prop. 14 is the fruit of a corrupt bargain struck a year ago between liberal Republican state Sen. Abel Maldonado and legislative Democrats: Maldonado voted to enact the [...]

  • While its advocates drape it in the rhetoric of openness and reform, Proposition 14 is actually a radical restructuring of California’s traditional primary. This initiative tramples freedom of association and robs political parties the right to decide their own nominees. It does so by imposing a “blanket primary” system identical to [...]

  • thumbnail

    Wrong election reform

    April 23, 2010

    How can Proposition 14 be fair when candidates will have to earn more money since they will be competing against more people? This isn’t fair reform. It’s giving the politician with the deepest pockets the election.

  • Proposition 14 has a catchy name, “The Two Top Primaries Act,” and it is theoretically designed to weaken the two-party system, but will in effect strengthen it by blocking access to the November elections by lesser parties.

  • A few weeks ago, the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce heard speakers on both sides of Proposition 14, the California “top-two” ballot measure. Here is a video of the exchange. The Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce ultimately resolved to remain neutral on the issue. The speaker in favor of Proposition 14 is Brandon Gesicki, who has been campaign manager for State Senator Abel Maldonado, the author of the measure. The opponent is Green Party activist Mike Feinstein, who was Mayor of Santa Monica in the past.

  • FairVote’s Board of Directors recently voted to oppose Proposition 14 on the ballot this June in California. Here is our statement.
    Many Californians are frustrated with their state’s politics. Incumbents almost never lose, most general elections are lopsided, and most elections are effectively decided in low-turnout primaries. The status quo is [...]

  • By now we all know that if they are calling it “Open Primary,” it’s just double speak for “Closed Primary”. Because only the primary’s top two candidates for each office, regardless of political party, would advance to a runoff election in November, if two Democratic candidates each receive more votes [...]

  • For more than three presidential cycles Ralph Nader has worked to open the political system to more voices and more choices for American voters.
    That’s why it is particularly strange that Harry Kresky, in his commentary in favor of California adopting Proposition 14 for an open primary system, would claim that by opposing the [...]

  • The Santa Clara, California, city Chamber of Commerce has voted to oppose Proposition 14, the “top-two” ballot measure on the June 8 ballot. On March 23, the chamber had heard a presentation from representatives of both sides. Brian Brennan from the Silicon Valley Leadership Group had spoken for the [...]

  • “Parachutes are like minds,” Thomas Dewar, the patron-saint of blended whiskies, once declared. “They work best when open.”

    The same is true for the political process: openness and transparency reassure voting citizens that their elected officials adequately represent their interests. Conversely, smoke-filled rooms and party machines undermine public confidence, promote cynicism and induce despair.

    What a pity, then, that Proposition 14, an initiative on the June ballot that would remake California’s electoral system, is so badly mislabeled as the “open primary” measure…

  • Once political parties learn how to game the system, they can ensure that only one party appears on the November ballot…

  • Rather than fixing the situation, Proposition 14 would permanently cement in place the appallingly broken two-party system that has been on full display in Washington this year. Proposition 14 would effectively eliminate the already limited electoral options for many American voters, preventing innovative ideas and solutions from entering the political debate. Similar laws passed in Washington and Louisiana have not improved the partisan nature of elections or elected officials…

  • While good government types backing the open primary effort might be a little nervous if they saw names like Chevron, PG&E, Sempra Energy and Wal-Mart on the list of donors, not to worry. While all those companies have given big bucks to Schwarzenegger’s PAC, it’s the governor’s name, not theirs that will appear alongside the contribution to Prop. 14…

  • Louisiana has used “top-two” for state office since 1975. Many Louisiana gubernatorial elections have advanced candidates to the runoff who did not appeal to the center. In 1991, former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke reached the gubernatorial runoff, just as he had reached the U.S. Senate runoff in 1990…

  • Though the campaign posted a negative balance of nearly $90,000 in the recent campaign filings, Schwarzenegger’s contribution and a $250,000-plus check from Netflix CEO Reed Hastings give the campaign a big cash boost. Yes on 14 officials say they’ve been investing in gearing up the campaign and have secured even more cash contributions for the coming weeks…

  • If approved, this referendum would ensure that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in a primary race would be the only two to appear on the general election ballot, regardless of political party. In other words, this raises the potential for two Democratic candidates or two Republican candidates [...]

  • In the late 1990s, California adopted something similar to the reform on the June ballot. The so-called “blanket” primary increased moderation slightly in the Assembly. But the change in the U.S. House delegation barely registered, and there was no real effect in the state Senate…

  • Sacramento — A June ballot measure to change California’s primary elections would eliminate write-in candidates in general elections and, opponents say, doom third parties in the state…

Open the Debates Petition



Social Media





Opponents of Top Two


Organizations


News Media


Californians


Nationwide