We’ve found that many people see California’s Proposition 14, the “Top Two Primaries Act,” as a rather simple concept. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details. For example, even for people who like the Washington State Top Two system, there are plenty of reasons to oppose Proposition 14 on the June 8, 2010 ballot.
Unlike the Washington system, in which any candidate can choose almost any label, Proposition 14 discriminates against a candidate’s ability to use any party label, even when they are registered as a member of a minor party.
Proposition 14 does not amend the California Election Code, which defines “party” to mean “qualified party.” Candidates who happen to be registered with an unqualified party could not list a party on the ballot. For example, there are 24,000 people registered with the Reform Party in California, and it is reasonable to assume a few of them might want to run for Congress or state office, but they could not say “My party preference is the Reform Party” on the ballot.
This problem becomes even more serious because Proposition 14 makes it far more difficult for parties to retain their qualified status. Proposition 62, which passed in 2004 in California, lowered the registration threshold for qualification to one-third of 1%. Proposition 14 could easily have copied this from Proposition 62, but the drafters of Proposition 14 did not do that.
Because the ballot-qualified parties remain on the ballot now by polling 2% for any of seven or eight statewide races in a midterm year, and because they get a free ride in presidential years, it is fairly easy for parties to remain ballot-qualified. But if Proposition 14 passes, it would effectively eliminate the 2% vote test, because parties would not have nominees. The only other test is having registration of 1% of the last gubernatorial vote, which will be about 100,000 after November 2010. The Peace & Freedom Party, for example, only has 58,000 registrants, while the Libertarians have 84,000.
With Proposition 14, write-ins may never be counted in November, even if the vote-counting computer might indicate that a write-in candidate may have won. By contrast, Washington State would not necessarily count write-ins for every write-in candidate, but they would count them if the vote-counting equipment indicated the possibility of a write-in victor. Currently, California law explicitly protects write-ins in November, even saying that a “sore loser” could still be a write-in candidate.
At least in Washington, candidates can enter the race as late as June. But Proposition 14 shuts off all avenues for candidacy by mid-March. As often happens, there might be an unexpected major event in the spring or summer that creates a great public demand for someone new to enter the race.
We’ve stressed before how the Washington Top Two system has already set records in protecting incumbents from competition. Based on the differences between that system and Proposition 14, California voters will have an even harder time using the ballot to change the disastrous condition of their current government in Sacramento.
Please visit our website www.stoptoptwo.org to learn more about how Californians can protect their right to vote by voting down Proposition 14. We’ve also created a Stop Top Two Facebook page to unite Proposition 14 opponents and reach a larger audience. Please join us there.
We cannot let this measure become law!
yours for free and equal elections,
Christina Tobin
Founder, CEO
Free & Equal
