There is an initiative circulating regarding a "Voter's Choice Open Primary." In this system, there would be one big primary ballot for every office except President. Voters would pick their choice without regard to Party. The two 2 vote getters would go to the general election run-off -- regardless of whether someone already has a big majority.
According to the backers, this will solve the gerrymander issues, because in gerrymandered one-party districts, more than one candidate from the dominant party will run. Ask McClintock if he thinks this will happen without a lot of pressure from the party -- especially if the party has a sitting incumbant.
According to the backers this will cause moderation among candidates, because the other-party voters can affect the majority party's candidate(s). To the degree this is true, it is unconstitutional (Democratic Party v Jones). But again, there will be no serious same-party challenger to the sitting officeholder. Without Instant-Runoff Voting, there is no way for the other-party voters to coordinate, either. Maxine Waters will not fear this.
(There is also a voting procedure issue with Presidnetial primaries being done on a different ballot -- some voting machines will choke on this)
So, this initiative is another one of the seemingly endless series of "fixes" that fix nothing in our intentionally broken state elections. How many times have we passed "clean campaign funding" initiatives? The next one that works will be the first (I hear Ariana has yet another). We just got through with the "blanket primary" that was supposed to let moderates compete, but didn't -- and was unconstitutional to boot (see above). This deck-chair re-arrangement won't keep the ship afloat either.
What do we need for real reform? Three things in order of importance: Removing redistricting from the Legislature's control; Criminalizing gerrymanders; and Instant Runoff Voting. More on these later.
"According to the backers this will cause moderation among candidates, because the other-party voters can affect the majority party's candidate(s). To the degree this is true, it is unconstitutional (Democratic Party v Jones)."
I think you may be misreading California Democratic Party v. Jones here. Take a look at the penultimate paragraph of the court's opinion:
Finally, we may observe that even if all these state interests were compelling ones, Proposition 198 is not a narrowly tailored means of furthering them. Respondents could protect them all by resorting to a nonpartisan blanket primary. Generally speaking, under such a system, the State determines what qualifications it requires for a candidate to have a place on the primary ballot -- which may include nomination by established parties and voter-petition requirements for independent candidates. Each voter, regardless of party affiliation, may then vote for any candidate, and the top two vote getters (or however many the State prescribes) then move on to the general election. This system has all the characteristics of the partisan blanket primary, save the constitutionally crucial one: Primary voters are not choosing a party's nominee. Under a nonpartisan blanket primary, a State may ensure more choice, greater participation, increased "privacy," and a sense of "fairness"--all without severely burdening a political party's First Amendment right of association.
Posted by: Xrlq at October 15, 2003 06:06 PMWell, actually, we are both correct here.
As I said, "to the extent" that the idea is to select other party's candidates, it is unconstitutional. The opinion, even the part you quote, does not dispute this -- it simply asserts that they find that the hypothetical case suggested does not "select party candidates."
Again, though, I ask you:
What is the POINT? What does this initiative hope to accomplish? Why should I not view it as another anti-reform red herring?
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at October 15, 2003 10:19 PM