[EL] CA 3rd parties and top-two

Sat Jun 23 19:03:20 PDT 2012

In Oregon in 2008, the leaders of most of the state's minor parties did 
oppose the top-2 initiative, Measure 65.  See 
http://saveoregonsdemocracy.org.  Despite its "YES" endorsement by every 
major newspaper in Oregon (except the Salem Statesman-Journal), the 
measure was defeated by voters 66-34%.

The results were not a matter of campaign spending.  YES spent $752,000, 
while NO spent $419,000.  Most of the NO spending was done by public 
employee unions.  Its defeat was helped by the official opposition of 
both the Democratic Party of Oregon and the Oregon Republican Party, in 
addition to the opposition of most of the minor parties.  For comparison 
with spending in a California statewide measure election, multiply by 10.

But I believe that the central reason for its defeat was its ballot 
title.  Unlike California, the Oregon ballot did not describe the 
measure in glowing, positive terms and did not claim it "Increases Right 
to Participate in Primary Elections" or "Encourages increased 
participation in elections" or "Gives voters increased options in the 
primary."

The Oregon draft official ballot title for the measure, prepared by the 
Attorney General of Oregon, was very favorable for the measure and 
described it as establishing "Open Primaries."  After extensive public 
comment in the summer of 2007, the AG removed the term "Open" from the 
ballot title, having been persuaded that a top-2 system is not within 
the definition of "open primary."  Both the proponents and opponents of 
the measure appealed the AG's ballot title to the Oregon Supreme Court, 
which took the advice of opponents that the central subject matter of 
the measure was the general election, as the measure restricted who 
could appear on the general election ballot.  The Court changed the 
ballot title caption, which appeared on the ballot itself, to this:

    *Changes general election nomination processes for major/minor
    party, independent candidates for most partisan offices*

And here is what appeared in the Oregon Voters' Pamphlet mailed to every 
voter, in addition to that caption:

    *Result of "yes" vote*

    "Yes" vote changes general election nomination processes for most
    partisan offices; all candidates run in single primary; top two
    primary candidates compete in general election.

    *Result of "no" vote*

    "No" vote retains the current party primary election system, retains
    procedures for the nomination of minor political party and
    independent candidates to the general election.

    *Summary*

    Currently, major parties nominate candidates to general election
    through party primaries; minor parties, independents nominate
    candidates directly to general election. Multiple candidates for
    office may appear on general election ballot. Measure changes those
    nomination processes for most partisan offices, including United
    States Senator; Congressional Representative; Governor; Secretary of
    State; State Treasurer; Attorney General; State Senator; State
    Representative; any state, county, city, district office that is not
    nonpartisan/for which law authorizes political party nominations to
    general election. Primary ballots contain all prospective
    candidates; elector may vote for candidate regardless of elector's,
    candidate's party affiliation. Only top two candidates in primary
    compete in general election. Primary, general election ballots must
    contain candidates' party registration, endorsements. Eligible
    person, regardless of party affiliation, may fill vacancy. Other
    provisions.

I believe that it was the neutral ballot title that caused Measure 65 to 
be defeated by Oregon voters.  This neutral title was achieved only by 
concerted public involvement starting about 18 months before the 2008 
election.

Dan Meek
dan at meek.net
	  10949 S.W. 4th Ave
   Portland, OR 97219 	  503-293-9021
   866-926-9646 fax

On 6/23/2012 11:42 AM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
>
> Re: "I will never understand why the leaders of the minor parties 
> didn't join together to urge their members to vote against the measure"
>
> I believe they did just that. But the combined registration among all 
> 3rd parties in California is 4.09% 
> <http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/15day-presprim-12/> of 
> registered voters. And if we take into consideration the estimated 2/3 
> (or more) of those registered "American Independent" think they're 
> registering "Independent" (rather than with the party that George 
> Wallace founded <http://www.aipca.org/history.html> as part of his 
> 1968 segregationist campaign), the "other" party registration drops 
> down to 2.41% of all registered voters.
>
> The current rundown of California registrants:
>
> Democratic:                                   43.39%
>
> Republican:                                   30.24%
>
> "No Party Preference":                  21.31%
>
> American Independent:                  2.53%
>
> Green:                                            0.65%
>
> Libertarian:                                     0.55%
>
> Peace & Freedom:                          0.35%
>
> Americans Elect:                            0.02%
>
> Other:                                             0.98%
>
> Note that "Other," which consists mainly of people who have not 
> updated their party registrations since the party they used to belong 
> to went out of existence, outnumbers every 3rd party except "American 
> Independent" (and would outnumber them except for the voter confusion 
> mentioned above).
>
> - Doug
>
> Douglas Johnson
>
> Fellow
>
> Rose Institute of State and Local Government
>
> m 310-200-2058
>
> o 909-621-8159
>
> douglas.johnson at cmc.edu
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu 
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of 
> *Larry Levine
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 23, 2012 9:48 AM
> *To:* richardwinger at yahoo.com; law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] New Hampshire Sec. of State seems to defy First 
> Circuit
>
> As a practical matter, California's "top-two" primary system denies 
> access to the ballot to all minor party candidates in the General 
> Election, at which members of the state and federal legislature will 
> be elected. Every four years it also will deny access to minor party 
> candidates for statewide constitutional office. Yes, I know, they can 
> qualify for the General Election ballot by finishing in the top two in 
> the Primary. But remember, I said "as a practical matter". I will 
> never understand why the leaders of the minor parties didn't join 
> together to urge their members to vote against the measure that 
> created this system and I can't understand why they haven't challenged 
> it in court.
>
> Larry
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu 
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> 
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of 
> *Richard Winger
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 23, 2012 9:27 AM
> *To:* law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* [EL] New Hampshire Sec. of State seems to defy First Circuit
>
> http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/06/23/new-hampshire-secretary-of-state-decides-not-to-give-libertarian-party-its-own-party-column-even-if-it-successfully-qualifies/
>
> Richard Winger
> 415-922-9779
> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120623/1971a66a/attachment.html>