election-law_gl-digest Monday, March 11 2002 Volume 01 : Number 158
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 09:20:46 -0800
From: "Huennekens, Bill" <bhuennekens@secstate.wa.gov>
Subject: Blanket primary still kicking
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C921.14D5E370
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
The court hearing was very interesting. Judge Burgess questions the lawyers
for political parties about proving that they have been harmed, and if they
had further evidence to present in the case.
Bill Huennekens
Policy Analyst
Office of the Secretary of State
Elections Division
360.902.4169
Blanket primary still kicking
<mailto:peter.callaghan@mail.tribnet.com> Peter Callaghan; The News Tribune
Obituaries for the state's blanket primary election are once again
premature.
They first appeared June 26, 2000, the day the U.S. Supreme Court found
California's blanket primary unconstitutional. A blanket primary allows
voters to hopscotch down the primary ballot - voting for Republicans in some
races and Democrats in others.
That, wrote the court, violates the associational rights of the political
parties because they should be able to limit who nominates their candidates.
Democrats must be able to decide who takes part in their primaries.
Republicans too.
Since then, the pundits, pols and partisans have been counting the days to a
similar ruling against Washington's much-older blanket primary. Washington's
law, we said, had the same flaws as California's. Californians, after all,
copied their system from us.
And yet, our blanket primary isn't dead. The court's decision came too late
to affect the 2000 primary. Then-U.S. District Court Judge Frank Burgess
refused to block the use of the blanket primary last year. And he rejected
the political parties' request to put a closed primary system in place.
Through all this, the Legislature has been unable to come up with a new
system that would satisfy the parties and the voters who like their
independence.
On Friday, attorneys for Washington's secretary of state and the Washington
State Grange argued before Burgess that perhaps there is no need to come up
with a new system. Perhaps the Washington system is different enough from
the California system that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule in favor of
ours, they argued.
It was a novel argument. And it represents a change in strategy by the
state.
"Our system is historically, factually and legally different than
California," assistant attorney general James Pharris told Burgess. Unlike
California, Washington does not register voters by party, he said. Also
unlike California, we've had the blanket primary for 67 years, not two
years.
Then they made an argument that may seem like a distinction without a
difference. They claimed that Washington's primary does not "nominate" party
candidates for the November ballot. Instead, our primary determines which
candidates "qualify" for the general election. Therefore, the state is not
interfering with the parties' freedom to nominate their standard-bearers.
Where the state and the Grange see differences between Washington and
California, the political parties see only similarities. California's
now-defunct system allowed all voters to vote for any candidate in the
primary, just like Washington's. Under both systems, Republicans could cross
over and nominate the weakest Democrat. Under both systems, a candidate who
disagrees with everything the Republicans believe in could be the nominee on
the general election ballot.
"The prospect of having a party's nominee determined by adherents of an
opposing party is far from remote. Indeed, it is a clear and present
danger," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote two summers ago. "We can think of no
heavier burden on a political party's associational freedom."
Unburden us, the parties asked Friday.
Burgess will rule soon. He could side with the state and uphold the blanket
primary. That would certainly be appealed by the parties but would mean the
primary lives one more year.
Or Burgess could find the Washington primary unconstitutional, tossing the
issue, once again, into the lap of the Legislature.
Which is exactly what that group doesn't need - another contentious issue
that it has proved unable to resolve.
- - - -
* Reach Peter Callaghan <mailto:peter.callaghan@mail.tribnet.com> at
253-597-8657 or peter.callaghan@mail.tribnet.com.
© The News Tribune
03/10/2002
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C921.14D5E370
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4616.200" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=176481817-11032002>The court hearing
was very interesting. Judge Burgess questions the lawyers for political
parties about proving that they have been harmed, and if they had further
evidence to present in the case.</SPAN></FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
class=176481817-11032002></SPAN></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=176481817-11032002>
<DIV>Bill Huennekens</DIV>
<DIV>Policy Analyst</DIV>
<DIV>Office of the Secretary of State</DIV>
<DIV>Elections Division</DIV>
<DIV>360.902.4169</DIV></SPAN></FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG><FONT face=Arial
size=5></FONT></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG><FONT face=Arial size=5>Blanket primary still kicking
</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<P>
<P><FONT size=-1><A href="mailto:peter.callaghan@mail.tribnet.com"><STRONG>Peter
Callaghan</STRONG></A><STRONG>; The News Tribune </STRONG></FONT>
<P>
<P>
<P>Obituaries for the state's blanket primary election are once again premature.
<P>They first appeared June 26, 2000, the day the U.S. Supreme Court found
California's blanket primary unconstitutional. A blanket primary allows voters
to hopscotch down the primary ballot - voting for Republicans in some races and
Democrats in others.
<P>That, wrote the court, violates the associational rights of the political
parties because they should be able to limit who nominates their candidates.
Democrats must be able to decide who takes part in their primaries. Republicans
too.
<P>Since then, the pundits, pols and partisans have been counting the days to a
similar ruling against Washington's much-older blanket primary. Washington's
law, we said, had the same flaws as California's. Californians, after all,
copied their system from us.
<P>And yet, our blanket primary isn't dead. The court's decision came too late
to affect the 2000 primary. Then-U.S. District Court Judge Frank Burgess refused
to block the use of the blanket primary last year. And he rejected the political
parties' request to put a closed primary system in place.
<P>Through all this, the Legislature has been unable to come up with a new
system that would satisfy the parties and the voters who like their
independence.
<P>On Friday, attorneys for Washington's secretary of state and the Washington
State Grange argued before Burgess that perhaps there is no need to come up with
a new system. Perhaps the Washington system is different enough from the
California system that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule in favor of ours, they
argued.
<P>It was a novel argument. And it represents a change in strategy by the state.
<P>"Our system is historically, factually and legally different than
California," assistant attorney general James Pharris told Burgess. Unlike
California, Washington does not register voters by party, he said. Also unlike
California, we've had the blanket primary for 67 years, not two years.
<P>Then they made an argument that may seem like a distinction without a
difference. They claimed that Washington's primary does not "nominate" party
candidates for the November ballot. Instead, our primary determines which
candidates "qualify" for the general election. Therefore, the state is not
interfering with the parties' freedom to nominate their standard-bearers.
<P>Where the state and the Grange see differences between Washington and
California, the political parties see only similarities. California's
now-defunct system allowed all voters to vote for any candidate in the primary,
just like Washington's. Under both systems, Republicans could cross over and
nominate the weakest Democrat. Under both systems, a candidate who disagrees
with everything the Republicans believe in could be the nominee on the general
election ballot.
<P>"The prospect of having a party's nominee determined by adherents of an
opposing party is far from remote. Indeed, it is a clear and present danger,"
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote two summers ago. "We can think of no heavier burden
on a political party's associational freedom."
<P>Unburden us, the parties asked Friday.
<P>Burgess will rule soon. He could side with the state and uphold the blanket
primary. That would certainly be appealed by the parties but would mean the
primary lives one more year.
<P>Or Burgess could find the Washington primary unconstitutional, tossing the
issue, once again, into the lap of the Legislature.
<P>Which is exactly what that group doesn't need - another contentious issue
that it has proved unable to resolve.
<P>- - -
<P>* Reach <A href="mailto:peter.callaghan@mail.tribnet.com">Peter Callaghan</A>
at 253-597-8657 or peter.callaghan@mail.tribnet.com.
<P>
<P><B>© The News Tribune</B>
<P>
<P><I>03/10/2002</I></P></FONT>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C921.14D5E370--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:30:05 -0800
From: Rick Hasen <rick.hasen@lls.edu>
Subject: op-ed on Ca. blanket primary and Riordan-Simon race
Here's an op-ed I published today in the Los Angeles Daily Journal
entitled "Demise of Open Primaries Puts Parties Above Voters."
By Richard L. Hasen
Many people think that the only election the Supreme Court decided in
2000 was the choice of Bush over Gore. Not so. The court, admittedly
indirectly, chose Bill Simon to be the Republican nominee for governor
over Richard Riordan.
This choice required no clairvoyance on the part of the justices, only a
preference for the rights of political parties over the voters’ will.
And it has given California fewer moderate candidates for office.
To understand the high court’s influence over California politics, we
must return to Proposition 198, an initiative approved by California
voters in 1996. Proposition 198 allowed California voters of any party
to vote in a primary election for any candidate running for office. If
the initiative were in effect today, Democrats, Libertarians, Reform
Party members and independents could have voted for Simon, Riordan or
Bill Jones for the Republican nomination for governor.
The prediction of those who proposed Proposition 198 was that it would
lead to the election of more moderate candidates. The logic is simple:
using the same example of the recent gubernatorial primary, California
Democrats had little reason to vote for Gray Davis in the Democratic
primary, as he lacked any serious challengers. Riordan could have
targeted the Democrats to “cross over” and vote in the Republican
primary, and many Democrats might have done so because Riordan was
probably the most moderate of the GOP candidates.
Others predicted that Proposition 198 would lead to bad strategic
behavior, such as Democrats crossing over to the Republican primary to
vote for the candidate most likely to lose to the Democratic nominee.
But a study of the only major election held under the rules of
Proposition 198 found this behavior rare.
In California Democratic Party v. Jones, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
Proposition 198 unconstitutional. According to the court, Proposition
198 infringed on a political party’s First Amendment rights. It “forced”
the party to associate with those with whom it disagreed.
The ruling turned democracy on its head by placing the interests of the
parties over that of the people to control the democratic process. Who
is the “party” anyway? If the court meant voters who are registered with
major political parties, these party members didn’t need protection
because they favored Proposition 198. The idea of the party as an
intimate association worthy of constitutional protection doesn’t ring
true these days, because choosing a party at registration time doesn’t
mean commitment to the party.
The court intended to protect party organizations without explaining why
they may dictate the means by which Californians choose candidates.
So the election on Tuesday was held under a system of a “modified closed
primary” put in place after the court decided Jones. Under the new
system, the only voters besides those registered with the political
party who may vote in a party primary are those voters who declined to
state a party affiliation at least 15 days before the election. And the
California Democratic or Republican Party may decide at any time to
exclude these independent voters from future primaries.
This is a recipe for immoderation in California politics. Many people
energized to vote on Tuesday were those on the right wing of the
Republican party who disliked Riordan. There was little incentive for
others to vote at the top of the ticket.
The result is good news for Gray Davis, who was chosen the first time
under Proposition 198 rules. During this primary season, he shrewdly ran
ads questioning Riordan’s position on abortion. Many believed that the
ads were intended to soften up Riordan support in the general election.
The commercials, however, may have been aimed instead to get Republican
primary voters to vote for the less moderate Simon.
The demise of Proposition 198 has created a new strategic opportunity
for candidates to encourage primary voters to choose immoderate
opponents. The losers are the people of California, many of whom will be
unhappy to choose either Davis or Simon.
Richard L. Hasen is a professor and William M. Rains Fellow at Loyola
Law School.
- --
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:58:35 -0800
From: Charlene Simmons <csimmons@LIBRARY.CA.GOV>
Subject: a viewpoint on campaign finance reform
Political Reformers' Record Unblemished By Any Evidence Of Success
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/1819258p-1897370c.html
For decades, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and like-minded political
reformers have pressed for tight limits on campaign contributions, saying they
would diminish special-interest influence on political decision-making and
create more responsive government. The reformers have had varying degrees of
success in getting their nostrums adopted, but their record on actually
reducing special-interest influence is unblemished by any evidence that their
notions actually work. And current experience is telling us -- not for the
first time -- that imposing limits on campaign contributions distorts the
political system, and drives questionable transactions underground.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:31:06 -0800
From: Michael Alvarez <rma@HSS.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: more on Simon and the "modified closed primary"
Tony Quinn had similar conclusions regarding how much
electoral institutions matter in California.
The following was from Sunday's LA Times opinion pages.
Michael Alvarez
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Simon's Best Hope: Be a New Riordan
By TONY QUINN
Tony Quinn is co-editor of the California Target Book, a nonpartisan
analysis of state congressional and
legislative campaigns.
March 10 2002
SACRAMENTO -- The man who made the biggest difference in last week's
primary was not Gov. Gray
Davis, Bill Simon Jr. or even Richard Riordan. It was U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Antonin Scalia. Two years
ago, Scalia wrote the majority opinion declaring California's
blanket-primary law unconstitutional.
In a blanket contest, any voter can vote for any candidate. Thus, the
primary electorate for the GOP race for
governor would have been 100% of the voters. But after Scalia and company
ditched the blanket primary, that
electorate shrunk to the 35% who are registered Republicans and the few
independents who chose to vote in
the GOP primary. Put another way, Scalia's opinion changed the electorate
from the 4 million-plus people who
voted last Tuesday to about 2 million registered Republicans.
That fundamentally changed the dynamics of the election and, as much as
anything else, dictated its outcome.
Among the many mistakes the Riordan campaign for governor made was its
failure to appreciate its shrinking
universe. Riordan ran a campaign aimed at all voters; the victorious Simon
campaign was keyed to voters who
were going to vote in the GOP primary. The Davis campaign also understood
the changed circumstances.
Davis ran well in the 1998 blanket primary, when he won the Democratic nod,
and had strongly supported the
reform because it meant more choice and a more engaged electorate. But when
the court forced California
back into a closed primary, the Davis campaign saw an opening to shape the
nominee it wanted.
The blanket primary, in theory, pushes major-party candidates toward the
center, giving Republican moderates
a better opportunity to nominate a less conservative candidate for the
general election. A closed primary, on
the other hand, enables conservative Republicans to elect one of their own,
but a candidate potentially less
competitive in the general. Numerous polls buttress this view. For example,
support among the general
population for abortion rights far exceeds that among Republicans. Ditto
for gun control.
This theory will be tested in the upcoming general election, because Davis
got the opponent he wanted--the
one most strongly supported by Republican conservatives. The heart of the
problem faced by Simon is that
35% support doesn't win general elections.
From the gubernatorial election of Ronald Reagan in 1966 through Pete
Wilson's victory in 1990, Republicans
won all but two statewide races for governor and every statewide vote for
president. That's because the 35%
Republican base--it has changed little over the years--could be combined
with about 15% of the electorate
that was nominally Democratic but quite conservative, the Reagan Democrats
as they were known.
In the 1990s, however, Reagan Democrats disappeared. Although Democratic
registration in the state fell--at
44.98% of voters, the lowest since 1934--Democratic-voting loyalty rose.
Even more important, new voters
tend to favor Democratic candidates even if not party members. Twenty years
ago, 53% of the state's
electorate registered Democratic, 9% independent. But that 53% split their
vote, and the independents did not
really count.
Today, one of every five voters is independent or belongs to a minor party.
They are the new swing vote. In
the 2000 presidential contest, then-Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov.
George W. Bush held 90% loyalty
among their party adherents in California, but Gore won the independents,
54% to 38%, and that contributed to
his big win in the state.
Who are these independents? A lot of new and first-time voters, including
many Latinos. As many as one in
three Latino voters registers independent. Independents also include
high-tech workers and wealthy women,
who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal. If Simon is to break
through against Davis, he must win over
independently thinking voters.
Wealthy white voters have abandoned the California Republican Party. In
November 2000, The Times
national exit poll found that, among families earning $40,000 to $59,999,
Bush received 46% of the vote.
Among voters making more than $60,000, Bush got 43%. Newly wealthy working
women--lawyers, doctors,
executives, etc.--have voted Democratic, often against their own economic
interests, because of social issues
like abortion. As men move up the economic ladder, they become more
Republican; this has not happened
with women. The Republican Party's image problem with women, crystallized
in the abortion issue, has kept
high-income women from moving to the Republicans.
So, the conventional wisdom goes that Simon, the "anti-abortion
conservative," cannot win in November
because the independent electorate of high-techies, Latinos and rich women
will vote against him. Problem is,
Simon may not be that conservative. It turns out that this "conservative
Republican" enrolled as neither
Republican nor Conservative, but as an independent, when he lived in New
York, where you enroll by party
and could choose either the Republican or Conservative parties.
His sole foray into California politics, before running for governor, seems
to have been a contribution of
$10,000 to a liberal ballot measure making it easier to raise property
taxes, done at the behest of Riordan. He
also cannot be tied to the "great Satan" of Latino politics, the 1994
anti-immigrant Proposition 187, since it's not
clear how he voted on it.
Simon may be an improbable hero to the right-wing movement, who rallied to
him more out of distaste for
Riordan. He may also be the most improbable gubernatorial nominee since
Reagan burst on the scene in 1966.
While Reagan was unabashedly conservative, he had taken few stands on state
issues before he ran for
governor, and his campaign shaped an appealing figure who could not be
demonized by the Democrats.
Simon should become what the Bush White House, 80% of GOP representatives
and most GOP legislators
thought Riordan was when they endorsed him--the guy who can reach out to
independents and voters
disaffected with Davis. He also needs to be seen as Reagan was--a candidate
who's philosophically
conservative but not threatening.
Thirty-six years ago, Gov. Pat Brown's handlers figured he would more
easily beat a right-wing ex-actor than
a liberal Republican big-city mayor, and intervened in the GOP primary to
get Reagan nominated. Now Davis
has tried the same trick. We'll know in eight months if it worked.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:28:02 -0600
From: "Robert Bernstein" <bernsra@groupwise1.duc.auburn.edu>
Subject: Re: op-ed on Ca. blanket primary and Riordan-Simon race
Well argued. There is virtually no evidence of crossover voters
"strategically" selecting the assumed weaker of the opposing candidates
rather than the candidate they prefer. This has been studied many
times, especially in the South, where such crossover voting was common
for decades.
Does anyone know how common it has been for a Democrat to spend
millions trying to influence the Republican primary? For those of us
outside of CA, can u tell us if Riordin made it a campaign issue?
Wouldn't it create some backlash to try to tell the opposition which
candidate u would like to run against?
Bob Bernstein
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:24:47 -0800
From: Charlene Simmons <csimmons@LIBRARY.CA.GOV>
Subject: StateNet map
An interesting map in today's StateNet publication (pg. 5) shows the five
top states that have about a 70% voter participation rate--Alaska, North
Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine. Three of the five allow same-day
voter registration, while North Dakota has no voting registration.
Charlene Wear Simmons
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 08:41:06 +1000
From: "Tom Round [Griffith Univ.]" <T.Round@mailbox.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Same-day (or no) voter registration
From an Australian viewpoint (as mentioned, enrollment and voting here are
both compulsory, although fines are light), I am very intrigued by this.
How do these states guard against voter fraud?
At 14:24 11/03/02 -0800, Charlene Simmons wrote:
An interesting map in today's StateNet publication (pg. 5) shows the five
top states that have about a 70% voter participation rate--Alaska, North
Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine. Three of the five allow same-day
voter registration, while North Dakota has no voting registration.
Charlene Wear Simmons
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:34:04 -0600
From: "McDonald, Michael" <McDonald.Michael@uis.edu>
Subject: RE: StateNet map
For those of you interested in turnout rates, I have posted my calculations
of the state turnout rates (1980-2000) using the VAP and my estimate of the
voting-eligible population (VEP) at the ICPSR publication replication
archive: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cgi/archive2.prl?num=1248&path=ICPSR.
The accompanying article is forthcoming in June at State Politics and Policy
Quarterly.
The most interesting aspect of the recalculated turnout rates is that there
is less variation in rates using the VEP than using the VAP. California is
perhaps the best example of the effect of using the eligible population to
calculate turnout rates: With 20% of California's VAP non-citizen, its VAP
turnout rate is 43.9% while it's VEP turnout rate is 56.3%.
I won't quibble too much with the StateNet rankings. Using VEP, I still
have the same states in the top 5, though Alaska at #12 (both using VAP and
VEP) is replaced with Connecticut. The highest turnout rate I calculate for
2000 using VAP is Maine at 64.1%, so I'm not sure how these five states have
70% turnout rates. My guess is that StateNet is using total turnout rather
than presidential turnout, which is what I use, but even that doesn't fully
account for the difference.
I wouldn't read too much into the electoral laws of these states, yet, since
there are other factors which are also driving up turnout rates in these
states - their homogenous populations and relative high education levels.
I'm in the process now of replicating research using my estimate of the
eligible population to look at the effects of registration laws, minority
concentrations, ballot initiatives, etc. on turnout rates.
Michael McDonald
Assistant Professor
Illinois Legislative Studies Center, PAC 480
University of Illinois, Springfield
P.O. Box 19243
Springfield, IL 62794-9243
(217) 206-6584 (voice)
mcdonald.michael@uis.edu
(217) 206-6542 (fax)
http://ilsc.uis.edu/mcdonald/
-----Original Message-----
From: Charlene Simmons [mailto:csimmons@LIBRARY.CA.GOV]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 4:25 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: StateNet map
An interesting map in today's StateNet publication (pg. 5) shows the five
top states that have about a 70% voter participation rate--Alaska, North
Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine. Three of the five allow same-day
voter registration, while North Dakota has no voting registration.
Charlene Wear Simmons
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:50:02 EST
From: FredWooch@aol.com
Subject: Re: a viewpoint on campaign finance reform
- --part1_16e.a1a4d23.29be8e9a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Let's see. Is the Bee talking about Common Cause's and the League of Women
Voters' success in implementing Proposition 68 or Proposition 208, both of
which were passed by the voters but prevented from going into effect by the
courts? No, the Bee must be referring to Proposition 34, which both
organizations opposed. . . .
Fredric D. Woocher
Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
(310) 576-1233
- --part1_16e.a1a4d23.29be8e9a_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>Let's see. Is the Bee talking about Common Cause's and the League of Women Voters' success in implementing Proposition 68 or Proposition 208, both of which were passed by the voters but prevented from g
oing into effect by the courts? No, the Bee must be referring to Proposition 34, which both organizations opposed. . . .
<BR>
<BR>Fredric D. Woocher
<BR>Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
<BR>(310) 576-1233</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_16e.a1a4d23.29be8e9a_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:00:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Mike Alvarez <rma@HSS.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: op-ed on Ca. blanket primary and Riordan-Simon race
While I don't have the precise numbers at hand, the exact same
phenomenon occurred in the 1994 gubernatorial primary. The
major Democratic candidates were Kathleen Brown and John Garamendi,
who engaged in a pretty ugly primary fight. On the Republican side
Pete Wilson was opposed by Ron Unz, but Wilson largely ignored Unz and in
the primary election ran a series of ads against Kathleen Brown,
focusing on her stance on illegal immigration. That issue obviously
became an central focus of the general election campaign between
Brown and Wilson.
So this has happened before in California!
Michael Alvarez
Does anyone know how common it has been for a Democrat to spend
millions trying to influence the Republican primary? For those of us
outside of CA, can u tell us if Riordin made it a campaign issue?
Wouldn't it create some backlash to try to tell the opposition which
candidate u would like to run against?
Bob Bernstein
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:38:47 -0600
From: "Hirsch, Sam" <shirsch@jenner.com>
Subject: RE: op-ed on Ca. blanket primary and Riordan-Simon race
Here's another case where an incumbent got involved in the opposing party's
primary. In North Carolina, in the spring of 1990, former Charlotte mayor
Harvey Gantt (who is black) and then-prosecutor (now Governor) Mike Easley
(who is white) were competing in the U.S. Senate Democratic runoff election,
to determine who would challenge Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) in the November
1990 general election. Helms ran ads attacking both Democratic candidates,
but they were much harder on Easley than on Gantt, apparently in an effort
to bolster the latter's chances. Gantt won the runoff fairly handily and
then went on to lose in November to Helms, who ran notoriously racist ads
against Gantt.
Sam Hirsch
- -----Original Message-----
From: Robert Bernstein [mailto:bernsra@groupwise1.duc.auburn.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 4:28 PM
To: rick.hasen@mail.lls.edu; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: op-ed on Ca. blanket primary and Riordan-Simon race
Well argued. There is virtually no evidence of crossover voters
"strategically" selecting the assumed weaker of the opposing candidates
rather than the candidate they prefer. This has been studied many
times, especially in the South, where such crossover voting was common
for decades.
Does anyone know how common it has been for a Democrat to spend
millions trying to influence the Republican primary? For those of us
outside of CA, can u tell us if Riordin made it a campaign issue?
Wouldn't it create some backlash to try to tell the opposition which
candidate u would like to run against?
Bob Bernstein
------------------------------
End of election-law_gl-digest V1 #158
*************************************