There is an entire book, edited by Bruce Cain and Elisabeth
Gerber, on California's blanket primary experience: Voting
at the Political Fault Line, UC Press, 2002.
I'd like to note that Rick's point about the effects of
the blanket primary are not just a matter of speculation.
There is a chapter in the Cain-Gerber volume by Gerber
that provides evidence for policy moderation in the 1998
California gubernatorial, US Senate, US House, and State
Assembly races. There is a previous study by Gerber
and Morton ("Primary Election Systems and Representation"
in the Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, V 14, n 2,
304-24, 1998) that provides a theoretical structure and
other empirical support for the moderation hypothesis.
The other interesting thing about this particular book
is that it brings together people who worked for the
plaintiffs in the Jones case (Cain and Wattenberg), with
people who worked for the defense (Gerber, Nagler, and myself).
*********************************************************************
R. Michael Alvarez (O) 626-395-4422
Professor of Political Science (F) 626-405-9841
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, CA 91125
rma@hss.caltech.edu
*********************************************************************
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Rick Hasen wrote:
As I understand it, the main reason for allowing the party label is that the
organizers realizes its value as a voting cue---Republican and Democrat signal
different things to voters, and would help voters choose candidates.
Some history may be in order here. The blanket primary struck down by the
Supreme Court in Jones was an initative of moderate Republicans like Tom
Campbell. The pattern we have seen (and this probably applies to the latest
Republican gubernatorial primary here as well between Bill Simon and Richard
Riordan) is that those on the right of the Republican party tend to turn out
for primaries, and choose a non-centrist Republican to run for office (Simon,
Bruce Herhensohn, etc.). That non-centrist then loses in the general election.
(It is not clear to me why Democrats have been able to nominate more
moderates like Davis and Feinstein than Republicans in California.) Gray
Davis took advantage of this fact during the Republican primary by running ads
attacking Riordan's abortion views as flip-flopping in a way that drove those
on the right of the party to Simon.
Rick
bokarie@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Yes I think so. That is, if the proposed California primary
initiative were adopted, it would seem that a party would be able to endorse
whomever it liked, allow that person to use the party label in the primary,
and refuse to allow anyone else to use the label. Whether a party would
choose to follow this process is unclear, but why couldn't it?
1. Actually your post raises a larger issue. Historically, the
justification for state regulation of parties has been the need to insure
that parties democratically nominate "their" representatives, who then
appear on the general election ballot. Another way to look at it is that
the State gives parties automatic access to the primary ballot, and in
return parties give up a great deal of control over the party, like who can
be a member and who can participate in the nominating procedure.
If the California proposal were adopted and if it were held
constitutional, the new primary system would not produce party nominees.
Thus the question: What then would be the justification for state
regulation of parties? It seems to me that if a party chose to do so, it
could dispense completely with the state's control over determining party
membership. (In California you register with a party by filling out a card
and filing it with the county registrar of voters.) It seems the party
could dispense with state control over the makeup of its county and state
central committees. (In California there are statutes ad nauseum regulating
the county and statewide structure of parties.)
2. A separate interesting question to me is why the California proposal
allows candidates to use a party identifier. On a pragmatic level I
understand it: It is unlikely that the voters would adopt a primary system
that does not allow them to vote for "Democrats" and "Republicans." But
outside of getting the proposal adopted, is there some other reason for
allowing party identifiers?
3. I am struck by the statement of the initiative proponent in the LA
Times article that "We can't let this state get to the point where it is
governed by ideologues on either end of the spectrum." Is there evidence
that California is in danger of being "governed by ideologues on either end
of the spectrum?"
This is not a rhetorical question. I was involved in the successful
challenge to California's blanket primary, adopted in 1996. Boatloads of
political scientists testified at the trial, and it seemed to me that the
consensus of opinion was that a winner take all system inherently drives
candidates to the middle of the political spectrum, and that a major
criticism of that system is that it produces candidates that allow voters
little choice. In an atmospheric way I thought that evidence was important
to winning the case. It seems to me that the only way to conclude that any
elected official in California is near the end of the spectrum is to use a
spectrum the length of your little finger.
This is not to suggest that it is one big happy family in the state
legislature. It is not one big happy family. But are the divisions driven
by an excessive attachment to ideology?
George Waters
bokarie@sbcglobal.net
916/483-6367
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott J. Rafferty" <rafferty@alumni.princeton.edu>
To: "'Richard Winger'" <ban@igc.org>; <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: new primary form proposed for California
Under this system, the primary would no longer elect a nominee of a
party or be a state law relating to the governance of the party. The
candidate affiliation on the "bipartisan primary" would simply be a
self-identification by the candidate. Therefore, wouldn't a party have
a constitutional right to expel a candidate who was using its label
(before or after the primary) - and therefore to preclude the candidate
from identifying himself with the party in the primary or from using the
party line in the November election?
Scott J. Rafferty
NEW ADDRESS:2439 Alvin Street
Mountain View CA 94043 650-969-5463
NEW MOBILE PHONE: 650-814-2257
rafferty@alumni.princeton.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Richard
Winger
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:00 AM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: new primary form proposed for California
Apparently under the California Chamber of Commerce proposal for a new
type
of primary, the top two vote-getters would always face off in November,
even
if one person got over 50% in the first round. The Chamber of Commerce
is
aware that the US Supreme Court told Louisiana in Foster v Love that if
a
candidate can be elected in the first round, then the first round must
be in
November (because of a federal law passed in 1872). The Chamber doesn't
want to have the first round in November, so the Chamber's proposal will
differ somewhat from the Louisiana system. However, the Chamber will
still
have a problem when only one person files in the first round. The
Chamber
wants to ban all write-ins in the run-off, so in instances at which only
one
person files for the first round, that makes the needed November run-off
look pretty silly...a one-candidate election with no write-ins allowed.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Hasen"
Subject: new primary form proposed for California
List members will recall that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down
California's open primary in 2000 in California Democratic Party v.
Jones on grounds that this primary form could not be imposed on
political parties without their consent. (In this way, the ruling
followed the earlier Tashjian case). The California Chamber of
Commerce
announced that it is seeking to qualify a new initiative for the
ballot
in 2004. It would impose a nonpartisan primary (apparently allowed
under
Jones) with a twist: the partisan affiliation of the candidates may be
listed on the ballot . The top two vote getters in the primary (even
with the same partisan affiliation) run in the runoff election.
Thoughts on the constitutionality of this measure, assuming, as the
linked L.A. Times article indicates, the parties oppose it? (Full
disclosure: I gave some informal advice to the proponents of this
measure). Here's the link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-open13nov13,0,6466159.story?coll
=la%
2Dheadlines%2Dcalifornia
--
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
--
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