It's not the parties that pick the candidates in California's primary
elections. It's the voters. And they do it at the polls, not at a caucus or
convention. Remember, too. There is a serious school of thought that says we
got better Presidential candidates in the years before we turned the
nominating process over to primaries and caucuses (or is it caucum, or
cauca).
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Bernstein" <bernsra@groupwise1.duc.auburn.edu>
To: <larrylevine@earthlink.net>; <ban@igc.org>;
<election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: new primary form proposed for California
I don't see why the people of CA should be forced to choose between
candidates selected by political parties. They have had lots of years
of seeing what kind of candidates that system produces--both in CA and
in the US. It's hard to argue with people who think that some other
system (maybe any other system??) must be able to provide them with
better choices than some of the ones that have risen to the top under
the primary system. It's fortunate that CA has an initiative that at
least allows for another system to be proposed, debated, and, perhaps,
adopted. I wish we had the option of non-partisan primaries here in AL.
They could not possibly have produced worse choices for governor than
the ones that have consistently come out of the primaries--and I think
there are excellent reasons for thinking they would have produced
better.
I'm not a supporter of the Court's reasoning in the blanket primary
case. But given that decision, a non-partisan primary makes sense--and
allowing candidates to add the additional information of which party
they identify themselves with is of some value to voters--if nothing
else, it suggests who they might support on votes organizing a
legislature. Why not the Louisiana format, rather than one that
requires a 2nd race in all instances, including those in which one
person has an absolute majority?
Bob Bernstein
Auburn Univ. (bernsra@auburn.edu)
"Larry Levine" <larrylevine@earthlink.net> 11/13/02 01:15PM >>>
Pardon me for asking. But is this just academic tinkering for the sake
of
tinkering. Or is there some purpose for all this? Please don't tell me
that
this is the latest idea to increase turnout. Or is it just another
effort to
purge American politics of an semblance of ideology?
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Winger" <ban@igc.org>
To: <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:00 AM
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