This is an interesting discussion on terminology. I've found that many
people call the first-round of a non-partisan election a 'primary' while
they call the runoff election the 'general' election. It sounds like the
Chamber proposal is generating similar terminology which Richard is right to
criticize.
There is no such thing as a non-partisan primary election.
The only type of primary election is a partisan election, restricted to some
degree to members of a political party.
A non-partisan race with a runoff is simply the general election and a
runoff.
Thus, the Chamber's proposal is to hold the general election in March and
hold a runoff in November (assuming they decline to declare a winner in
March if one candidate earns a majority of the vote, and hold a runoff in
November among the top two vote-getters no matter what).
Is there a different view on this terminology?
And are there others willing to join me in Richard's crusade to abolish the
use of the term 'primary' for non-partisan races? ;-)
Dan
Dan Johnson-Weinberger
General Counsel
Center for Voting and Democracy
312.587.7060
www.fairvote.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Winger" <ban@igc.org>
To: <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 12:53 PM
Subject: Only Fed-Up Voters Can Fix State's Damaged System for Picking
Legislators
I just faxed a letter to the reporter who wrote this L.A. Times article,
trying my best to persuade him that "open primary" is well-defined in
political science and law, and that it means a system in which a primary
voter can choose any party's primary ballot but every party has its own
primary ballot. The Chamber/Roundtable idea is not an "open primary".
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-cap25nov25,0,34506
85.column?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dpe%2Dcalifornia
Los Angeles Times
November 25 2002
CAPITOL JOURNAL
Only Fed-Up Voters Can Fix State's
Damaged System for Picking Legislators
By George Skelton
SACRAMENTO -- California's system for choosing legislators is badly
broken. And only voters can fix it.
The problem: "Closed" primaries combined with districts drawn for
party protection. Together, they're adding up to legislative
extremism. Toss in term limits and it's a formula for producing
ambitious amateurs who are radical or reactionary.
Not in every case, clearly, but that's the trend.
It's not just my gripe. It's a complaint heard all over Sacramento,
especially from business leaders frustrated by leftist Democrats and
uncompromising Republican right-wingers.
Now Garry South, Gov. Gray Davis' chief political strategist, also is
grumbling -- "speaking for myself." Nobody's more of a Capitol insider
than South. And this career pol has concluded that California's
political system -- particularly concerning the Legislature -- is
terribly botched.
"When I think about the whole thing, I get sick to my stomach," South
says. "It's all I can do to keep my mouth shut."
Fortunately, South seldom does that.
"I just fear where this political system is headed. It's getting
worse, not better. It's nearly dysfunctional."
The main trouble spots:
Closed primary
We had a popular open primary for two elections. People could vote for
any candidate, regardless of party. Turnout rose.
But party pooh-bahs felt threatened and sued. In 2000, the U.S.
Supreme Court sided with the parties and ruled that California's open
primary violated their right of association. Back we went to a closed
primary, banning cross-party voting. Turnout fell.
Now major business interests are promoting a 2004 ballot measure to
establish another open primary for statewide, legislative and
congressional contests. The new system would be nonpartisan, thus
presumably constitutional. The top two vote-getters, regardless of
party, would run off in November, similar to a race for mayor in
California.
Parties still could influence elections by backing candidates.
The expected result: More moderates winning because a primary
candidate would need to attract a wide range of voters, not just
hard-core Republicans or Democrats.
"We have to do something," South says. A nonpartisan primary "is
better than what we have. Going back to the closed primary was a
disaster."
Closed primaries are unhealthy for both the legislative and executive
branches, he says, because they force "Republicans to race far off to
the right and Democrats far off to the left. Neither is helpful to the
political system."
Status quo redistricting
Legislators of both parties conspired last year to gerrymander
legislative and congressional districts in their own interests. They
redrew lines to preserve the political status quo for a decade in all
but a handful of the 173 districts.
Seats became either safely Republican or safely Democrat -- mostly the
latter because Democrats control Sacramento. It means practically
every election is decided in the primary.
Republican incumbents must guard against a primary challenge from
their right. Democrats watch their left. The middle is ignored.
"The fear of being 'primaried' is driving decision-making in
Sacramento," South laments.
"They have no idea how you get a budget passed. You've got Democrats
petrified about cutting spending because it'll tick off a special
interest they'll need to support them.... You've got Republicans
sitting there ... scared to death they'll get 'primaried' by some
anti-taxer."
The solution: Take the decennial redistricting away from the
Legislature and place it in the hands of an independent commission,
perhaps appointed by the state Supreme Court. Voters previously have
rejected such ballot proposals, buying Democratic demagoguery about
"politicizing the courts."
South supports the independent idea: "Ten years ago I wouldn't have
said that. But this [redistricting] was just a joke and so damaging to
the political system, I would favor almost any alternative."
Term limits
Voters love term limits, but these limits are ludicrous: Three
two-year terms in the Assembly, two four-year stints in the Senate.
About the time legislators get the hang of legislating and government
-- like, where to find real waste -- they're sent packing.
Limits should be extended to 12 years in each house.
"It's amateur hour in Sacramento," South says. "That's not what you
want in a state this big....
"People don't have to take the long view [on policy]. The minute they
get there, it's 'What am I going to do in six years?' "
All this -- the closed primary, protectionist redistricting, term
limits -- "is a dastardly combination," South continues. "I'm utterly
disgusted with the whole thing."
But nothing will change until voters also get disgusted and fix it.