Voters can stop the pols’ open primary sabotage
It’s a clear-cut case of sabotage. That’s the only word for
Proposition 60, the state Legislature’s bipartisan attempt to head
off open primary elections in California
Voters can stop the pols’ open primary sabotage
It’s a clear-cut case of sabotage. That’s the only word for Proposition 60, the state Legislature’s bipartisan attempt to head off open primary elections in California.
This proposition, which courts are now unlikely to excise from the fall ballot, is as plain a demonstration as any that could be conceived of why voters no longer trust either major political party. It also showed that voters had good cause when they rated the lawmakers below even ex-Gov. Gray Davis in several polls, clearly wishing they could recall them right along with Davis.
But they couldn’t, and the Legislature wants to make sure they don’t even get much chance at making changes via the ballot box in regular elections.
That’s the sole reason for Proposition 60, passed by the Legislature with no public hearings on the last possible day that would let it appear on the ballot this November.
Simply put, Proposition 60 keeps the present primary election system in place, guaranteeing that every political party represented in a state primary election have its nominees listed in the general election. That stands in stark contrast to Proposition 62, a popular initiative which qualified for the same November ballot with more than 900,000 voter signatures.
Unlike 60, Proposition 62 guarantees no party a spot in future November runoffs, but only in primaries. It mandates that all primary candidates be listed together, with the top two vote-getters winning slots in the fall runoff.
This infuriates minor parties like the Greens and Libertarians, who could still participate fully in primaries, but would be shut out of the November action unless their candidates beat out all but one of those from the two major parties.
But it pleases centrists tired of having to choose almost exclusively between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, with rarely a November candidate anywhere in the moderate realm. Since all of today’s legislators were elected under this extremist-dominated system, small wonder they would try to sabotage any change. Especially one like this, that could threaten their political survival.
That’s just what Proposition 62 could do in some of today’s heavily gerrymandered legislative and congressional districts if a moderate Democrat or Republican were matched in a runoff against a more extreme party mate. If that happened, Democrats in mostly Republican districts could vote for the more moderate runoff Republican and GOP voters could do the same in Democratic-dominated areas.
This notion infuriates folks like conservative Republican state Sen. Ross Johnson of Orange County, who engineered Proposition 60 by gutting another bill and substituting entirely different topics.
“We have nothing to fear from hearing different points of view,” he said while co-sponsoring the measure with liberal Democratic state Sen. Dede Alpert of San Diego. Translation: Johnson and Alpert want two extreme views presented in all runoffs, thus assuring the majority party candidate will win in virtually every district.
The two big parties also want minor party candidates around in general elections, where they can sometimes be used or manipulated by the big parties. Witness the role played by the Greens’ Ralph Nader in the 2000 victory of President Bush.
But politicians like Johnson and Alpert knew better than to pit their proposition against the open primary on its own. California voters have long favored open balloting, most recently voting almost 60-40 percent in favor of the “blanket primary” in 1996, only to have the Republican and Democratic parties go to court together and get it thrown out.
Legislators tried to confuse the issue by making Proposition 60 a two-part measure, adding a provision that would earmark any money raised by selling surplus state property to pay down the state’s bond debt.
That’s a popular idea, and it would have been used to market Proposition 60, with little mention of the measure’s closed-primary features. But a state appeals court thwarted that subterfuge, insisting the two unrelated parts of the proposition be separated. Hence, the presence of Proposition 60A on the ballot, devoted exclusively to sale of surplus state property.
The lawmakers tried to stop that split, arguing that their original version of Proposition 60 was placed on the ballot by legislators, not the voters, and so was not an initiative. They suggested that meant the one-subject-only rule doesn’t apply. But the appeals judges wouldn’t buy that narrow reasoning.
Which means Propositions 60 and 62 will simply be pitted against each other. If both get a yes majority, whichever gets the most votes would almost certainly become law.
And that makes it vital for voters to understand that Proposition 62 means open primary voting and Proposition 60 means the opposite. Will that message get through?
That depends partly on Gov. Schwarzenegger, who has not indicated whether he’ll put any of his vast political capital on the line by speaking out on the latest self-serving move by the Legislature’s craven politicians.
