Independents Applaud California Supreme Court Decision on Proposition 14

The following statement was issued today by Jackie Salit, President & Harry Kresky, Legal Counsel, IndependentVoting.Org:

The decision by the California Supreme Court to reject an attempt to block the implementation of Proposition 14, the open primary, top two initiative passed by voters last June, is a positive and timely development.

The voters made a clear statement in passing Proposition 14 that they wanted to dislodge the supreme power of the parties. Though the state’s third parties—which supported the legal challenge are critics of the two-party system and say they want to give voters more competition elections—in this situation they have sided with the two parties against competition.
We’re glad the court rejected their effort to undo the very sweeping changes that Proposition 14 will bring to the state’s electoral process and to the 3.5 million independent voters who have gained full equality under the law.

Jackie Salit is president of IndpendentVoting.org, a national association of independents with organization in 40 states. Harry Kresky is the country’s foremost legal advocate of independent voters and general counsel for IndependentVoting.org.

Proposition 14, the Top Two open primary referendum, was passed by California voters by 54% in June and takes effect in January 2011. Top Two allows 3.4 million California independents to vote in the primaries, a right they had been previously denied.

Chris Hinyub wrote about the effort to scuttle Prop 14 at the California Independent Voter Network website:

A coalition of minor-party candidates, including members of Socialist Action, the Reform Party and the Coffee Party, filed suit against Senate Bill 6, a measure which fleshed out the new voting rules. In September, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Charlotte Woolard upheld the new rules. The First District Court of Appeal then refused to issue an emergency writ overturning the Superior Court decision. Plaintiffs filed a back-up appeal while also calling on the State Supreme Court to step in and block implementation of the new SB 6 rules and the operation of Prop. 14 until SB 6 was amended. The state’s high court has now denied their Writ Petition.

For more on this topic, see The Hankster.

CA: Green Party Supports Lawsuits and Initiatives to Nullify Prop 14

From IPR:

Greens support lawsuit, consider initiative to nullify Prop. 14; Measure is a clear example of how big money buys California elections, charges Green Party gubernatorial nominee. 

The Green Party of California’s gubernatorial nominee Wednesday called the passage of Prop. 14 and near victories of Prop. 16 and 17 clear examples of how big money is buying elections in California, using tens of millions of dollars to mislead voters. The state’s most progressive political party said it is mulling its options after Tuesday, including joining a lawsuit to overturn Prop.14 and a possible statewide initiative to nullify it.

CA: Voters Pass Proposition 14 "Top Two" Primary System

From Poli-Tea:

According to the results from the California Secretary of State's office, California voters have passed Proposition 14 (54.2% to 45.8%), thus instituting a so-called "top two" primary system. It is highly ironic – or is it rather fitting? – that the ballot measure went before voters on primary day rather than on the day of the general election. Supporters of the proposition argued that the existing primary system depresses voter turnout by disenfranchising millions of voters in the first round of the election process. Let's look at the numbers then. California has 16,897,383 registered voters. Of them, 3,838,510 voted on Proposition 14, for a grand total of 23% voter turnout on the measure. 2,077,100 supported it and 1,761,410 voted against it. So Proposition 14 was passed into law with the support of just 12% of registered voters.

CA: Darryl Perry Against Top Two

From IPR and Darryl Perry at Free Patriot Press:

Christina Tobin of StopTopTwo.org states, “What the ballot language fails to mention is that in the election that counts, the general election, we wont be able to choose “any candidate”. We’ll have only two choices — and if you want to write in a name, forget it. Write-in votes will be banned. An odd way to “increase the right to participate” !

In reality, we’re being sold the illusion of participation. A blanket primary like Top Two requires more money to win, making the influence of money even greater. Then, the candidates with the most special interest money will be our ONLY choices in November.” Unlike Prop 62 which Californians voted down in 2004, Prop 14 would curtail “the ability of voters to cast a write-in vote for anyone they wish in the general election,” states Richard Winger, “If this passes, California would be one of only 7 states in which no voter could cast a write-in vote for Congress or state office in a November election, and have that write-in counted.” And Proposition 62 had a provision in it to make it easier for smaller parties to remain ballot qualified , “It it (Prop 14) becomes law, the only way a party will be able to remain on the ballot will be to have registration above 1% of the last gubernatorial vote.”

OH: Libertarian Party of Ohio Endorses "Stop Top Two" Initiative in California

A press release sent to TPID via email:

Columbus, OH – June 4, 2010. The Libertarian Party of Ohio announced today that it is supporting the STOP Top Two initiative currently underway in California. The Libertarian Party of Ohio Central Committee, as well as the Executive Committee, has voted to support the Libertarian Party of California, as well as the California Republican Party and the California Democratic Party in supporting STOP Top Two.

CA: Local Green's Position on Ballot Issues and November Election

From a letter to the editor of the Napa Valley Register:

Dear editor, The Napa County Green Party endorses Green Party candidate, Laura Wells, for state governor in the June 8 primary election. In addition, the Napa County Green Party endorses two ballot measures: Proposition 13 and Proposition 15. Proposition 13 would encourage property owners to preserve older buildings and make them safer by giving them a tax break for seismic retrofitting. Proposition 15 would reduce the corrupting influence of special-interest groups on elections by using fees paid by lobbyists to finance the campaigns of Secretary of State candidates in the 2014 and 2018 elections.

The Napa County Green Party is opposed to all other ballot initiatives for the following reasons: 1) Proposition 14, by only allowing the top two winners in the primary to be on the ballot in the November general election, would result in fewer voter choices and limit the voices of third parties at a time when voters are dissatisfied with available choices and the two major parties; 2) Proposition 16 would protect big electricity companies and limit their competition by making it difficult for public electricity companies, which are less expensive, to be created; 3) Proposition 17 would punish the poor and middle class by allowing auto insurers to raise rates for those who, for whatever reason, had a gap in coverage.

Erica Martenson
Napa County Green Party, Secretary
Napa

CA: Op-Ed Argues Top-Two Will Lead to One-Party Races

From the LA Daily News:

WHAT if you opened up your November ballot and discovered that your only two choices for attorney general were both Republicans? Or that your only two choices for lieutenant governor were both Democrats?

If Proposition 14 were already in effect, there's a real possibility that such an outlandish outcome could occur. Here are the top two reasons to reject Prop. 14, also called the "Top Two" primary. First, Prop. 14 will stifle political competition and debate. Second, Prop. 14 will deprive voters of a full range of candidate choices.

Coalition of Third Party Leaders from Washginton State Argue Against CA "Top Two" Primary

Ross Levin writes at Independent Political Report:

Leaders from Washington State’s Third Party Coalition released a statement today urging California voters to vote no on Proposition 14. The coalition is comprised of the American Heritage Party, Constitution Party, Green Party, Libertarian Party, and Progressive Party.

The statement is entitled: "The Top Two Primary System in Action — The Experience of Third Parties in Washington State."  Full text after the jump.

CA: Opponents and Advocates of Prop 14 Call for Easing Ballot Access Restrictions

At Ballot Access News, Richard Winger argues that defeat of California's Proposition 14 will likely result in effective challenges to the existing ballot access regime in the state:

if Proposition 14 is defeated, there is substantial reason to believe that some of California’s ballot access laws can and will be altered in court. 1. The California deadline for qualifying a new party, which is in the first week of January. . . . 2. The California restriction that does not permit anyone to be nominated by write-ins at a party primary, unless that write-in candidate receives a number of votes equal to 1% of the last general election. . . . 3. The California restriction that says no one can be on the primary ballot of a party if that person was a member of another qualified party in the entire year before filing.

Advocates of Proposition 14 are also arguing in favor of easing ballot access restrictions.  From Greg Lucas at the CAIVN:

The Legislature should quickly make it easier for candidates who don’t state a party preference to run for state office, advocates of Proposition 14, the so-called “Top-Two” open primary proposal on the June ballot, told reporters May 26.  Three members of the board of the California Independent Voter Project (CAIVP), which helped draft the proposition and create the California Independent Voter Network (CAIVN), said a variety of factors hobble independent candidates from qualifying for the ballot, including vastly higher signature collection requirements and a short time frame to gather them.

CA: A Short Prop 14 News and Views Roundup

• Firedoglake: Top Two is not a "blanket primary"
• Fox and Hounds: Third parties "barely participate" in political process
• True/Slant: Top two as carnival-election system?
• Huffington Post: Top two reasons to oppose top two

CA: Former WA Green Party Chair Urges Support for Prop 14

Third party activists and organizations in California have come out strongly against the Proposition 14 "top two" ballot initiative. Thus I was surprised to see the following commentary from Maryrose Asher, Chair of the Washington State Progressive Electoral Coalition, and former chair of the state's Green Party:

As the former Chair of the Green Party of Washington State, I wholeheartedly endorse Proposition 14 in California. It is unfortunate, and misguided, that third parties should find themselves aligned with the Republican and Democratic Parties in trying to dissuade California voters from supporting the Prop 14, Open Primary initiative.

As the Green Party chair, I have had experience working on campaigns in the state of Washington prior to the adoption of the "Top Two Primary." At that time, independents and third party supporters could only participate in the primary elections at the pleasure of the Democratic or Republican parties. For example, only if we signed a "loyalty oath" could we participate in Party caucuses and conventions to influence which candidate might become the nominee. We could participate only if we were willing to work within one of the two major parties . . .

The time has come to stop viewing political parties as we do our favorite sports teams. It is not enough to have a spot on the general election ballot to wave the party's banner . . .

CA: Green and Libertarian Parties Release Ads Against Proposition 14

The Libertarian Party and Green Party have released ads against California's Proposition 14, the "top two" primary act.  Via Independent Political Report, from the Libertarians:



And from the Greens:

CA: Prop 14 a Big Business Power Grab, Says Green Candidate for US Senate

From Indybay:

ANAHEIM, Calif — Duane Roberts, Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate, says Prop 14 is a “power grab” by big business interests that will disenfranchise millions of Californians by limiting their choices at the polls. Roberts urges voters to reject this “unprecedented attack on democratic rights”:

“Prop 14 is power grab by a handful of California’s biggest business interests who seek to weaken the influence that millions of trade unionists, seniors, homeowners, environmentalists, and small businesspeople have in the candidate selection process under the closed primary system.

“They’re frustrated that Democratic and Republican Party politicians don’t always march in complete lockstep with key aspects of their agenda and believe this is because they are too beholden to the working and middle class constituencies that play a role in helping them win party primaries.

“The reason why big business interests are pushing for the open primary scheme is because it will dilute the strength these constituencies wield under the current system and give them much greater power in using their wealth to pick and choose the kinds of candidates they want elected.

CA: Richard Winger Argues Against Prop 14

In an op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle, Richard Winger of Ballot Access News argues against Prop 14 and the top two open primary:

Proposition 14 would end the method by which ordinary people can rebel against both major parties. "Top 2" systems have now been used in two other states, Washington and Louisiana. In both of them, the result is a November ballot with only Democrats and Republicans. Washington used a Top 2 system for the first time in 2008. For the first time since statehood, the November ballot had no minor party or independent candidates for any congressional race, or any statewide state race. Louisiana has used a Top 2 system for state office since 1975, and never has a minor party candidate qualified for the second round . . .

Prop. 14 supporters could have proposed a true open primary. That system, used in 21 states, eliminates the idea that voters register in a party. Instead, any voter is free on primary election day to choose any party's primary ballot. But each party does have its own primary ballot and its own nominees. Open primaries are constitutional, they are popular, they do not curtail voter choice in the general election, and they would solve the problems that Prop. 14 backers say they want to fix.

CA: "Prop 14 is an attack on voter rights and freedoms" - Stweart Alexander

From Afro-Articles:

Alexander: Proposition 14 is an attack on voter rights and freedoms -- The official summary of Proposition 14 to appear on the California ballot was prepared by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, the proposition was sponsored by California Lieutenant Governor Able Maldonado and co-sponsored by two Democratic senators, Lou Correa of Santa Ana and Lois Wolk of Stockton; however, PFP Governor Candidate Stewart Alexander says "Proposition 14 is undemocratic and may limit voter choices to one party."

Independents Impact: NYC Charter Revision Hearings and Rev. Sharpton's National Action Network Conference

Last week was a busy one here in NYC for independents and youth, and independent youth:  2 public hearings for the NYC Charter Revision Commission, one in 'da Bronx on Monday and one on Staten Island on Tuesday, where young independent activists are speaking out in favor of nonpartisan elections. Then off to the National Action Network conference at the Sheraton in Manhattan where Dr. Lenora Fulani brought the house down at the Education panel discussion, calling on the conference to "close the discussion on the achievement gap," and start paying attention to scientific breakthroughs in human development, discussions that are taking place internationally but that US leadership refuses to investigate.

"...Here in the US, we are doing publicity tours with Newt Gingrich to promote public awareness of the problem. With all due respect to Reverend Sharpton and my sisters and brothers in the National Action Network, that is insufficient for Black America and for all America..."

Dr. Fulani is recognized as having created the contemporary independent movement with her historic run for President in 1988 when she became the first woman and first African American to ever be on the ballot in all 50 states. She ran as an independent, collecting over 1.5 million signatures nationally and a quarter of a million votes. Fulani is a co-founder of the All Stars Project, Inc. and founder and director of Operation Conversation: Cops and Kids.

Up this week, Charter Revision hearings tonight in Queens and Tuesday night in Brooklyn. Watch the April 19 Charter Commission Hearing Live from Long Island City, at LaGuardia Community College, via Webcast at 6pm Monday.

Meanwhile...

• Voters in West Virginia  and North Carolina are becoming more independent.
• Oregon experience says YES! to Top Two open primary.
• 5 out of 6 Pennsylvania gov candidates support open primaries (bill introduced by Eugene DePasquale) for the Keystone State.
• California Dem Party rejects open primaries.
• Florida Gov Charlie Crist says he's not gonna run for re-election as an independent but lots of folks wish he would.
• Nationally speaking, the Top Two right now are Barack Obama and Ron Paul.
• Today's Pew Research polls finds Americans are living in Distrust, Discontent, Anger and Partisan Rancor.

CA: Socialist and PFP Candidate for Governor Opposes Prop 14

From the Philly IMC, on Stewart Alexander, Socialist and PFP candidate for governor:

The official summary of Proposition 14 to appear on the California ballot was prepared by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, the proposition was sponsored by California Lieutenant Governor Able Maldonado and co-sponsored by two Democratic senators, Lou Correa of Santa Ana and Lois Wolk of Stockton; however, PFP Governor Candidate Stewart Alexander says “Proposition 14 is undemocratic and may limit voter choices to one party.”

Alexander has express outrage with the entire proposition.  In particular, one provision in the proposition “Provides that only the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference.”  Alexander says “This provision may limit voter choices to one party in a general election.”

Some Agendas: Black, Independent, Centrist, Extremist

Fred Newman talks about Tavis Smiley, the Black Agenda, Rev. Al Sharpton, Minister Louis Farrakhan, Jessie Jackson, Cornell West and Karl Marx in Talk Talk with Jackie Salit. While campaigns are underway in Louisiana and California for open primaries (Proposition 14 in CA) that would allow independents and decline-to-state voters to vote (right now parties are allowed to exclude these voters), voters in many states are registering into parties in order to vote in primaries. Centrist John Avlon's new book decries political extremes as "wingnuts". NYC Dems don't want charter revision ballot referendum items this year, while Indies want nonpartisan elections.

For more news for independent voters, see The Hankster

Momentum Builds Nationally for Open Primaries and Nonpartisan Elections

OPEN PRIMARIES

• IN: Primary systems needs to change (LETTER To the Editor, The Paper of Mongomery County IN)
• LA: House panel says state should hold open primaries for congressional elections (By Ed Anderson, The Times-Picayune)
• LA: Open state primaries proposed (By MARSHA SHULER, Advocate Capitol News Bureau)
• Louisiana Bill to Use “Top-Two” For Congressional Elections Advances (Ballot Access News)
• Notes and quotes from the La. Legislature (The Associated Press, Daily Comet)
• MI: Phil Power: State must rethink primaries (Livingston Daily) Scrap this outdated system and replace it with a fully open primary that selects the top two candidates, regardless of party, to run head to head in November.
• Open the primaries (Pittsburgh Tribune) More than 1 million registered Pennsylvania voters out of 8.4 million shouldn't be barred from voting in May 18's primary just because they're not Republicans or Democrats.
• What’s a Party? (BLOG POST BY JOHN DEETH, Des Moines Register/John Deeth blog) what is a party? The answer  is, it’s a bunch of things, semi-public and semi-private. I’ll look at it bottom-up, because I’m a grass roots kind of person. It starts with the people who identify with the party, and the broad set of ideals they more or less share. In many states, like Iowa, that’s a formal thing with a box checked on your voter card. (As we enter primary season, there’s also the crossover issue: should independent voters and voters who identify with the opposite party be able to tell you who your party’s candidates should be?)

PROP 14

• Top-Two Open Primaries: A Gateway to New Solutions in Sacramento (By Gary Toebben, President & CEO of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, Fox & Hounds Daily)
• San Jose Mercury News: Vote Yes on Proposition 14 (Merced Sun Star) Voters are fed up with the ineffectiveness of their elected representatives. And yet few realize that our political system perpetuates the dysfunction -- rewarding those who stake out extreme ideological positions rather than encouraging pragmatic solutions to complex problems.
• Republicans' sprint to the right could backfire in general election (By thomas d. elias, Mercury News) Only when all voters can vote in all primaries will candidates need to appeal to the broad middle ground, unrepresented in California for decades as the right wing rules the GOP and a far left/organized labor coalition controls the Democratic Party.
• Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce Opposes Proposition 14 (Ballot Access News)

NYC CHARTER REVISION

• The Public and the Charter (Gotham Gazette/Wonkster) Quotes Harry Kresky and Lenora Fulani on nonpartisan elections
• City Council Speaker at Staten Island meeting: No reason to rush Charter revision (By Tom Wrobleski, SI Advance)
• Surprise sprung by Charter chair; L.I. attorney named to direct panel and Staten Island secession vet tabbed as research director (By Peter N. Spencer, SI Advance) the 60 people in attendance comprised mostly elected officials, representatives of civic groups and members of the Independence Party, who were pressing the panel to explore nonpartisan elections and proportional representation in city government.
• Charter Commission Director Selected (Gotham Gazette)
• Who's Got The Power? Citizens To Weigh In - The first public hearing of the mayor's Charter Revision Commission could be the start of a fast-track effort to change the way New York City governs itself. (By Jarrett Murphy, City Limits) Other reformers want the commission to consider non-partisan elections, which the mayor tried to implement in a 2003 charter revision. Voters rejected that proposal, but passed charter changes that Bloomberg sought in 2002 and 2005.
• Charter Commission Hearing Marked By Low Turnout (By: NY1 News) Fulani on video

For more news for independent voters see The Hankster...

The Hankster: Tiresome Two-Party System, Open Primaries and Unholy Alliances

Our two-party system creates a point-counterpoint tiresome spin cycle, says Bonnie Erbe on the Thomas Jefferson Street blog. She likes multi-party democracy but doesn't see any quick path to that result. Speaking on behalf of the one million Pennsylvania independents who are locked out of voting in the primaries, Rep. Eugene DePasquale, D-York, with support from Independent Pennsylvanians, has introduced an open primary bill into the PA legislature. Some conservative anti-Proposition 14 California Repubs think the multi-party opposition to the Prop 14 open primary initiative is an "unholy alliance". Maybe these forces think ANY alliance is unholy by definition? Meanwhile, some pro-Prop 14 forces consider the opposition an "unlikely bipartisan coalition" that "tells us a lot about who's worried about their power". You might notice that The Hankster occasionally covers the Tea Party, but hardly ever the Coffee Party which, according to their mission statement, "gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government". The reason for that is that The Hankster covers the media that covers the independent movement and the MSM associates independents with the conservative Tea Party movement, but not the Coffee Party. However, I've got my eye out for welcome signs from the progressive Coffee Party to independents.... Meanwhile, some gays want a separate nation-state.

For more news for independent voters, see The Hankster