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• MI: Phil Power: State must rethink primaries (Livingston Daily) Scrap this outdated system and replace it with a fully open primary that selects the top two candidates, regardless of party, to run head to head in November.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...

Why is Ralph Nader Opposing California Open Primary Proposition 14?

"It's particularly disturbing that at a moment when millions of independents are knocking at the door of an electoral process from which they are excluded, Ralph Nader and the third party movement would want to slam it shut." (From independent attorney Harry Kresky in Sunday's Sac Bee)

What was Ralph Nader thinking? The sometime Green/ sometime independent Presidential candidate who garners less than a percentage point of the vote in 2000, 2004 and 2008 now wants to Stop the Top Two, the popular open primary initiative that will be on the ballot in California June 8.... Thanks to IPR for the heads up about Ralph.

OPEN PRIMARIES

Viewpoints: Should state adopt an open primary? Yes -- It would help third parties thrive where they now flunk ((By Harry Kresky, Special to The Bee)

Viewpoints: Should state adopt an open primary? No -- It would hurt the GOP and reward mushy candidates (By Shawn Steel, Special to The Bee)

Redistricting commission and open primary could end the bickering (THE DESERT SUN EDITORIAL BOARD)

Open Primary Debate (B.J. Hansen, My MotherLode)

Maybe We Should End Primary Elections (Bob Schieffer, CBS News) Response to Phil Keisling's oped in NYTimes Get Rid of Partisans

To Reduce Partisanship, Get Rid of Partisans (By PHIL KEISLING, NY Times)

Altered Consciousness: Tackling political partisanship by its roots (By Rick Alterbaum, The Brandeis Hoot - Brandeis University) Supports Louisiana style open primary

For more news for independents, see The Hankster

CA Proposition 14 - For Democracy and Inclusion of Independent Voters

The latest round-up of news about California's open primary initiative, Proposition 14, which will be on the ballot June 8. Partisans showed their true colors last week with back-room deals and litigation on the ballot wording. Prominent independent attorney Harry Kresky's commentary on HuffPo "Words Matter" sheds lots of light on the nature of our democracy. And Phil Keisling, Oregon's former Sec. of State who went to bat for that state's Measure 65 which would have opened the primaries to voters who don't choose to affiliate with a party, has a neat idea to Reduce Partisanship in today's NY Times. For more news for independents, see The Hankster

OPEN PRIMARIES

• To Reduce Partisanship, Get Rid of Partisans (By PHIL KEISLING, NY Times)

PROP 14

• Open primary is going back to the future (Daniel Borenstein, Contra Costa Times)
• Editorial: Pérez's next act must be better than his opener (Sac Bee) Pérez was in charge when the Legislature's attorneys engaged in a ham-handed attempt to help a union and the Democratic Party win a suit to water down the open primary initiative, Proposition 14 on the June ballot. The effort largely failed in the courts, but not for a lack of trying.
• New speaker needs to shape up his act (Fresno Bee editorial) 
• Proposition 14 offers mythic solutions for California (San Diego Conservative Examiner, Robert Rische) The problem, however, is Independents already hold all the cards in elections.... Thus, it is hard to understand why this group of voters is continually viewed as being disenfranchised, simply because they choose not to identify themselves with any major party.
• Words Matter: Voters to Get Fair Wording of California Open Primary Initiative (Harry Kresky, Huffington Post)
• C.A. Orders Slight Change in Proposition 14 Ballot Language (By KENNETH OFGANG, Metropolitan News-Enterprise)
• Open Primary Will Be on Ballot-Court Quashes Attempt to Derail Prop 14. (by NICK WELSH, Santa Barbara Independent)
• CLARK v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY - Court of Appeals of California, Third Appellate District, Sacramento. (RAYE, J., Leagle.com)
• TAYLOR v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY - Court of Appeals of California, Third Appellate District, Sacramento. (RAYE, J., Leagle.com)

California Proposition 14: Rights of People vs. Rights of Parties - The Next American Revolution

IndependentVoting.org attorney Harry Kresky's piece today on HuffPo Words Matter: Voters to Get Fair Wording of California Open Primary Initiative is a gem. Read it, and re-read it, and then read it to your friends!

The assertion of such a right by the parties raises a fundamental question about the nature of our democracy. Does it rest on the rights of voters or on the rights of parties? On one level the answer is simple. The Constitution makes no mention of political parties. The Bill of Rights speaks of the "rights of the people," not of the parties. After all, it is the people who organize the parties, so how could the rights of the parties they organize trump theirs?

We face a challenge every day in this country -- move forward, or stay here? And "stay here" increasingly means going backwards.

In the very early days of our American revolution,  soon after the independent forces won, George Washington warned us about the "baneful effects of party".  In that spirit, let's continue the struggle.
-NH

UPDATE Breaking News: California Judge Okays Reform Language for Proposition 14 Open Primary Measure

UPDATE: Attorney Harry Kresky just issued this statement about Judge Sumner's ruling this afternoon on Prop 14. (Harry Kresky is general counsel of IndependentVoting.org – a national association of independents with organization in 40 states)

“The Court's ruling on the ballot summary for Proposition 14 ensures a fair and objective statement of what the initiative, if passed, would do. The Court refused to allow party loyalists to insert language designed to mislead and frighten voters.  Proposition 14, if passed, will place power, where it belongs, in the hands of the voters.  And that includes California’s 3.4 million independents who presently have no right to participate in primary elections.”

Earlier today, Judge Allen Sumner ruled on a controversial challenge from partisan interests on the language for Ballot Proposition 14, the so-called "Top Two" open primaries referendum on the ballot on June 10.
Sen. Abel Maldonado spoke with an AP reporter.

This just in from Californians for an Open Primary/Yes on Prop 14:

BALLOT LABEL

ELECTIONS. INCREASES RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS.

Reforms the primary election process for congressional, statewide, and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference. Fiscal Impact: The data are insufficient to identify the amount of any increase or decrease in costs to administer elections will increase.

BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY

ELECTIONS. INCREASES RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS.

Encourages increased participation in elections for congressional, legislative, and statewide offices by reforming the procedure by which candidates are selected in primary elections.

Gives voters increased options in the primary by allowing all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference.

Provides that candidates may choose not to have a political party preference indicated on the primary ballot.

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.

Does not change primary elections for President, party committee offices and nonpartisan offices.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

The data are insufficient to identify the amount of any increase or decrease in costs to administer elections will increase.

Fiscal Effect

Minor Costs and Savings. This measure would change how elections officials prepare, print, and mail ballot materials. In some cases, these changes could increase these state and county costs. For instance, under this measure, all candidates- regardless of their party preference – would be listed on each primary election ballot. This would make these ballots longer. In other cases, the measure would reduce election costs. For example, by eliminating in some instances the need to prepare different primary ballots for each political party, counties sometimes would realize savings. For general election ballots, the measure would reduce the number of candidates (by only having the two candidates who received the most votes from the primary election on the ballot). This would make these ballots shorter. The direct costs and savings resulting from this measure may would be relatively minor and may would tend to offset each other. However, the data are insufficient to determine whether state and local costs to administer elections will increase or decrease. Accordingly, we estimate that the measure’s fiscal effects would not be significant for state and local governments.

Indirect Fiscal Effects Impossible to Estimate. In some cases, this measure would result in different individuals being elected to offices that under current law. Different officeholders would make different decisions about state and local government spending and revenues. These indirect fiscal effects of the measure are unknown and impossible to estimate.

SOURCES

Californians for Open Primaries-Yes On 14, Amanda.Fulkerson@yeson14openprimary.com, 818-823-1108

Sarah Lyons at IndependentVoting, 212-962-1824

The Hankster hanks_nancy@msn.com 646-567-6641

Legal Fight over Ballot Wording For California's Proposition 14 "Top Two" Open Primary Referendum

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Allen Sumner is expected to rule today on the ballot language for Prop 14. Leading independent Attorney Harry Kresky speaks out on the legal fight over the “top two” open primaries referendum:

“When the California legislature voted to put Proposition 14 on the ballot this June, it crafted a summary of the initiative which will also appear on the ballot, that accurately described what its effect would be if passed. Opponents of the measure have now gone to court to try to change the summary to frighten voters with misleading statements such as, “Eliminates political parties’ rights to be on the general election ballot.” If they have their way, a measure that expands the rights of voters – most especially the state’s three million independent voters – will be reframed as one that eliminates the rights of parties. Since an overwhelming majority of Americans are angry about partisan gridlock, now is not the time to protect political parties at the expense of the voters. The people of California deserve an honest representation of Proposition 14. Let’s hope the court looks out for them.”

The California School Employees Association has sued the Secretary of State (presumably on behalf of the California State Legislature) to change the ballot wording. Read more at California Independent Voter Network.

Keep reading below…

PROPOSITION 14

• More from Harry Kresky on why independents support open primaries here
• Prop 14 Lawsuit: People-1, Politicians-0 (By Jeannine English, President of AARP California and Co-Chair of Californians for an Open Primary, Fox & Hounds Daily)
• EDITORIAL: Mad as hatters in state Capitol (Freso Bee)
• Ruling expected on Calif. open-primary measure (ABC)
• Christina Tobin, Libertarian for CA Secretary of State, announces schedule and opposes Prop 14 (Independent Political Report blog)

For more news for independent voters, see The Hankster

Independent Voters Want Open Primaries, Support California Prop 14

Arizona Repubs want to close their primaries to keep independent voters out, and California Dems are pulling out all the stops to try to dissuade voters from supporting Prop 14, the "Top Two" open primary ballot referendum up in June that will allow independents full participation. At issue is whether the political parties or the people have the power.

ARIZONA REPUB PRIMARY ROUNDUP

• GOP purity: "We do not serve Independent voters" (Posted by AzBlueMeanie, Blog For Arizona)
• State GOP looking to close its primary to independents (Rhonda Bodfield Arizona Daily Star)

CALIFORNIA PROP 14

• Prop. 14 fight comes down to words - Measure's success could hinge on a court battle over language. (By George Skelton, LA Times/Capitol Journal)
• Ballot measure would provide open primaries (Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau)
• INDEPENDENTS OF AMERICA, UNITE! (by Keith Nelle, CAIVN)
• State lawmakers’ latest shame (by Pete Golis, Press Democrat)
• Ballot-language ploy tars Legislature (Dan Morain, Sac Bee)

What do independents think? Ask independentvoting.org, Californians for an Open Primary-Yes on Prop 14, or Jason Olson and Nancy Corradini of independentvoice.org

See more on The Hankster...

Political Reform: Change Independents Can Believe In

Independents and Washington's Magic Show, NYC Charter Revision and Nonpartisan Elections, California Prop 14:

If you haven't yet read Jackie Salit's "Independents See Through Washington's Magic Show", here's a link to Chicago online SWNewsHerald, and keeping up with CNN's Broken Government series, transcript of Don Lemon's panel last Sunday on TMV.... And in the area of election reform, attorney Harry Kresky wrote a guest post for The Hankster called "Bloomberg Charter Revision Commission Should Address Nonpartisan Elections", while the discussion of California's Prop 14 continues. Speaking of Prop 14, Richard Winger will write a guest post for The Hankster later this week delineating his position on Prop 14 and open primaries.