When Proposition 14 passed some time ago, it was unavoidable that some races in substantially Democratic districts would end up featuring two Democrats advancing to the general election. In addition to forcing Democrats to spend money fighting each other through the November election, the backers of Proposition 14 created another problem for progressives in California: the inevitable fact that some Democrats, especially those with less Democratic support, would start trying to appeal to Republicans in the hopes of getting enough centrist and conservative votes to beat their Democratic opponents. This was, after all, one of the stated goals of Proposition 14: the backers explicitly said that they hoped that it would lead to more moderate politicians winning elections, since candidates supposedly had to appeal to all ideological blocs in their districts.

Well, it’s happening. And no, we’re not just talking about targeted mail pieces or tweaked phonebanking scripts. We’re talking about aggressive, public attempts to win Republican support, and Democrats who support their party ought to take notice wherever this happens.

Take the case of the legendary 30th Congressional District race, which is pitting Congressmembers Howard Berman and Brad Sherman against each other. Brian wrote on Tuesday about how Berman is touting the endorsements of 2008 Republican nominee Senator John McCain, as well as two other non-Democrats: conservative Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and “independent” Joe Lieberman, who is hardly beloved in Democratic circles. If you take a look at the numbers from the primary election, it’s not surprising why Berman would feel the need to do this: Brad Sherman won in June by 10 percent, but over 22% of the vote went to Republicans. Absent a sea-change among Democratic voters, Berman will probably need to win a substantial number of them to make up ground. The question is, will touting the endorsements of John McCain and Joe Lieberman turn Democrats against him? It should: If I have a choice between someone who’s being supported by Graham and McCain and someone who’s not, I’ll take “not” every day of the week.

Even more striking is news out of the race in Assembly District 10, whose general election pits Asm. Michael Allen against San Rafael City Councilmember Marc Levine. Here, the electoral situation is similar to the one in the 30th Congressional: Allen beat Levine by 7 points in the primary, but over 20% of the vote went to a Republican as well. A couple of weeks ago, Levine was seen on news footage attending the opening of the Marin County Republican Party/Mitt Romney headquarters–even though he’s on his county’s Democratic Central Committee-and joined with their hardest-core partisans in rallying for Mitt Romney before the RNC Convention in Tampa (1:50 mark of the video).

These types of things–touting endorsements from prominent Republicans in partisan offices, or trolling for votes at a rally for Mitt Romney–are, in my opinion, things that a Democratic candidate who wants to represent the party in office simply can’t do. I know that in a Prop 14 world, Democrats will sometimes have to target Republican voters to win. But touting endorsements from McCain and Graham-or even worse, attending a rally of local die-hard supporters of Mitt Romney? The natural implication of these tactics is that those people would have any reason at all to support you over your Democratic opponent because there’s at least something they agree with you on, whether it’s choice, equality, tax policy, or anything else of value from the Democratic perspective. Going there, resorting to that, is a clear signal that you’re not as good a Democrat as your opponent is, so you’re going in the other direction.

This is, of course, our first election cycle under Proposition 14, so maybe Democrats will get smarter about this type of thing in the future. Or maybe they won’t, and guarantee themselves some negative blog coverage in the process.

So-called “Top 2” primary makes intraparty general elections possible

by Brian Leubitz

The top-2 primary system yields some strange results.  You could end up with two members of the same party.  Or you could end up with a non-major party candidate in the top 2.  Both of these situations lead to some uncomfortable questions for the party.  Under the current rules, party entities are not allowed to endorse non-democrats.  However, if there are no Democrats in the general election, what then?  CDP Chair John Burton just released an email about his take on the “top 2” primary system and independents.  

What are we to do if a “Decline-to-State” supports the issues we do and shares our values as Democrats? I personally know several people who became “Decline-to-State” in opposition to Iraq and Afghanistan, but favor environmental protection, gay rights, and other progressive issues. If local Democrats are presented with a dilemma of a progressive declined-to-state vs. a reactionary Republican in the run off election, I believe the local delegates should have the option of whether to endorse.

The July Executive Board meeting happening next weekend will deal with these issues.  The changes proposed by the CDP Rules committee can be found here (PDF. In short, the rules changes allow a DTS voter to apply to get an endorsement where there are no Democrats on the ballot.

Take a look at the changes, there is a lot to think about.  I’m pretty inclined to support this, but I’d like to hear others’ thoughts. Full email over the flip.

Dear Brian:

One of the issues before our Executive Board later this month deals with how the Party handles endorsements in a post-Prop 14 (Top-Two Primary) world.

One of the items we grappled with in this process is what to do with regard to endorsements if no Democrat makes the run off.

What are we to do if a “Decline-to-State” supports the issues we do and shares our values as Democrats? I personally know several people who became “Decline-to-State” in opposition to Iraq and Afghanistan, but favor environmental protection, gay rights, and other progressive issues. If local Democrats are presented with a dilemma of a progressive declined-to-state vs. a reactionary Republican in the run off election, I believe the local delegates should have the option of whether to endorse.

It is far fetched, but a possibility, that a Senator Bernie Sanders type of decline-to-state candidate could be running against a Wally Herger or Tom McClintock in the run off. Should the locals not be given the option to decide to endorse or not endorse the “DTS” candidate? Some say that it would be just as effective to say that we oppose right-wing Republicans. I personally disagree. I don’t think you can beat somebody with nobody.

I truly believe that it is in the best interest of the principles we believe in as Democrats to at least have the option of deciding in those rare instances when a progressive DTS is running against a reactionary Republican.

I look forward to finalizing this matter in Anaheim on the weekend of July 29-31. If you have any questions, feel free to call on me.

Peace and friendship,

John

You may not have noticed, but the Regional California Republican Party is having a meeting this weekend, which they do semi-annually.  However, this one looks like it may have a bit more long-term ramifications.  It seems the Republicans have decided to take on the role of pre-primary electoral process.

As you probably recall, the Proposition 14 system ends the partisan primary process and replaces it with a so-called “top-two” system, where the top two vote getters, regardless of party, advance to the general election.  To be sure, that is something of an infuriating system for members of both parties.  But, the Republicans have decided to do something about it.  They’ll be sending out a ballot to every registered Republican, beginning in the 2014 statewide election.

The plan was not without controversy, and it looks like it wasn’t going to happen until the modern day Reagan stepped into the fray.

the vote capped often contentious debate at the state GOP convention being held in Sacramento in which outgoing state party Chairman Ron Nehring put forth a nomination plan that have would have let local party officials come up with endorsements. That sparked criticism from some delegates that the endorsement process would have been decided by a small cadre of political insiders.

“The Republican Party will in essence be conducting its own party primary,” McClintock said. “It means in essence that we’ll be doing the job that the secretary of state once did. It’s going to require logistically a lot of work. … The important question is how we will restore the role of the rank-and-file voters across this state.””(SacBee)

This should be an interesting experiment for the Republicans.  How this works in practice, however, is still a big question.

Prop	Yes	No	D/K
13 (seismic retrofit)	46	26	26
14(open primary)	50	28	22
15(fair elections)	29	46	26
16(PG&E protection)	41	45	14
17 (Mercury Ins scheme)	43	39	18

SurveyUSA has released their latest batch of data on the propositions and the LG race.  You can see the polling data on the props to the right.  As you can tell, these are some pretty worrying numbers.  Props 14 and 15 seem to be going the exact opposite of how we would like to see them going.  And 16 and 17 seem to be hovering in that troubling zone. If I had to bet, I would go with both of those failing. But, it’s going to be a long night on those two.’

As for the LG’s race, Newsom and Maldonado have pretty substantial leads there.  On the Democratic side, Newsom leads Hahn 43-27 right now, with 9% going to Eric Korevaar (which will wither by the time we get the results) and 21% undecided. Newsom looks set to pull this one off tomorrow.

On the Republican side, St. Abel leads Sam Aanestad 26-16, with 32% undecided and the rest going to a smattering of other candidates.  Now, thing is here that Aanestad might pick up a lot of last minute support from the far-right.  I think this one is hardly a lock for Maldo, and we might be in for a bit of a surprise here.

So, folks, what this shows me is that every vote is extremely important.  Demand that your friends and family vote!

Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado has never been a favorite around these parts.  His budget machinations were cruel and unnecessary. He used the entire process merely to gain political advantage.  With any luck, we will be rid of him at the end of the year.

But his legacy just might live on in the muck that is Prop 14.  He came on to KQED’s Forum this week to discuss the “open” primary initiative. He had no facts. He had no support for his outlandish claims.  Just his gut.

Then the forum turns to California’s new lieutenant governor, Abel Maldonado, one of the main proponents of Prop. 14, and Richard Winger, one of the initiative’s more prominent opponents.  Maldonado’s performance is, in my humble opinion, a trainwreck.  He proceeds to list one complaint after another about the state government — it’s broken, it’s broke, legislators are highly partisan, they spend too much time on silly issues, they can’t pass a budget, politicians misrepresent themselves to voters, etc. — but then says that the solution is a top-two primary.  He never really explains how the latter would correct the former.

Meanwhile, Winger, to his credit, employs actual evidence debunking each of Maldonado’s claims one by one.  You say more open primaries would make it easier to pass a budget?  Well, it turns out the budget was plenty late during Calfornia’s use of the blanket primary a decade ago.  You say it would make the legislature less partisan?  Washington state used a blanket primary for decades, and they’re legislature is one of the most partisan in the country.  And so on.  And all Maldonado does is keep saying, “I’ve lived it.  I’ve been there.”  And then he repeats his talking points.  It’s not a very impressive spectacle. (Enik Rising)

See, you have to wind up St. Abel. Make sure he’s got his Talking Points down, and he can be Arnold’s voice in the Legislature, or really any other forum. But, ask him to explain himself, and this is what you get.

The problem with the “open” primary system is that it just doesn’t do what its supporters claim it will.  It doesn’t get people more involved.  As Seth Masket points out, if anything, it makes people less likely to vote.

But okay, maybe you still want a less polarized legislature.  Fine.  Would a top-two primary get you there?  Not really.  The evidence we have suggests that the effect would be small or negligible.  There turns out to be very little relationship between a state legislature’s partisanship and the openness of its primary elections.  Meanwhile, you’ll end up with many runoff elections between members of the same party, giving voters not of that party a lot less incentive to participate. (Enik Rising)

Here’s what you get with this mess.  In a purple district, you get candidates that will tack for the base to make sure they get into the general election.  If you get the lion’s share of the base, you are likely to get enough votes.  How do you do this? Get more polarizing. So, scratch that less polarizing thing.

And in districts where one party controls, you end up getting two candidates of the same party.  Let’s be honest, does a Republican have a lot of incentive to vote for either of two progressive democrats in a Blue seat? Would you want to vote between some of the two crazy Republicans we’ll get in a couple of these districts? Do you hold your nose and vote for the slightly less odious one? Perhaps, but it sure doesn’t inspire civic engagement to have to vote for some creep you disdain slightly less than the other creep.

Prop 14 has made some crazy bedfellows. Like today, when I was reading my news feeds and I was forced to stop, look around, and say, well, thank you Jeff Denham:

Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Merced, transferred $50,000 last week from his Senate campaign account to a committee to oppose Proposition 14.

As The Bee has reported, the very vocal opposition to the “open primary” proposal has yet to show significant signs of life when it comes to raising cash to back a campaign. The California Republican Party has launched a No on 14 Web site, but has yet to contribute to one of four accounts opened to oppose the measure, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Secretary of State.(SacBee)

Of course, the Governor hasn’t been sitting back on this one. This crazy system is one of his key “reform” measures that he’s been targeting. At last check, he’s plopped down over $3 million bucks into the campaign to get this thing passed.  

So, on this one, Jon Fleischman, the rightwing blogger at Flash Report, and I are in complete agreement. This will lead to a less functional government, not a more functional one.  It strips the parties of their right to choose for themselves who will be their standard bearer. And it will create additional costly fights within the Democratic Party.  If it was applied in 2008, Democrats would have faced 6 Dem-on-Dem general elections, while there would be only one R-on-R general.

So, thank you Jeff Denham. Excuse me, I need to take a shower now.

A supposedly noble idea comes from a backroom deal-suddenly the bete noir of today’s populists, though such deals are as old as any committee-yet for many, the stain wears off. Leave to one side the fact that it had nothing to do with the budget-this was a “good government”[1] proposal, a voting reform proposal. Yet unlike the “controversial” statistical census proposal, which good or not would advantage Democrats, this does not appear to advantage any one party. Just one man.

This is the origin-story of Proposition 14. This referendum is on our ballots this primary election because it was one of the conditions extracted by now-Lt. Gov. Abel Maldanado for his vote on one of the 2009 budget deals when he was a mere state senator. Yet those circumstances do not even form the largest irony. That belongs to the fact that it is promoted as a “good government” initiative that will empower the supposed silent majority-“centrists” [2]-yet it arose out of a mathematical situation of distorted power created by a Constitutional demand for 2/3rd supermajorities. In other worlds, one man, wielding a vastly outsized proportion of power with no qualms about that fact chose to force a vote on something claiming to improve democracy. That alone should raise an eyebrow. Shouldn’t the great champion of democracy simply supported the majority on that hallowed ground instead? OK, so take for the sake of the argument it was benevolent dictatorship.

But there’s another ethical problem with it. It was put forward by a politician who has mapped his career on being some kind of uniter: the Mexican Horatio Alger story who grew rich enough to be a Republican.[4] Or something. He’s Joe the Plumber the Rancher.

But this shtick ain’t playing in GOPtown, CA anymore. If his shit-kicking rancher pals in Santa Maria thought that they could control the mayor’s office there or the senate district with someone who was more likely to shoot someone speaking Spanish than responding, “hola,” he wouldn’t be where he is. But they knew better.[4] But now Abel knows better. He knows he won’t win any statewide primaries, mostly because most of his voters will want to apply the Arizona law to him, strip his citizenship and send him “back” to Mexico. For being “Mexican.” Also.

So, he passed this law for his own political advancement to the Governor’s mansion, or, more likely, a senate seat. That also makes this law reek.

What says the other side, the Dems? Many think it’s bad for them. A lot of races would end up being Dem on Dem porn. I have my doubts about that. Pols would adapt. They always do. It’s just that the Dems seem to adapt last and after losing too much.

Forget the ethos-what about the logos? Is it good policy?

I have no idea-and I suspect neither do most people-what this law would really do. I’m not sure I see the problem, in theory, of having a kind of runoff vote between the two largest vote getters. It would force the electorate to take ownership of someone-or it might totally depress participation. Who knows? No one does. This law isn’t even the typically cynical “reform” that distorts election results for one party. It’s simply the Abel for Governor/Senator advantaging law.

What I do know is that I almost never[5] vote ‘yes’ on any Proposition largely because it allows laws like this that aren’t even myopic-they don’t even take a look. I am completely opposed to the process. Money-talks direct democracy is not our system; it is essentially mob rule. Almost all of California’s troubles are linked to them. It wasn’t an accidental or trivial feature of American democracy that it was based on representative government, though the Internet’s lidless eye weakens the distinction to a large degree-even committee votes on procedure draw protests these days. Representative government was by design. Supermajorities only in the most unique cases was by design.

Therefore, the only two propositions I will support are (1) restoring majority rule to the legislature, and (2) abolishing ballot initiatives.

I would consider some form of (2) that had a quorum requirement of 50% turnout, did not permit state Constitutional amendments, and required a second revote 2 years later. But really it would be best to simply ban them.

Prop 14 doesn’t meet those requirements. I cannot say what it will do except serve the ambitions of a person whose political career exists to make a compromise I don’t need; I can simply vote for a real Democrat.

[1] read: a change to the voting system that sounds more “fair” even if it is half-baked, totally advantages one-side, etc.

[2] Accept for the sake of the argument that there is a normal, bell-curve distribution along the political spectrum (I doubt it anymore; I think the distribution is bimodal, but it’s not my conjecture). This is an axiom of the High Broderists, “bipartisan”-advocates, and “centrist” humpers. It is the base of their argument that the majority of voters belong in the middle and that all of the “bipartisan” “compromises” are a tribute to beautiful government. The further away you get from the center, the more “radical” or “ideological” you are. Also, this implies you are less normal and in a small distribution.

But here’s the problem. There are as many different kinds of centrists as there are issues. Do this thought experiment: roll two dice. The higher the score, the more conservative you are. The scale is 2-12, 2 being very liberal and 12 being extremely conservative. 7 is the lionized saintly centrist. What’s the problem? There is only one way to score a 2, only one way to score a 12, but there are 6 ways to score a 7 (1+6, 2+5, 3+4, 4+3, 5+2, 6+1). There are 5 ways to score a 6. (1+5, 2+4, 3+3, 4+2, 5+1.) and 5 ways to score an 8. (2+6, 3+5, 4+4, 5+3, 6+2). So, of the 36 possible results, 16, or 44% are Centrist. This means only 27% are liberal or conservative at all. This seems to bear this view out, doesn’t it?

Not really. Each different combination represents an entirely different centrist. You could get a ‘1’ on abortion and a ‘6’ on gun control, or a ‘5’ on abortion and a ‘2’ on gun control. These two people would both have ‘7’s but would agree about nothing.

Centrists only appear to form a majority because there are so many more possible ways of forming them. It’s an illusion.

[3] People who buy this don’t know Santa Maria. If it weren’t for the housing pressure from San Luis Obispo County and southern Santa Barbara county that produced a strip-mall and cookie-cutter home overlay on the town, it would be a plantation town run by a few intermarried clans of ancient (for white people) origins in the valley who are extremely right wing and get away with it because of their “aww shucks” farmerisms. Abel simply wormed his way into that class with money. He did nothing to elevate the conditions there for other Latinos.

[4] They pulled the same trick in tiny nearby Guadalupe, CA, getting this mostly Spanish speaking, mostly Democratic hamlet to vote GOP for mayor a few years back.

[5] I recall voting yes on exactly 3: indian gaming, indian gaming redux, and medical marijuana.

I’ve been warning about this on the blog and in every forum I come across, Prop 14 will result in more Dem-on-Dem fights.  It will be a drain on the Democratic party, and will result in a net loss for the party in terms of resources.  Don’t trust me?  Well, how about the Center for Govermental Studies. Goo-Goos seem to like them, anyway.  So, how will they like this:

CGS broke down the registration and voter-turnout figures for recent primary elections and found that more than one-third of general election races could end up being fought between two members of the same party. Most of those single-party contests would be between two Democrats (largely in Los Angeles County and the Bay Area). Just two of the races analyzed in the study would have resulted in a general election between two Republicans.

The report also found that campaigns would be “significantly more expensive” under Proposition 14, mainly because candidates would have to campaign to a broader base of voters, as opposed to just voters in their party, in the primary.(SacBee)

In other words, Dem primaries end up getting played out twice. But because there just aren’t that many Republicans left in the state, theirs end up as snoozers into the general. You can read the full report (PDF) here.

Prop 14 is bad for the Democratic Party, bad for third parties, and well, not so great even for the Republican Party.  It will make for much more expensive elections, and thus politicians that are even more susceptible to the sultry tones of the corporate lobbyist.

Yet somehow, St. Abel Maldonado is playing this out as a good government measure. As the results in Washington and Louisiana have shown, this is anything but good government.  

The courts resolved a slew of disputes about the initiatives over the last few days.  As we mentioned recently, Prop 14, the “open primary” measure that would result in a lot more Dem-on-Dem fights, was the subject of much legal wrangling.

In the end, Prop 14 will largely stay the same:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other supporters said they beat back an effort by union officials and lawmakers to undermine the proposal that would allow Californians to vote in state primaries regardless of candidates’ or voters’ party affiliations.

*** *** ***

The governor and state Sen. Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria) intervened to stave off the changes. Superior Court Judge Allen Sumner ruled Friday that voters should see the measure very much as it was originally written. Sumner made minor changes to the wording regarding potential costs related to an open primary and made clear that voters would not have to state a party preference. (LA Times)

Meh, the language that was passed during the budget fight was passed at Maldonado and Arnold’s gunpoint. It should have been changed, but them’s the breaks. It means that more resources will need to be spent to beat this stinker.  As of right now, it looks like both major parties will officially oppose the measure.

On Prop 17, Mercury Insurance’s hidden agendas scheme against Prop 103, the court ruled that ballot arguments will stand:

Judge Allen Sumner has upheld Attorney General Jerry Brown’s Official Title and Summary of Proposition 17, which warns the measure will allow car insurers to raise premiums.  The ruling means voters will learn in the ballot pamphlet that Prop 17 will allow insurance companies to raise rates on California drivers based on their history of buying auto insurance.

Attorneys for Mercury Insurance failed as it tried to convince the court to remove any reference to the insurance surcharges that Prop 17 will create.  Consumer advocates hailed the decision as a victory for voters, who will have the opportunity to cut through Mercury’s multi-million dollar campaign of lies and read a fair assessment of the insurance company’s initiative in the Voter Guide.

“When voters face the deceptive, multi-million dollar insurance company ad campaign for Prop 17, at least they’ll be able to turn to Attorney General Brown’s summary to learn the truth,” said consumer advocate Harvey Rosenfield who co-authored one of the ballot arguments against Prop 17.  “Now that the Judge has made it clear that Prop 17 lets insurance companies raise car insurance premiums, will the insurance company backers of Prop 17 stop lying about it?” (Press Release)

Now, the ballot arguments aren’t nearly as important as the ballot title and summary, but every little bit helps.

Speaking of the initiatives, if anybody has a point for the Calitics Editorial Board to consider for these things, let us know. We’ll be doing endorsements soon.