Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Primary election overhaul clears state high court
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 12/15/10 | Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Posted on 12/15/2010 9:31:36 PM PST by SmithL

SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court allowed California on Wednesday to go ahead with a voter-approved overhaul of primary elections, putting all candidates on the same ballot in the first round and matching the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, in the runoff.

The justices unanimously denied a request to block the measure, Proposition 14, which takes effect in January.

Prop. 14, which passed with a 54 percent majority in June, eliminates party primaries and instead requires all state and federal candidates, except those for president, to run in a single primary for each office. The top two finishers, who could both be from the same party, compete in the general election.

A lawsuit challenging the initiative was filed by people unaffiliated with the major parties. They included prospective candidates from Socialist Action, the Reform Party and the Coffee Party, a recently formed nonpartisan alternative to the Tea Party.

The plaintiffs challenged only two of Prop. 14's provisions but sought to halt enforcement until both were removed.

One requires election officials to discard write-in votes in the runoff elections and count only votes for the two listed candidates.

The other allows candidates in the primary to state their party affiliations on the ballot only if they belong to a party that the state officially recognizes - currently, the Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian, American Independent and Peace and Freedom parties. Other candidates would be listed as having no party preference.

Without further court action, the new system will be used in special elections next year and in the 2012 general elections. The Green Party, however, plans a separate suit challenging the elimination of party primaries, a change that is likely to exclude third-party candidates from the runoff ballot in virtually all elections.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: abelmaldonado; aholemaldonado; cagop; endofgop; makeeveryvotecount; maldonado; openprimary; prop14; ripgop

1 posted on 12/15/2010 9:31:42 PM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Does any of this matter in California? (shrug)


2 posted on 12/15/2010 9:36:08 PM PST by Lancey Howard (Pray for 3/5.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Labels
3 posted on 12/15/2010 9:42:00 PM PST by FrankR (The Evil Are Powerless If The Good Are Unafraid! - R. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

So let me see if I got this straight ...

All candidates run in a single primary, the top 2 vote getters [regardless of party] run in the general election, write-ins in the general election are excluded ...

This has GOT to be unconstitutional ...


4 posted on 12/15/2010 10:03:15 PM PST by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...</i><p>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
All candidates run in a single primary, the top 2 vote getters [regardless of party] run in the general election, write-ins in the general election are excluded ...

This has GOT to be unconstitutional ...

I can understand the disenfranchisement in the second instance, but am curious about what you believe to be the grounds for the first.

5 posted on 12/15/2010 10:19:10 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The top two finishers, who could both be from the same party, compete in the general election.

Just goes to show how stupid CA voters are. This is a frickin disaster, how can you possibly have two demwits or Republicans running for the same office?

6 posted on 12/15/2010 10:24:15 PM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I can understand the disenfranchisement in the second instance, but am curious about what you believe to be the grounds for the first.

I can see everyone running in one primary - that wasn't my issue. But, just becuz you ain't one of the top two - you can't mount your own third-party campaign ???

7 posted on 12/15/2010 10:30:26 PM PST by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...</i><p>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
Got it.

You have a point.

8 posted on 12/15/2010 10:39:53 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: calex59
...how can you possibly have two demwits or Republicans running for the same office?

My guess? We'll see the Southern Cal Dems running against the Northern Cal Dems (e.g. Newsom vs. Villaraigosa) in the runoffs.

Duf Sundheim said he wanted a "purple party." Thanks to him, Arnie, Abel, and others, it's more likely gonna be blue for quite a while.

9 posted on 12/15/2010 10:40:23 PM PST by calcowgirl (“Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life” —Lindzen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

some other state does this.

Louisiana?


10 posted on 12/16/2010 1:37:36 AM PST by Talf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; All
My guess? We'll see the Southern Cal Dems running against the Northern Cal Dems (e.g. Newsom vs. Villaraigosa) in the runoffs.

I expect that as well. This measure was all about eliminating Republicans from the General election cycle.

11 posted on 12/16/2010 6:19:44 AM PST by newzjunkey (expired "Bush tax cut" = Obama Tax Increase)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Talf
some other state does this.

Maybe a single primary with the top two facing each other in the general - BUT, you EVER hear that ANY state SPECIFICALLY prohibits ANYONE who wants to run as a third-party in th general ???

12 posted on 12/16/2010 11:28:14 AM PST by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...</i><p>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson