RINO Tom Harman defeats conservative Diane Harkey in 35th (state Senate special election primary)

The Orange County Register ^ | April 12, 2006 | Martin Wisckol

[Clintonfatigued]

Assemblyman Tom Harman held on to a razor-thin lead to defeat Dana Point Councilwoman Diana Harkey in the bitterly fought contest to fill the vacant 35th state Senate District seat.

[Clintonfatigued]

Unofficial results of the open primary:

Tom Harman-R 34,160
Diane Harkey-R 33,630
Larry Caballero-D 20,210

Incidentally, Harman got considerable support from public employee unions. There will be a general election, but it's a formality in this district. The winner will succeed Congressman John Campbell.

[HitmanLV]

The country is getting less conservative.

[hispanichoosier]

The country is getting less conservative.

I doubt that the results of one state assembly seat in California allow the above conclusion to be drawn.

[So Cal Rocket]

This was essentially an open primary... Harman won because of Donk crossover vote. If this were a true primary election Harkey would have won.

[fieldmarshaldj]

It's time to get rid of these absurd open primaries, and also time to start instituting runoffs. How many out-of-the-mainstream candidates have won because of these types of unrepresentative contests ?

[Clintonfatigued]

The open primary in the regular primaries in CA have been abolished. They only apply to special elections to fill vacancies.

It's too bad, as I think Diane Harkey had great leadership potential.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"It's time to get rid of these absurd open primaries, and also time to start instituting runoffs. How many out-of-the-mainstream candidates have won because of these types of unrepresentative contests?"

---

I agree. The old California blanket primary (where candidates from all parties run on the same ballot, and the top vote-getter from each party goes on to the general election) was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court because it violates the rights of Free Speech and Free Association of citizens who unite to form a political party whose goal is to elect candidates with certain views. I don't see how a blanket primary fails to violate these same rights when used in a special election. The California blanket primary syetem used in CA-50 is unconstitutional, pure and simple. (BTW, by that same rationale, the Louisiana "jungle primary" should be declared unconstitutional as well.)

As for primary run-offs, it's not a First Amendment issue, but one of fairness. Jesse Jackson and other black leaders have argued for years that run-offs "disenfranchise" black voters, but the truth of the matter is that this year there will be at least two primaries in black-majority congressional districts, one in Memphis and one in Brooklyn, in which the likely winner will be a white liberal (and Jewish to boot---that'll really get Jesse incensed!) because there will be so many black candidates and no run-off. And we all know how when several conservatives run in a GOP primary a RINO can sneak in with less than 30% of the vote (the worst example is probably RINO Congressman Schwarz in a very socially conservative Michigan district). Hopefully, more states will adopt run-offs when no candidate gets 50%+1 (or maybe 40%+1, such as in North Carolina) in the primary.