California Proposition 14, Top-Two Primaries Amendment (June 2010)
From Ballotpedia | California Proposition 14 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date June 8, 2010 | |
| Topic Elections and campaigns | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
California Proposition 14 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in California on June 8, 2010. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported adopting a top-two primary system for congressional or state elective offices. |
A "no" vote opposed adopting a top-two primary system for congressional or state elective offices. |
Contents
Overview[edit]
Measure design[edit]
Proposition 14 created a single ballot for primary elections, rather than multiple ballots based on political party, for elected statewide and legislative officials, members of the U.S. Senate, and members of the U.S. House. The measure prohibited political parties from nominating candidates in a primary, although political parties were allowed to endorse, support, or oppose candidates. Proposition 14 did not affect partisan primary elections for president or political party officers.[1]
Background[edit]
Californians rejected Proposition 62 in 2004, which would have created a blanket primary system. Voters in Washington voters approved a top-two primary measure, Initiative 872, in 2004, while Oregon voters rejected Measure 65, a top-two primary initiative, in 2008.
Election results[edit]
|
California Proposition 14 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
2,868,945 | 53.73% | ||
| No | 2,470,658 | 46.27% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 14 was as follows:
| “ | Elections. Increases Right to Participate in Primary Elections. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
• Encourages increased participation in elections for congressional, legislative, and statewide offices by changing 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 | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact statement[edit]
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[2]
| “ | No significant net change in state and local government costs to administer elections.[3] | ” |
Constitutional changes[edit]
- See also: Article II, California Constitution
Proposition 14 amended Section 5 and Section 6 of Article II of the California Constitution. The following underlined text was added and struck-through text was deleted:[1]
Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.
(a) A voter-nomination primary election shall be conducted to select the candidates for congressional and state elective offices in California. All voters may vote at a voter-nominated primary election for any candidate for congressional and state elective office without regard to the political party preference disclosed by the candidate or the voter, provided that the voter is otherwise qualified to vote for candidates for the office in question. The candidates who are the top two vote-getters at a voter-nominated primary election for a congressional or state elective office shall, regardless of party preference, compete in the ensuing general election. (b) Except as otherwise provided by Section 6, a candidate for a congressional or state elective office may have his or her political party preference, or lack of political party preference, indicated upon the ballot for the office in the manner provided by statute. A political party or party central committee shall not nominate a candidate for any congressional or state elective office at the voter-nominated primary. This subdivision shall not be interpreted to prohibit a political party or party central committee from endorsing, supporting, or opposing any candidate for a congressional or state elective office. A political party or party central committee shall not have the right to have its preferred candidate participate in the general election for a voter-nominated office other than a candidate who is one of the two highest vote-getters at the primary election, as provided in subdivision (a). (c) The Legislature shall provide for
(d) A political party that participated in a primary election for a partisan office pursuant to subdivision (c) has the right to participate in the general election for that office and shall not be denied the ability to place on the general election ballot the candidate who received, at the primary election, the highest vote among that party’s candidates. SEC. 6. (a) All judicial, school, county, and city offices, including the Superintendent of Public Instruction, shall be nonpartisan. (b) |
Support[edit]
Supporters[edit]
Officials[edit]
- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)[4]
- Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado (R)[5]
Organizations[edit]
- AARP California[2]
- California Alliance for Jobs[2]
- California Chamber of Commerce[6]
- Latin Business Association[6]
Arguments[edit]
The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide:[2]
|
Opposition[edit]
Opponents[edit]
Parties[edit]
- California Democratic Party[7]
- California Republican Party[8]
- California Green Party[9]
- California Libertarian Party[8]
- California Peace & Freedom Party[8]
- American Independent Party of California[8]
Officials[edit]
- State Sen. Loni Hancock (D-9)[10]
- State Asm. Sandre Swanson (D-16)[11]
Organizations[edit]
- California League of Conservation Voters[12]
- California School Employees Association[2]
- California State Firefighters’ Association[2]
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association[2]
- United Nurses Associations of California[2]
Arguments[edit]
The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide:[2]
|
Media editorials[edit]
Support[edit]
- The (Petaluma) Press Democrat: "Competitive elections, a greater role for independent voters, bipartisan government. What's not to like?"[13]
- The Sacramento Bee. They say, "...it would empower candidates who, because they refuse to pander to the party machines, are now reluctant to throw their hats into the ring."[14]
- The Los Angeles Times. They say, "...it's a modest step toward eliminating some of the incentives that encourage our representatives to dig in and resist sensible compromise."[16]
- The Redding Record-Searchlight: "It offers the hope of a more pragmatic approach to solving California’s massive problems."[17]
- The Marin Independent-Journal: "Proposition 14 could help bring cooperation and collaborative problem solving back to Sacramento."[18]
- The San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "California elections need a shaking up...[we and others] recommend a "yes" vote this June on Proposition 14, a Hail-Mary pass that might bolster the ability of regular people, not party favorites, to be sent to Sacramento to represent us."[19]
- The Merced Sun-Star: "But it would empower candidates who, because they refuse to pander to the party machines, are now reluctant to throw their hats into the ring."[20]
- The Santa Cruz Sentinel: "We have no illusions that Proposition 14 will suddenly turn the Legislature into a harmonious house of compatibility. That's a tall order. But Proposition 14 is a first step in taming our dysfunctional family."[21]
- The Lompoc Record: "Our view is that the polarizing nature of the two-party system, which in recent years has only become more pronounced, calls for trying a new direction."[22]
- The Monterey County Herald: "The political parties don't like this one because it would make them less relevant, which is largely the point. Backers of Proposition 14 argue that it would move candidates toward the middle. That is because rather than appealing only to their party's core, the way gubernatorial candidates Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner are now pandering almost exclusively to the conservative side of the GOP, the candidates would try to seek votes from everyone."[23] (Note: The Monterey County Herald's editorial says that the League of Women Voters is in favor of Proposition 14. However, the League of Women Voters adopted a neutral position on Proposition 14 and did not endorse it. Richard Winger has asked the Monterey County Herald to issue a retraction.[24])
Opposition[edit]
- The Orange County Register: "...Proposition 14 does little to change the status quo. Electoral districts in California are so gerrymandered – drawn to give overwhelming advantage to one party – that the eventual winner often is chosen in the primary, and the general election doesn't matter. What supporters of Proposition 14 miss is the need for the electorate to have clear choices among philosophical visions for California. Creating an open primary this way, thus encouraging moderate, middle-of-the-road candidates, essentially amounts to elections between candidates with few policy differences where personality trumps substance. If you seek to encourage more candidates like Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for office in California, vote for Proposition 14. Otherwise we invite you to join us in opposing Proposition 14."[25]
- The Visalia Times-Delta: "Expanding the electoral process to encourage more people to vote is a noble objective. Rigging the system in a way that could deceive voters is not."[26]
- The Pacific Sun (Marin County): "The real change if Proposition 14 passes will come at the expense of third-party candidates, who stand little chance of taking part in a "top two" general election. Their ability to campaign, debate and take the major-party candidates to task (and siphon off critical votes) will be virtually silenced."[27]
- Bay Area Reporter.[28]
- North County Times: "Such a system will kill the minority parties and voter choice ---- goodbye to Green, Libertarian, American, Peace and Freedom, etc., candidates ever making it to a general election ballot or even having influence ---- and we think it will further cement Democratic and Republican control in those districts where a partisan lopsidedness already exists."[29]
- Napa Valley Register: "...it is uncertain whether Proposition 14 would have a beneficial impact and it comes at a time when the elections process in California is already in flux. We urge a no vote."[30]
- Vacaville Reporter: "There's no doubt that California's political system isn't working well right now, but Proposition 14 doesn't guarantee that it will make it work any better. In the long run, the unintended consequences of Proposition 14 make it an unpalatable choice."[31]
Polls[edit]
- See also: Polls, 2010 ballot measures
| Date of Poll | Pollster | In favor | Opposed | Undecided |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| March 9-16, 2010[32] | PPIC | 56% | 27% | 17% |
| May 9-16, 2010[33][34] | PPIC | 60% | 27% | 13% |
| May 19-26, 2010 | GQR/American Viewpoint | 52% | 28% | 20% |
Path to the ballot[edit]
- See also: Amending the California Constitution
A two-thirds vote was needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.
The constitutional amendment was voted onto the ballot by the California State Legislature as part of an agreement reached between state senators to pass a tax-increase budget in 2009.[35]
See also[edit]
External links[edit]
Footnotes[edit]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 California Secretary of State, "June 8, 2010 Voter Guide: Full Text of Propositions," accessed January 11, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 California Voter Information Pamphlet June 2010," accessed February 3, 2021
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ KCBS, "Schwarzenegger Talks Up Open Primary Measure in Silicon Valley," December 3, 2009
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "California’s New Lieutenant Governor," November 23, 2009
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedcruz - ↑ Los Angeles Times, "California Democratic Party convention wrap-up," April 19, 2010
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Fox and Hounds Daily, "Top 3 Facts and Fantasies at the 'Big 6' No on Prop 14 Press Conference," May 12, 2010
- ↑ Cal Watchdog, "Will Proposition 14 kill third parties?" February 19, 2010
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "California State Senator Criticizes "Top-Two" Measure," October 25, 2009
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "California Legislator Sandre Swanson Speaks Out Against 'Top-Two Open Primary'," February 7, 2010
- ↑ California League of Conservation Voters, "Endorsements for the June 8, 2010 primary election"
- ↑ Press Democrat, "PD Editorial: Yes on 14," April 23, 2010
- ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Proposition 14 would be a win for democracy," April 26, 2010 (dead link)
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "Big California Newspapers Endorse Proposition 14," April 25, 2010
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Yes on Prop 14," April 21, 2010
- ↑ Redding Record-Searchlight, "Proposition 14 would smooth partisan edges," May 7, 2010
- ↑ Marin Independent-Journal, "IJ's choices for state propositions," May 10, 2010
- ↑ San Gabriel Valley Tribune, "Bring back the open primary," May 1, 2010
- ↑ Merced Sun-Star, "Proposition 14 a win for democracy," May 1, 2010
- ↑ Santa Cruz Sentinel, " Proposition 14 a first step in fixing state Legislature," May 12, 2010
- ↑ Lompoc Record, "Initiatives, confusion in primary," May 14, 2010
- ↑ Monterey Herald, "Proposition 14 gets a tough 'yes'," May 23, 2010
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "Monterey County Herald Makes Gaff in Editorial on Proposition 14," May 23, 2010
- ↑ Orange County Register, "Open invitation to bland candidates," May 7, 2010
- ↑ Visalia Times Delta, "Primary election 'reform' is chicanery," May 13, 2010
- ↑ Pacific Sun, "Everything you've wanted to know about the June 8 election but were afraid to ask…," May 14, 2010
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "Two Influential California Weeklies Endorse “No” Vote for Proposition 14," May 16, 2010
- ↑ North County Times, "Vote no on Proposition 14; save options," May 19, 2010
- ↑ Napa Valley Register, "No on 14 and 15," May 18, 2010
- ↑ Vacaville Reporter, "System 'fix' is also imperfect; Vote no on Proposition 14," May 24, 2010
- ↑ Public Policy Institute of California, "Voters’ Disdain for Leaders, Discontent With Parties a Volatile Mix," March 24, 2010
- ↑ Public Policy Institute of California, "Just the Facts: Primary Elections in California," May 2010
- ↑ Public Policy Institute of California, "Californians and Their Government," May 2010
- ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Maldonado's price for budget vote: 3 constitutional amendments," February 19, 2009
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
Categories: [California 2010 ballot measures, certified] [Certified, elections and campaigns, 2010] [Elections and campaigns, California]
↧ Download as ZWI file | Last modified: 12/24/2021 03:03:22 | 9 views
☰ Source: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_14,_Top-Two_Primaries_Amendment_(June_2010) | License: CC BY-SA 3.0
ZWI signed:
KSF