California Proposition 14, Top-Two Primaries Amendment (June 2010)

California Proposition 14

Election date
June 8, 2010
Topic
Elections and campaigns
Status
a 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

* 1 Overview
* 1.1 Measure design
* 1.2 Background
* 2 Election results
* 2.1 Fiscal impact statement
* 2.2 Constitutional changes
* 3 Support
* 3.1 Supporters
* 3.1.1 Officials
* 3.1.2 Organizations
* 3.2 Arguments
* 4 Opposition
* 4.1 Opponents
* 4.1.1 Parties
* 4.1.2 Officials
* 4.1.3 Organizations
* 4.2 Arguments
* 5 Media editorials
* 5.1 Support
* 5.2 Opposition
* 6 Polls
* 7 Path to the ballot
* 8 See also
* 9 External links
* 10 Footnotes

## 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

Yes

| 2,868,945 | 53.73%
No | 2,470,658 | 46.27%

Results are officially certified.
Source

## 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.

SEC. 5.

(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 ~~primary~~ partisan elections for ~~partisan offices~~ presidential candidates, and political party and party central committees, including an open presidential primary whereby the candidates on the ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States, and those whose names are placed on the ballot by petition, but excluding any candidate who has withdrawn by filing an affidavit of noncandidacy.

~~(b)~~

(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) ~~No~~ A political party or party central committee ~~may endorse, support, or oppose~~ shall not nominate a candidate for nonpartisan office, and the candidate’s party preference shall not be included on the ballot for the nonpartisan office.[3]

|

## 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]

|  “  |

Our economy is in crisis.

Unemployment in California is over 12%.

The Legislature, whose members were all elected under the current rules, repeatedly fails to pass the state budget on time, or close the state’s gaping $20+ billion fiscal deficit.

Our state government is broken.

But the politicians would rather stick to their rigid partisan positions and appease the special interests than work together to solve California’s problems.

In order to change government we need to change the kind of people we send to the Capitol to represent us.

IT’S TIME TO END THE BICKERING AND GRIDLOCK AND FIX THE SYSTEM

The politicians won’t do it, but Proposition 14 will.

• Proposition 14 will open up primary elections. You will be able to vote for any candidate you wish for state and congressional offices, regardless of political party preference. It will reduce the gridlock by electing the best candidates.

• Proposition 14 will give independent voters an equal voice in primary elections.

• Proposition 14 will help elect more practical officeholders who are more open to compromise.

“The best part of the open primary is that it would lessen the influence of the major parties, which are now under control of the special interests.” (Fresno Bee, 2/22/09.)

PARTISANSHIP IS RUNNING OUR STATE INTO THE GROUND

Non-partisan measures like Proposition 14 will push our elected officials to begin working together for the common good.

Join AARP, the California Alliance for Jobs, the California Chamber of Commerce and many Democrats, Republicans, and independent voters who want to fix our broken government. Vote YES on Proposition 14.

Vote Yes on 14—for elected representatives who are LESS PARTISAN and MORE PRACTICAL.[3]

|  ”

|
|

## 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]

|  “  |

Proposition 14 was written in the middle of the night and put on the ballot by a couple of politicians and Arnold Schwarzenegger. They added their own self-serving little twist.

They call it an “open primary” but CANDIDATES WILL BE ALLOWED TO CONCEAL THEIR PARTY AFFILIATION FROM VOTERS. The current requirement that candidates list their party on the ballot is abolished.

Proposition 14 will also decrease voter choice and make elections more expensive:

• The general election will not allow write-in candidates.

• Elections will cost more money at a time when necessary services like firefighters, police and education are being cut. County election officials predict an increased cost of 30 percent.

• Voter choice will be reduced because the top two vote getters advance to the general election regardless of political party.

• This means voters may be forced to choose between two candidates from the same political party. Democrats could be forced to choose between two Republicans, or not vote at all. Republicans could be forced to choose between two Democrats, or not vote at all.

• Independent and smaller political parties like Greens and Libertarians will be forced off the ballot, further reducing choice. Can’t politicians ever do anything without scheming something that’s in their self-interest?

Here’s the zinger they stuck in Proposition 14 . . .

“Open Candidate Disclosure. At the time they file to run for public office, all candidates shall have the choice to declare a party preference. The names of candidates who choose not to declare a party preference shall be accompanied by the designation ‘No Party Preference’ on both the primary and general election ballots.”

Very clever! They’re making it look like they are “independents” while actually remaining in their political party. Business as usual disguised as “reform.”

POLITICIANS ARE CHANGING THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT MAKES THEM DISCLOSE THEIR POLITICAL PARTY.

Democrats will end up voting for Republican imposters. Republicans will end up voting for Democratic imposters.

Will you be voting for a member of the Peace and Freedom Party? The Green Party? The Libertarian Party? You won’t really know.

Special interest groups will pump money into trick candidates . . . imposters with hidden agendas we can’t see.

Currently, when a rogue candidate captures a nomination, voters have the ability to write-in the candidate of their choice in the general election. But a hidden provision PROHIBITS WRITE-IN VOTES from being counted in general elections if Prop. 14 passes.

That means if one of the “top two” primary winners is convicted of a crime or discovered to be a member of an extremist group, voters are out of luck because Prop. 14 ends write-in voting.

Firefighters have joined with teachers, nurses and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposing this initiative.

“The politicians behind Prop. 14 want to raise taxes without being held accountable. Vote NO.”— Jon Coupal, President Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

We need “Open Primaries” to be “Open.” That means full disclosure on the ballot and no tricks. No on Proposition 14.[3]

|  ”

|
|

## 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 San Francisco Chronicle.[15]

* 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]

2010 measures

* 2010 ballot measures
* Elections and campaigns on the ballot
* 2010 legislative sessions

California

* California ballot measures
* California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

* Ballot measure lawsuits
* Ballot measure readability
* Ballot measure polls

|
|

## External links[edit]

* June 8, 2010, Primary Election Voter Guide

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 California Secretary of State, "June 8, 2010 Voter Guide: Full Text of Propositions," accessed January 11, 2018
2. ↑ 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. ↑ 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
4. ↑ KCBS, "Schwarzenegger Talks Up Open Primary Measure in Silicon Valley," December 3, 2009
5. ↑ Ballot Access News, "California’s New Lieutenant Governor," November 23, 2009
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `cruz`
7. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "California Democratic Party convention wrap-up," April 19, 2010
8. ↑ 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
9. ↑ Cal Watchdog, "Will Proposition 14 kill third parties?" February 19, 2010
10. ↑ Ballot Access News, "California State Senator Criticizes "Top-Two" Measure," October 25, 2009
11. ↑ Ballot Access News, "California Legislator Sandre Swanson Speaks Out Against 'Top-Two Open Primary'," February 7, 2010
12. ↑ California League of Conservation Voters, "Endorsements for the June 8, 2010 primary election"
13. ↑ Press Democrat, "PD Editorial: Yes on 14," April 23, 2010
14. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Proposition 14 would be a win for democracy," April 26, 2010 (dead link)
15. ↑ Ballot Access News, "Big California Newspapers Endorse Proposition 14," April 25, 2010
16. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Yes on Prop 14," April 21, 2010
17. ↑ Redding Record-Searchlight, "Proposition 14 would smooth partisan edges," May 7, 2010
18. ↑ Marin Independent-Journal, "IJ's choices for state propositions," May 10, 2010
19. ↑ San Gabriel Valley Tribune, "Bring back the open primary," May 1, 2010
20. ↑ Merced Sun-Star, "Proposition 14 a win for democracy," May 1, 2010
21. ↑ Santa Cruz Sentinel, " Proposition 14 a first step in fixing state Legislature," May 12, 2010
22. ↑ Lompoc Record, "Initiatives, confusion in primary," May 14, 2010
23. ↑ Monterey Herald, "Proposition 14 gets a tough 'yes'," May 23, 2010
24. ↑ Ballot Access News, "Monterey County Herald Makes Gaff in Editorial on Proposition 14," May 23, 2010
25. ↑ Orange County Register, "Open invitation to bland candidates," May 7, 2010
26. ↑ Visalia Times Delta, "Primary election 'reform' is chicanery," May 13, 2010
27. ↑ Pacific Sun, "Everything you've wanted to know about the June 8 election but were afraid to ask…," May 14, 2010
28. ↑ Ballot Access News, "Two Influential California Weeklies Endorse “No” Vote for Proposition 14," May 16, 2010
29. ↑ North County Times, "Vote no on Proposition 14; save options," May 19, 2010
30. ↑ Napa Valley Register, "No on 14 and 15," May 18, 2010
31. ↑ Vacaville Reporter, "System 'fix' is also imperfect; Vote no on Proposition 14," May 24, 2010
32. ↑ Public Policy Institute of California, "Voters’ Disdain for Leaders, Discontent With Parties a Volatile Mix," March 24, 2010
33. ↑ Public Policy Institute of California, "Just the Facts: Primary Elections in California," May 2010
34. ↑ Public Policy Institute of California, "Californians and Their Government," May 2010
35. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Maldonado's price for budget vote: 3 constitutional amendments," February 19, 2009

v • e

2010 ballot measures

I&R States|

Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming

Non I&R States|

Alabama • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Louisiana • New Jersey • North Carolina • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Tennessee • Vermont • Virginia

Political topics|

(Certified topics only): Abortion • Administration of government • Affirmative action • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil rights • Constitutional conventions • Earthquakes • Education • Elections • Eminent domain • Energy • English • Firearms • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting • Direct democracy measures • Insurance • Judicial reform • Labor • Law enforcement • Marijuana • Natural resources • Property rights • Redistricting • State budgets • Taxes • Term limits • Tobacco • Transportation • Veterans • Water

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines • Polls • Litigation (Lawsuits) • Potential measures • Tuesday Count • Changes in 2010 to laws governing ballot measures • Official voter guides • Petition signature costs • 2010 ballot measure campaign websites • Certified but removed • Media endorsements • Not on the ballot

Post-election|

2010 analyses • 2010 election results • 2010 amendments to constitutions • Campaign contributions

v • e

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