The Limited Choice Primary Initiative

aka Open Primary Initiative
aka Westly Initiative


The Limited Choice Primary Initiative has qualified for the November 2, 2004 ballot. This is sometimes inappropriately referred to as the Open Primary Initiative. Inappropriate because it implies more choice, not less. It is also known as the Westly Initiative because he has been a prominent supporter.

The GPCA (Green Party of California) CC (Coordinating Committee) and the GPCA ERWG (Electoral Reform Working Group) are concerned about this initiative and believe it would be very bad (some think fatal) for the GPCA and for democracy.

This web page is provided to allow Greens to know more about the initiative.

In case you think that you do not have time to read the whole page, I request that you at least read the Steven Hill Editorial (section #11) and the CVD report on the Louisiana primary (section #10).

Gerry Gras       408-732-6701       26 May 2004





1) The initiative itself.
2) The sponsors stated arguments.
3) The sponsors.
4) The open primary history in CA.
5) The open primary history outside CA.
6) The Ds and Rs on the open primary.
7) The voters on the open primary.
8) Possible Arguments re open primary
9) Richard Winger (Ballot Access News) re open primary
10) CVD on Louisiana Primary
11) Steven Hill Editorial
12) GPCA Past Actions
13) What Next?
14) Possible Tactics
15) A Dissenting View Point




1) The initiative itself.
The main purpose of the initiative is that for most offices...

2) The sponsors stated arguments.

In the initiative itself, there are many reasons listed.
But they really boil down to a few basic concepts: In other places on the web, it seems a motivating factor is that supporters believe more "moderate" candidates would win elections. I think the main concern expressed is about "anti-business" liberal Democrats.


3) The sponsors.

On the initiative sent to the Attorney General, there are three people that are the "proponents"; And there are two attorneys representing the proponents; And there are others.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The following info was obtained by searching the web.

Nick Tobey
Susan Riegel (Harding)
George (David) Kieffer
Peter A. Bagatelos (PAB)
Barry Fadem
Other definite supporters of an Open Primary system

According to the PAB interview above, the supporters include
A possible supporter?


Finally, Westly says...

4) The open primary history in CA.

Short version:
Good description of what happened from 1996 to June, 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling:

More details:

5) The open primary history outside CA.

There are about 20 states that have some form of open primary but be careful about what thay means... For example, I used to live in Massachusetts, where the primaries were the same as in CA before 1998, EXCEPT that if you were Independent (= CA "Decline to State"), then you could choose whichever ballot you wanted. Is Mass. considered an open primary state? I don't know.

We know that the Westly Initiative Open Primary would be similar to the Louisiana Open Primary. And there are indications that Alaska and Washington have or had similar open primaries.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From Lee Abbott, cochair of GPL (Green Party of Louisiana): - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

According to a New York Green, about a recent attempt in NYC: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

An email from Washington goes here if possible.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From Jim Sykes, cochair GPAK (Green Party of Alaska),
(but note that the current Louisiana Open Primary may not have been around during the Long brothers time):

6) The CA Democrats and Republicans on the CA open primary.

I don't know where the CA Democrats and Republicans are re the open primary. It appears that parties are likely to be opposed to it, but there certainly are some notable exceptions.


7) The voters on the open primary.

The voters gave 60% to Prop 198 (that enabled the blanket primary)

A poll said Californians would vote 75% for the Open Primary Initiative.


8) Possible Arguments re open primary

9) Richard Winger (Ballot Access News) re open primary

Chris Jerdonek obtained the following from
Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News> :

From Richard Winger: A follow-up response by him (Richard Winger): Another follow-up response by him (Richard Winger):

10) CVD ( Center for Voting and Democracy) on Louisiana Primary

11) Steven Hill Editorial

Proposed primary reform will hurt California democracy

By Steven Hill and Roy Ulrich

California voters may be asked to vote again this November on our primary election system. Having lost the popular blanket primary passed by voters in 1996 following an unfavorable U.S. Supreme Court ruling, well-intentioned state leaders like Leon Panetta, Richard Riordan, and state controller Steve Westly are pushing a voter initiative suggested by, oddly enough, the most conservative Justice, Antonin Scalia. The result, unfortunately, is political deform masked as reform.

Their voter initiative would adopt a version of Louisiana's "top-two" primary which, like the blanket primary, allows voters to choose any candidate, regardless of political party affiliation, in primary elections for state and federal office (except President). But there are important differences with the blanket primary that proponents are fudging.

Under the blanket primary, the highest vote-getters from each political party competed against each other in the November election -- Democrats, Republicans, and third party candidates. But with the "top-two" primary, only the top two vote-getters face off in a final runoff election. And here's the catch: the top two can be from the same political party.

In Louisiana, often the two finalists are in fact from the same party -- either two Democrats in a liberal district, or two Republicans in a conservative district. And third party candidates never appear on Louisiana's final ballot.

What impact will this have on California's already low turnout elections, to have even fewer choices on the November ballot, often only two candidates from the same party? And what impact will this have on California's vibrant third parties, where in Louisiana they have been mostly wiped off the ballot? This hardly seems like a step forward.

Ironically, the major reasons cited by proponents for pushing this measure are twofold: 1) they say it will increase voter turnout; and 2) they say it will elect more moderates. Yet the "top-two" primary fails on both counts.

Louisiana often ranks near the bottom in voter turnout. In 2002, just over a third of eligible voters showed up at the polls to cast votes in that state's Congressional elections. That's not surprising, given that voters have so few choices on the final ballot.

California democracy already took a direct hit when political incumbents grotesquely gerrymandered their own legislative districts to guarantee themselves safe seats in which their party cannot lose. Adding the "top-two" primary system will reinforce these one-party fiefdoms, increasing voter alienation and apathy.

That alone is reason enough to reject the top-two primary. But Louisiana's experience also negates that this will elect more moderates, especially in the few competitive races.

Ex-Klansman David Duke made it into Louisiana's 1991 governor's runoff with only 32% of the vote. His core of rabid supporters held together while moderate candidates split the rest of the vote, allowing Duke to make the runoff with a low percentage. His opponent with 37%, Democrat Edwin Edwards, had been twice-indicted and eventually was convicted for bribery and fraud. One bumper sticker read "Vote the Crook, not the Klan."

In Louisiana's 1995 gubernatorial primary, the top two candidates were a right-wing state senator supported by Duke and a liberal black Congressman, with 26% and 19% of the vote each. Candidates from the middle of Louisiana's politics split the moderate vote and were eliminated, and the right-winger won.

As Louisiana columnist Bill Decker writes, "The fact is that Louisiana's primary system isn't a good test of the state's mood and intentions. The multi-candidate primary is about who can attract 20 percent to 30 percent of the vote on one day."

While California may not have to worry about ex-Klansmen candidates, we have our own version of polarizing candidates and demagoguery around issues of immigration and race. The "top two" system has a track record of exaggerating these divisions.

Oddly, the top-two primary produces an electoral schizophrenia. The few competitive races tend to elect winners from the extremes of the parties. But lopsided races might elect slightly more moderate winners since Democrats in a Republican district can vote for the more moderate of the final two Republican candidates, and vice versa, giving opposition voters a kind of check over the major party winner. And third parties and independent candidates are locked out.

On balance, the gain seems minimal, while the loss is great. The desire to improve California's democracy is commendable, but any version of Louisiana's "top-two" primary is the wrong way to do it.

Steven Hill is senior analyst for Center for Voting and Democracy (www.fairvote.org) in San Francisco and author of "Fixing Elections: The Failure of America's Winner Take All Politics" (www.FixingElections.com). Roy Ulrich is a public interest lawyer in Los Angeles.


12) GPCA Past Actions

13) What Next?

  • Do County Polling

    • Then if Counties agree...

  • Contact the other third parties

  • GPCA campaign against the initiative


    • 14) Possible Tactics

    Possible bullet items (thanks Chris Jerdonek),
    the Open Primary...:

    15) Dissenting position

    Another point of view on the Limited-Choice primary inititive,
    from Jeanne Rosenmeier, Co-coordinator of the ERWG.

    WHY I DON'T OPPOSE THE WESTLY INITIATIVE

    The "limited choice" initiative would run the election of partisan offices essentially the same as the two round runoff process for nonpartisan local offices. All candidates, regardless of party, would appear in the first round, and the top two vote-getters go on to the second round runoff.

    This type of election format is very familiar to us Greens. We saw it in San Francisco, in the race Matt Ganzales almost won. My point is, we do OK in this type of race. In fact, we might see more races consisting of Green versus Democrat or Green versus Republican -- races in which we don't have to worry about the 'spoiler' label.

    A two-round runoff system could be the first step on the round to IRV for partisan races. I could envision the state deciding to save money by consolidating the whole process into one election.

    I understand the down side, that there would be many more elections in which no Green is on the ballot. My point is, why waste resources, when we have so many issues on our plates? Why worry about an initiative that will almost surely pass, and may not be so bad if it does?

    Jeanne

    I am open to suggestions, assistance, arguments, etcetera. Particularly as to why the general public should oppose this initiative. At the moment it seems to me that we have good arguments why third parties should oppose it. And maybe we have good arguments why the voters should oppose it, I don't know. But I don't yet see anything really compelling for the voters.