As part of the recent budget deal in Sacramento, Senator Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, switched his vote when promised that a ballot measure proposing an “open primary” system in California would be put before the voters in June, 2010. Maldonado’s “yea” vote allowed passage of the budget bill, breaking the impasse. Maldonado, who has sought state-wide office but has been unsuccessful because of his moderate positions, offered his proposal as another means of fostering a more moderate legislature. Changes in districts caused by passage of Prop. 11 last November is another approach.

Many folks are wondering what “open” primaries would mean. Here is a comment from Jess Durfee, chair of the San Diego County Democratic Party, written the day after passage of the budget:

Jess Durfee, SDCDP Chair

Currently we have a modified “Closed Primary”. A closed primary is where only members of the party may vote on who will be the nominees of the party coming out of the primary election. Because we allow Decline to State voters to vote in the Democratic Primary, I call ours a modified-closed primary. Each party’s nominee is then on the General Election ballot.

Back in 1996, California voters approved Prop. 198 which gave us what is called a “Blanket Primary” system. Blanket primaries allow for all voters to vote for any candidate regardless of party affiliation. The top vote-getter of each Party then goes on the General Election ballot. Prop. 198 was struck down by the US Supreme Court in the California Democratic Party vs. Secretary of State Jones case in June of 2000. We had blanket primaries in California in 1998 and 2000. After that ruling, we reverted back to having closed primaries. The court felt that the party and its members have the right to decide who their nominee will be without the influence of members of other parties.

An “Open Primary” system is currently used in Washington State and is a system like the blanket primary where all voters vote on all candidates regardless of party affiliation. However, in an Open Primary only the top two vote-getters move on to the General Election. This has the potential to result in having two members of the same party in the General Election and it would likely mean that minor party candidates will never see their names on a General Election ballot again.

This morning I exchanged emails with a party leader friend of mine in Washington. He wrote the following: “It is awful and yes we had 4 LD’s (Legislative Districts) with two candidates from the same party last year. We are still fighting ours in court. It is way worse than the blanket primary which we got rid of because of the Jones case in California.”

Without much research, I came up with the following example. In 2006, Democrat Juan Vargas challenged incumbent Democrat Bob Filner in the primary. Filner won the primary. However, Vargas had 5000 more votes than the highest Republican candidate. Under an open primary, that fight would have been extended into the General Election with Republican voters having to decide which of the two Democrats to vote for. My prediction however, is that Vargas would have likely won in November under the new system because, as the more moderate candidate, he would have drawn GOP votes.  We would have lost the seniority Filner has and the progressive voice that he has consistently been.

The reverse could just as easily happen in one of our heavily Republican leaning Assembly, Senate or Congressional districts, where Democrats in North or East County could find themselves deciding a race between a far-right Republican and a Republican that is more centrist — who may at least be willing to listen to them. 

Hope this helps you in understanding what this may mean for us in California.

For more detail on this from a very scientific perspective, try the “FiveThirtyEight” website. In a blog entry titled “Land of a Thousand Liebermans,” Nate Silver shows how “open” primaries (he calls them “jungle” primaries for some reason) is likely to reduce partisanship by favoring moderate, middle-of-the-road candidates. Silver predicts, however, that California voters will not approve the proposal. Another initiative on this topic was narrowly defeated in 2004. The state had a brief period in which primaries were open before courts struck down the law in 2000. See his entry, and the interesting and colorful comments, at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/land-of-thousand-liebermans.html 

There also one additional scenario, mentioned by EDC’s Rick Bova. In some recent elections, right-wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh have advised Republicans to vote for specific Democrats in order to advance a candidate who would be easy for a Republican to defeat in the final election. This approach, where voting becomes an offensive strategy, really twists the generally reasonable idea of encouraging more moderate elected officials.

Finally, I wonder about the effect on minority groups. If fewer liberal Democrats get elected, who will introduce and carry legislation for the outsiders of our society? What would be the fate of any such legislation in a more moderate Assembly or Senate? Conservatives also argue that they would lose the ability to oppose tax increases. Would two-thirds of a new moderate legislature be able to agree on a budget?

Most observers predict that the Democratic Party, the current majority, will oppose the “open” primary idea, and some wonder if Republicans will feel it changes the system too much, also. The state Republican Party chairman, who lives in East San Diego County, told The San Diego Union-Tribune that the idea is “the abolition of primaries.” Ron Nehring predicted “open” primaries would cause the regionalization of the parties, with no Republicans on the final ballot in coastal areas, and no Democrats on the ballot in inland areas.

“This is not good for politics,” Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is quoted as saying, “but remember, what is not good for politics is good for the people. That’s the bottom line here.” Stay tuned.