The Prop. 62 Scam
By Richard
Winger
Proposition 62 was placed on the
November state ballot by big-business interests. It would require that all
candidates for Congress and state office run on a single primary ballot. Voters
would choose from that primary ballot, and the top two vote getters would then
compete in November. There would be no other route onto the November ballot
except by coming in first or second in the March primary.
The money that paid for the
signature-collecting firm to get Prop. 62 on the ballot came from the following:
Countrywide Home Loans, $350,000; Charles Munger, CEO of Wesco Financial,
$200,000; and Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, $100,000. Other individuals who
gave $100,000 are Elizabeth Rogers, Otis Booth, Stewart Resnick, Jerry
Perenchio, and Richard Riordan. Individuals who gave $50,000 are Eli Broad, Haim
Saban, Robert Day, and Donald Fisher.
Our California legislature is very diverse, not only ethnically and by gender
and sexual orientation, but also in ideology. Yes, there are wild-eyed
conservatives in our state legislature, but there also are solid, principled
liberals. And yes, sometimes our legislators fight bitterly with each other, and
it does take a while to get our budget passed. But that very diversity
guarantees that every significant group in California has a spokesperson in the
legislature.
Big business
doesn’t like our legislature. It would prefer a bland mix of
“moderates,” who would pass the budget on time and see to it that
California’s “business climate” took primacy over other
concerns.
The only other state with an
election system like Prop. 62’s is Louisiana, but, ironically, even
Louisiana's system is better than Prop. 62’s. In Louisiana, all candidates
for Congress, whether they're Socialists, Libertarians, Greens, Republicans, or
Democrats, have easy access to the November ballot. A typical Louisiana November
congressional ballot contains three Republicans, three Democrats, and a
minor-party or independent candidate. If no one gets 50 percent of the votes
(which only happens 15 percent of the time), the top two compete in a December
runoff. So at least every political party gets to run an on-the-ballot campaign
in the fall, when voters are paying attention to political
ideas.
But in California, Prop. 62
would make all candidates run in June. Then only the top two vote getters could
run in November. This would inevitably result in a November ballot with no
minor-party or independent candidates. We know this because California has held
similar blanket primaries in the past, 408 times. In all 408 instances, no one
but a Democrat or a Republican ever placed first or second (except in the 12
cases when only one major-party member was running). Even Audie Bock, who was
elected to the legislature as a Green in a 1999 special election, couldn't have
qualified for the runoff ballot, since she was a distant third in the first
round.
Prop. 62 would give us a
November ballot with no outlet for voters who want to vote for parties other
than the Democratic and Republican ones. There wouldn't be any minor-party
election campaigns during the September-October period when voters are
interested in politics.
Prop. 62 could
also disenfranchise major-party voters. Imagine a primary with these results:
Smith, Republican, 23 percent; Jones, Republican, 22 percent; Lee, Democrat, 21
percent; Sanchez, Democrat, 20 percent; Hawkins , Democrat, 14 percent. Under
Prop. 62, the general election would contain only two Republicans, even though
in the primary 55 percent of the voters had preferred a Democrat. In this case,
Democrats would have no Democrat to vote for in November, even though the
district leans Democratic and chances are that a Democrat could have won under
our old (existing) system.
If you want
to preserve diversity in our legislature, and diversity on our November ballots,
vote no on 62.
Richard Winger is a
ballot-access consultant.
Posted: Fri - October 1, 2004 at 02:58 PM