Keeping the options open

Alicia Robinson

Call it deja vu with a twist.

A new proposal to establish open primary elections -- in which

voters, regardless of party registration, can choose any state or

federal candidate -- is not quite the same as the open primary

California voters approved in 1996.

The earlier proposal, overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court as

unconstitutional, allowed voters to cross party lines and vote for

any candidate in the primary election. So does the 2003 proposal.

The new wrinkle is that only the top two vote getters, regardless

of party, would appear on the general election ballot.

The latest proposal makes the primary similar to a runoff

election, proponent Nick Tobey said. Tobey was part of the 1996 open

primary ballot drive and is the main author of the current

initiative.

“You give the voters all the choices they want and allow them to

make that choice in the most decisive election possible,” he said.

Proponents are circulating petitions to get the open primary

measure on the November 2004 ballot. Tobey said they are trying to

get at least 850,000 signatures by a March 4 deadline to turn in

petitions to the state.

The Orange County Business Council announced last week that it

endorses the open primary proposal. Spokeswoman Julie Puentes said

this is the first time the council has endorsed such an initiative

before it has officially qualified for the ballot.

“Our board members are very, very concerned about the state of

affairs in California right now,” she said. “This is probably the

first of three election reforms that we need to look at in the

state.”

Recent decisions in state government have placed an increasing

financial burden on businesses and the polarization between parties

in the legislature has made it difficult to move ahead with changes,

Puentes said.

The open primary initiative, combined with reevaluating term

limits and redistricting procedures, will help create a more stable

climate in Sacramento and thus for businesses as well, she said.

Some local political participants and observers think an open

primary system would result in candidates that are more moderate.

“If it was enacted it would tend to pull both parties back to the

moderate side,” said Carl Mariz, a past president of the Newport

Harbor Democratic Club who’s running for the 70th assembly district

seat.

Republicans and Democrats are drifting further apart and most

state seats aren’t competitive outside the party that holds them, he

said.

“I don’t see that we’re in a healthy situation, but I don’t think

open primaries would help that necessarily,” Mariz said.

Assemblyman Ken Maddox, who represents the 68th District but is

running for the 35th district Senate seat, doesn’t see the point of

open primaries. Because so many of California’s legislative districts

are “safe” seats, an open primary system would likely just set the

top two Republicans or Democrats against each other for the second

time in November, he said.

“They should call this the [primary] redo proposal,” he said. “I’m

not too crazy about it. In fact, I think it’s worse than the last

proposal because at least then you had a Republican running against a

Democrat.”

Tobey expects the measure to be as popular this time as it was in

1996. A poll in 2002 indicated the open primary initiative has more

support now than when voters approved its 1996 incarnation. About 70%

of those polled supported the idea compared with 59.5% of voters

who supported it earlier, he said.

UC Irvine political science professor Mark Petracca said he thinks

voters liked the open primary in the first go-round, and research

suggests it has a moderating effect on candidates.

But Republican and Democratic leadership didn’t like the

proposition before, and aren’t likely to if it goes forward this

time, he said.

“It will be [legally] challenged regardless,” he said. “The

question is whether or not the challenge will prevail I don’t know

why you’d bark up that tree again, having just lost a major court

battle [in 1998].”