Guest blogged by Ernest A. Canning
When the new Congressional map was first produced by the non-partisan California Citizens Redistricting Commission, CA’s GOP leadership expressed concern that it might lose up to five of its nineteen Congressional seats in the bargain.
Although its legal challenge to redistricting was rejected by the CA Supreme Court (a majority of whom were appointed by Republican Governors), the June 5, 2012 “Top Two” open primary (aka “Cajun Primary“) contests, approved by a 2010 ballot initiative, may allow for GOP pickups, even in areas where Republican voters represent the minority.
One example is in the newly created CA-26 Congressional District, which reveals a potential formula by which the GOP can overcome adverse party registration numbers — in that case, 40% (D), 36% (R), 19% (I) — in order to seize a Congressional seat.
Because four Democrats are competing in the CA-26 primary, long suffering progressives, including this writer, who had previously been forced to cast a protest vote in the now defunct, heavily gerrymandered CA-24 District of the outgoing, extreme right-wing Republican Elton Gallegly, may awake on June 6 to the reality that, come next November, they will be forced to choose between a ‘Tea Party’ Republican and a County Supervisor who “changed her voter registration…from Republican to ‘no party preference’ in preparation for her bid for Congress”…
Anti-democratic ‘Cajun Primary’
In June 2010 CA voters enacted Proposition 14, an amendment of the state’s constitution which forces all party-affiliated and non-party affiliated candidates to run in a single primary election, with the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes then facing off in the general election or run-off.
At the time it passed, then CA Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) touted the Prop 14 “open primary” (also known as the “Cajun Primary“) as a means to assure democratic accountability. The philandering actor-turned-governor said it would eliminate “the ideological traffic jam in Sacramento.”
But, according to Richard Derham, a Research Fellow of the Washington Policy Center, the “Cajun Primary” was developed in the South, at a time when it was dominated by a one-party system of segregationist Democrats. It was not meant, says Derham, to assure (small “d”) democratic accountability, but rather to eliminate “the influence of Republican and Black voters”.
In California in 2012, the “Cajun Primary” system turns the same formula on its head in such a way that it may well come back to haunt the Democratic Party, long after they’ve shed their Dixiecrat roots.
The upcoming CA-26 primary underscores the undemocratic potential of such a primary system. In a three-way race, all other things being equal, one would anticipate 40% to a Democrat, 36% to the Republican and the balance perhaps going to a genuine independent candidate. But here, the 40% for Democrats will be carved up amongst four Democratic candidates running in the same race with one GOP candidate openly running as a Republican and another who had been a Republican until she decided to shed the party label for the upcoming primary to run as an ostensible “Independent.”
Stealth Republican?
The CA-26 race provides a paradigm example of how a “Cajun Primary” can facilitate a seizure of power by a minority party through the use of a stealth Republican, who deceptively dons an “Independent” label.
During a recent Cal Lutheran University debate (see video segment below), Ventura County Supervisor Linda Parks was quick to point out that, while she had been a registered Republican for sixteen years until days prior to the candidate filing deadline, she was a registered Democrat prior to that.
Parks’ forays into politics began with stints on the Planning Commission, City Council and eventually as Mayor of Thousand Oaks — a Republican enclave in which both Parks and the author reside. While those offices are ostensibly non-partisan, context at least suggests that Parks is an opportunist who changes party affiliation for political benefit — first when she decided to run for local office and now, again, in seeking a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
While most political ads suffer from a substance deficit, Parks’ paid-for ad (see second video below) is striking for an almost total failure to so much as hint at her positions on issues of substance. It embodies Parks’ two principle talking points: that she won’t accept special interest monies and that partisan gridlock is counterproductive.
As can be seen in the CLU debate segment, Parks’ critique of partisanship drew a sharp retort form CA Assembly Member Julia Brownley (D), author of the CA Disclose Act, which mandates that political ads in CA must disclose the source of their funding. Brownley, Parks’ chief Democratic opponent, who has been endorsed by MoveOn.org, as well as the Democratic National Party, said:
Democratic Party mailers and an online Parks opponent note that Parks refuses to say whether she would caucus with the Democrats or Republicans, if elected; that she refuses to renounce the Ryan budget; that she responded to questions about raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires by saying that she would not raise taxes on anyone, and that she touted the GOP talking point about the need to do “something about the Social Security shortfall.”
“Shortfall?” According to the Congressional Budget Office, per Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), “Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus.” Sanders introduced legislation which, by attaching Social Security withholding to wages in excess of $250,000, would insure that Social Security will be solvent for the next 75 years.
Nonetheless, Parks’ posture as an “independent”, at least as voters will see her name on the ballot, may well assure that a Democratic-leaning electorate is forced to choose between two Republicans this November.
Ideal democratic solution: Repeal the ‘Cajun Primary’!
The result of the deception is that the leading admitted-Republican in the race, ‘Tea Party’-supported Tony Strickland is likely to take one of the two top spots, while the second could go to Parks, the stealth Republican.
One could argue that there is an opportunity for the Democratic Party, as well as the GOP, to take similar advantage of the “Top Two” open primary system by running only one candidate who is identified as a Democrat, while adding in one or more stealth Democrats who formally run as “independents” to take the second slot in the “Top Two”. But, unlike the GOP, which is generally run from the top-down, where a candidate is chosen by the establishment (in this case, an “establishment” now firmly in the grips of radical “Tea Party” billionaires like the Koch brothers) the Democratic Party includes bottom up organizations and candidates who are not always in sync with the mainstream Democratic establishment.
Absent the adoption of a potentially cumbersome and expensive caucus system to determine one candidate to run as a Democrat in each primary, the Democratic Party actually needs a primary to select their candidate. A Democratic Party that aspires towards the achievement of a true democratic society must eschew deception and the authoritarian limits to electoral choice brought on (or perhaps more appropriately, encouraged) by the “Cajun Primary.” The Republican Party ought do the same. But, of course, they will not, the 21st Century GOP has proven, time and again, its willingness to place politics and power over true democracy.
For citizens in other states, the CA-26 ‘Cajun Primary’ offers a valuable lesson as to why they should reject calls to adopt a “Top Two” open primary system. The citizens of California made a grave error in adopting it; an error which can best be remedied by a voter-approved repeal of the Proposition 14 “Top Two” open primary system in the Golden State.
Segment from a recent CA-26 debate at Cal Lutheran University follows…
“Independent” Linda Parks’ campaign video follows…
Democrat Julia Brownley campaign video follows…
Ernest A. Canning has been an active member of the California state bar since 1977. Mr. Canning has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science as well as a juris doctor. He is also a Vietnam vet (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968). Follow him on Twitter: @Cann4ing.
[Image: Shutterstock/Savelyev]
So, let me get this straight. A left wing nutcase “whining” about the top two system? What the hell do you want? Maybe the idiots who try non-stop to destroy this state should just be able to appoint who they want in the congress…. You’re like a kid with an ice cream cone whining because it’s not big enough.
If Republicans pick up any seats it will be because people FINALLY realize that the road we’ve been going down for years reeks of failure.
Yeah, WingnutSteve, and I am sure you can point to all that massive success created by right wing economics — you know, the 1929 Wall Street Crash followed by the Great Depression; the 2008 collapse of the Wall Street casino, the greatest wealth disparity since the 1920s, outsourcing, oil industry subsidies, endless war, and taxing billionaires at less than half the rate their secretaries pay.
If the GOP really had something of substance to offer, why do they constantly lie about the impact of their own policies? Why do they repeatedly have to find phony issues, like the contrived, and baseless, claim that the President was not born in the US?
And, if their policies are so successful, why do they need to run stealth candidates, not only here in the CA 26, but in the WI Recall elections?
Those are rhetorical questions. I really don’t anticipate a cogent response from someone so Blinded by the Right, that he uses “Wingnut” as a self-description.
Wingnut is the name you gave me Ernie. I’m no more a right wingnut than you are.
The point is you whining about a system set up by the left wing establishment designed to ensure their continued dominance of the failed welfare state known as california. Because (horrors!) the GOP may still possibly win an election. Cry me a river……
Describing a system as undemocratic just because it’s likely to lead to a result you don’t like is a bit disengenuous.
Here’s an even better solution than repealing Prop 14: If a party wants to run an internal primary, it can do so on its own dime instead of having the state of CA pay for it.
WingNutSteve wrote:
California by itself is about the 9th largest economy in the world. Where does your state rank?
California did well with more Liberal governance, but has fallen very far with governors like Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenneger.
Oh, great solution, NateTG. Bad enough the electoral process should be skewed by corporate monies and Super PACs. Now you want to add an additional expense to the Democratic Party for a pre-primary so that they can accomplish what Koch et al can accomplish by fiat — the selection of a single “party candidate” to run in what is supposed to be a “primary election.”
One wonders whether you and and self-named Wingnut Steve would have the same attitude if we came up with an example where the numbers and party affiliation were reversed.
WingnutSteve @ wrote:
Oh, so the primary system that, except in the Jim Crow South, existed in this country for more than 200 years was set up by “the left wing establishment.” Got a cite that supports your novel claim?
What left wing establishment? The “left” (aka the people who support the anti-war movement, Occupy Wall Street, single-payer healthcare, etc.) have never been part of the “establishment.” The political elites who do make up the “establishment” are the billionaire class, the GOP and by the corporate sector of the Democratic Party.
Truly amazing that you deny being right wing and then immediately proceed to lay down a hard-right talking point. What you and the billionaire-funded ‘Tea Party’ denigrate as “the welfare state” is, in fact, what the U.S. Constitution describes as a core purpose of government — “to promote the general welfare.”
Note the emphasis on “general.” The GOP is all for one form of welfare — “corporate welfare” via billions in government subsidies, tax breaks, bailouts of Wall Street, etc.
I bet you are just a joy to be around Ernie. And you prove my point when I said you gave me my name with your response to Nate. His crime? Disagreeing with you. His punishment? He gets lumped in with me. Which is a carbon copy of when we first crossed paths. If he disagrees with you again, survey says: NAME CALLING! You’re the weird french soldier in The Holy Grail, “Go away or I’ll taunt you again”. So I changed my name to wingnut Steve to honor your childishness. But you can’t name one issue where a reasonable person would consider my response to be in the wingnut category.
The left wing establishment has a powerful hold on California (my home state Mark) Ernie. They may not be as nutty as you (thank god for that). As to your Jim crow, Koch brothers, and all yor other progressive gibberish if I wanted to hear a dumbed down version of Paul begala I’d turn on the TV. People like you are a dime a dozen
Mark H. First off Schwarzenegger was barely a republican. Secondly, his biggest failures came later as he went further and further left. Thirdly, the office of governor is greatly diminished when the governor is a republican and the legislature is solidly democrat. Which has been the case for years. Liberal governance is destroying this state.
Umm, steve? Quit while you’re behind; you’re embarrassing yourself and wasting our time with nonsense like this:
“But you can’t name one issue where a reasonable person would consider my response to be in the wingnut category.”
Which followed this EXAMPLE you just claimed he “can’t name”:
“…..designed to ensure their continued dominance of the failed welfare state.”
I doubt you even notice how you contradicted yourself, yet it’s glaringly obvious to the rest of us. The use of blanket statements, complete with implicit mindreading regarding the motives and intent of others, is a sure sign of wingnuttery, not to mention your mischaracterization of CA’s situation and the role the GOP anti-tax cult played in creating that situation.
>
The Democractic Party is neither a part of the government nor a service to the public, so why should it be funded by taxpayer dollars? Should I be able to start the NateTG Party or, more plausibly can Colbert start the “Steven Colbert Super PAC Party” and receive similar funding and a party primary?
WingnutSteve @10 wrote:
Just goes to show how far to the ideological Right one has to be to qualify as a Republican in the Wingnut mind.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for Steve to actually provide a link or anything remotely resembling evidence to support his novel claim that the closed primary system that has existed in almost every state — save the Jim Crow South — for the past 200 years was set up by “the left wing establishment.”
My friends in the Lone Star State have an apt description for those, like Steve, who persist with woefully uninformed but strongly held opinion — All hat; no cattle.
Oh, one further point. WingnutSteve, in multiple comments, repeats the canard that since Democrats have consistently held a majority of seats in the Golden State’s legislature — imagine that, a state with a majority of registered Democrats actually elects Democrats — that the “left wing establishment has a powerful hold on California.”
I would recommend that all who are interested in facts — as opposed to empty right-wing talking points — read Engineering California’s Economic Collapse.
Thanks to Prop 13, the CA legislature cannot pass a tax on corporations, billionaires, etc., without a two-thirds majority. This has permitted a minority of right wing ideologues to hold the state hostage.
Not only is the state’s deficit the product of GOP economics, but a large portion of it was created when the Texas energy mafia (think Enron) swooped in to manipulate the CA energy market which had been deregulated under Republican Gov. Pete Wilson. Efforts by then Gov. Gray Davis (D) to remedy the situation were blocked by the Bush/Cheney cabal, as then action hero and future Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger met privately with junk bond swindler Michael Milken in Beverly Hills.
The CA right seized upon the deficit created by the gaping deficit created by the Texas energy mafia manipulation to advance a Recall of Gray Davis.
Those are the facts, WingnutSteve.
A better idea than a pre-primary might be just an allowance for a party to be able to endorse a candidate or multiple candidates as truly theirs on the ballot.
I personally like the idea of a primary where all candidates participate and where all voters are allowed to vote — where ranked-choice ballots are used in order to defeat the spoiler effect and where any candidate who gets at least 15 percent of the vote using an Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV) style tabulation go forward to the general election.
This would be followed by a general election where voters again rank their choices and IRV is used to determine the consensus winner, in cases where no candidate gets a majority of the vote in the first round of voting. (Think Nader-Gore/Bush-Buchanan in Florida in 2000.)