Republicans look to Put On a Pre-Primary Primary

A Closed Primary (0.00 / 0)

That is not run by an independent or elected agency.  Very Republican.

---

by: CaliforniaCondor @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 02:00:29 AM UTC

I'm confused (0.00 / 0)

Are the local parties doing the endorsements? Or is the state GOP sending out ballots to registered Republicans? If the latter, then I think it's a swell idea. I never did understand why the state paid for primaries to select candidates for the Democratic and Republican parties. However, I'm not at all clear how sending ballots out to all registered Republicans works with the top-two primary idea. I thought Republicans wanted the top-two primary. But this sounds like they're trying to do an end-run around it. As I say, I'm confused.

---

by: cfinnie @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 03:38:08 AM UTC

End run (0.00 / 0)

Yeah an end run sounds about right. I wonder how It will play out?

---

by: SuperJoker @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 04:05:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

mailer (0.00 / 0)

I always thought the same - why are tax payers footing the bill to determine party leadership?  I'm sure i had something to with weakening the old party boss system. But really it could of been done in a better fashion by making elections more competitive to other parties so that even if party bosses choose someone they still must appeal to voters more than bosses.  But it does sound like a decent way to have the party give the official endorsement to a candidate who says they are running from that party. It alsoopens the way to insurrections like hte tea party was in the GOP so they can run against the establishment guy easier.

Assuming the GOP can enforce discipline by having party members vote for the chosen candidate or having the other contenders drop out.  

---

by: CaliCon @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 05:20:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, Chris, the Republicans did not want the top-two primary. (0.00 / 0)

BOTH Parties, as well as the smaller parties, opposed Prop 14.  Only the murky corporatist middle favored it, but they had the bucks to sell it to a public fed up with what they see as partisan gridlock.

---

by: Huntington Beach Vern @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 06:25:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So they present the SoS with a Coup d'état (0.00 / 0)

Coup d'état of the Top two primary and will present one candidate of their choice, I wonder if this is even legal?

---

by: SuperJoker @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 07:22:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting move by GOP (0.00 / 0)

This is an interesting move by the CAL GOP.  If the Democrats continue to have pre-primary endorsements done by the state party convention, it will give the GOP a talking point -- they will tout their own endorsements as representing all the Republicans in the state, and slam the Dem endorsements as being done by unrepresentative party insiders.  OTOH, if the Dems follow suit by doing a mailed ballot to all Dem voters, it's going to cost them a lot more, because there are 2.2 million more Dems than Reps (7.5 million to 5.3 million).

The reason the state has administered the party primaries, rather than the parties themselves, is the public interest in preventing voter fraud.  If a party administers its own primary, there is no way the public at large can be assured of the integrity of the results.  If the primary determines which candidates appear on the general election ballot, the public has an interest in guaranteeing the integrity of the primary via nonpartisan administration (in CA, by the secretary of state and the registrar-recorders).  

Also, in the Southern states, recognizing the primaries as part of the election process of the state, and therefore subject to state administration, was an important way of breaking down the system of party-controlled whites-only primaries, which controlled access to the general-election ballot, and thereby prevented blacks from effective participation.

I wonder if there will be any impact on the CA pre-primary system from the various Supreme Court rulings in this area, such as Terry v. Adams (1953), which abolished the "Jaybird Primary" in Texas.  The Jaybird Primary was a pre-primary that disempowered minority voters by pre-selecting a white-backed candidate, and turning the primary and general election into mere ratifications of the pre-selection.

---

by: DavidT @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 06:36:04 AM UTC

Duel purpose (6.00 / 2)

Thank you for your interesting take on this.  I don't believe that Terry vs. Adams would apply here because the pre-primary primary has nothing to do with ballot access but rather a recommendation from the party.  

The GOP did this for three reasons:  First, they want purity in their selection process and they wanted some process that gets resources to "real" Republicans rather than RINOs.  Second, the legislators have never really trusted the state party (much less the central committees) and wanted a process that excluded the insiders and included a broader base.  Third, this is a fundraising tool.  As long as there are no government resources involved, they can mail out a ballot to 5.3 million Republicans and ask for a small donation to offset the costs of the mailing.  This is how you build a small donor base.  

---

by: smoker1 @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 17:40:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right, and depends on how it's done. (0.00 / 0)

I agree the Terry case is not likely to be involved unless the pre-primary develops in a way that influences ballot access.  But that's not impossible.  Candidates who are not endorsed in the pre-primary will be under strong pressure to drop out, in the name of not diluting the party's chance to place its choice in the general election.  Party leaders are likely to indicate there will be future consequences for candidates that do not drop out.  Candidates could even be asked to pledge that they will support the endorsee as a condition for being included on the party-mailed endorsement ballot -- which would be a straightforward attempt to control access to the primary and general election ballot.

---

by: DavidT @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 15:26:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

this is very interesting (0.00 / 0)

and might be very smart.  I'm not sure the State should be running Party primaries anyway.  Let the Parties do it independently.

---

by: David Atkins (thereisnospoon) @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 09:23:00 AM UTC

CA County Registrars don't want to have party elections anymore (0.00 / 0)

According to Chairman Eric Bauman at last week's LA County Dem Party meeting, the state's County Registrars don't want to have party elections anymore. They used to include the party officer elections on the primary ballots in each county, since those ballots were 'by party.' But with the new 'open' (such a misnomer) primary, everyone gets the same ballot. So the registrars don't want to then have to print up additional ballots and have additional booths for Dems, Reps, etc.

Seems to me that, as expensive as a mailing operation like the Republicans are proposing would be, if we're going to have to run party elections at the county level anyway, we could at least include endorsement votes for offices within the county.
 

---

by: Cal Damage @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 21:28:01 PM UTC

The days of having County Committee elections on the ballot are nearing an end... (0.00 / 0)

Chairman Bauman is correct--the Registrars don't want it, have been trying to get rid of it for years and now with the free for all ballot and a tight budget, they will probably get their way.

GOP's move smart---they have no where to go but up and reliance on their core cadre has marginalized them on the state level. Yes, costly, but as noted above they can make fish for dollars to help offset the costs.

---

by: Northcountystorm @ Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 06:48:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]