Prop 14 and Party Endorsements

by: Brian Leubitz

Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 11:20:39 AM PDT

by Brian Leubitz

The top-2 primary system yields some strange results.  You could end up with two members of the same party.  Or you could end up with a non-major party candidate in the top 2.  Both of these situations lead to some uncomfortable questions for the party.  Under the current rules, party entities are not allowed to endorse non-democrats.  However, if there are no Democrats in the general election, what then?  CDP Chair John Burton just released an email about his take on the "top 2" primary system and independents.  

What are we to do if a "Decline-to-State" supports the issues we do and shares our values as Democrats? I personally know several people who became "Decline-to-State" in opposition to Iraq and Afghanistan, but favor environmental protection, gay rights, and other progressive issues. If local Democrats are presented with a dilemma of a progressive declined-to-state vs. a reactionary Republican in the run off election, I believe the local delegates should have the option of whether to endorse.

The July Executive Board meeting happening next weekend will deal with these issues.  The changes proposed by the CDP Rules committee can be found here (PDF. In short, the rules changes allow a DTS voter to apply to get an endorsement where there are no Democrats on the ballot.

Take a look at the changes, there is a lot to think about.  I'm pretty inclined to support this, but I'd like to hear others' thoughts. Full email over the flip.

Dear Brian:
One of the issues before our Executive Board later this month deals with how the Party handles endorsements in a post-Prop 14 (Top-Two Primary) world.

One of the items we grappled with in this process is what to do with regard to endorsements if no Democrat makes the run off.

What are we to do if a "Decline-to-State" supports the issues we do and shares our values as Democrats? I personally know several people who became "Decline-to-State" in opposition to Iraq and Afghanistan, but favor environmental protection, gay rights, and other progressive issues. If local Democrats are presented with a dilemma of a progressive declined-to-state vs. a reactionary Republican in the run off election, I believe the local delegates should have the option of whether to endorse.

It is far fetched, but a possibility, that a Senator Bernie Sanders type of decline-to-state candidate could be running against a Wally Herger or Tom McClintock in the run off. Should the locals not be given the option to decide to endorse or not endorse the "DTS" candidate? Some say that it would be just as effective to say that we oppose right-wing Republicans. I personally disagree. I don't think you can beat somebody with nobody.

I truly believe that it is in the best interest of the principles we believe in as Democrats to at least have the option of deciding in those rare instances when a progressive DTS is running against a reactionary Republican.

I look forward to finalizing this matter in Anaheim on the weekend of July 29-31. If you have any questions, feel free to call on me.

Peace and friendship,

John