Every year in California, out of a barrage of propositions, only a few enter the general consciousness. Some of these deal with hot button issues, including the legalization of marijuana in Prop 19 and the denial of gay marriage through Prop 8. Others dominate the dinnertime airwaves, through unrelenting special-interests funded commercials that denounce a range of proposals, from cigarette tax increases to air-quality standard reduction.
Proposition 14, by comparison, did not attract nearly the same amount of attention. This proposition, which was approved by voters, creates a “top-two” primary system for all state offices and congressional races. As such, it replaces separate party primaries with an “open” primary that all candidates are allowed to enter and all voters are allowed to vote in, with the caveat that candidates only express their party “preference.” From this primary, the top two vote getters would go on to the general election in November.
Despite its goal to decrease the influence of parties in California and bring about less partisanship, given its complexity and lack of significant financial backers, it was overshadowed on even its own ballot by Proposition 16, which saw roughly ten times more total spending than Proposition 14. However, despite an appeal that only seems to attract electoral system junkies, Prop 14 has far greater ramifications than the majority of proposals that pass through California ballot boxes. While Prop 14 was sold as the answer to partisan politics, there currently exists only one certain truth—the long-standing dynamics of California politics have been quietly shattered.
The Politics of Risk Aversion
Much of the drive for Proposition 14 was borne out of more than a decade of electoral stagnancy in California, the product of heavily gerrymandered districts and an admitted desire to maintain the status quo. The extent of California’s intractability is simply unparalleled. While California holds one of every eight House seats in the country, it also has the dubious mark of holding 17 of the 50 least competitive seats. As a result of districts drawn to protect incumbents in 2000, since 2002 there has only been a single instance of a seat changing parties. Even in 2010, a “wave election” that witnessed 60 seats change hands nationally, not a single seat switched parties in California.
It is fitting that two major attacks on this system were made in 2010, an election when voters across the country were characterized as “fed up” with traditional systems and organizations. While Prop 14 created a new primary system, Proposition 20, approved later that year, created a new citizen-led redistricting commission.
The California 26th
California’s 26th congressional district, covering the eastern edge of Los Angeles County and the majority of Ventura County, is both a microcosm of the last decade of Californian politics as well as a potential battleground for the “new look” of California after the changes made in 2010. Held by Republican Congressman Elton Gallegly since 2002, when the current incarnation was drawn, the district was viewed as an artificially “safe” district, his smallest margin of victory over 13 points. However, due to redistricting, his new district contains only two-thirds of his old district, no longer includes his residence, and has swung from a heavily Republican area to a more contested area. Facing these impediments to re-election, Gallegly has chosen to retire, leaving behind a competitive seat and a number of interested candidates, including State Senator Tony Strickland on the Republican side and State Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, businessman David Cruz Thayne, and Harbor Commissioner Jess Herrera on the Democratic side.
Yet what is making this race unique is the presence of a competitive No Party Preference candidate in Ventura County Supervisor Linda Parks. Despite winning a number of elections as a Republican, Parks has been at odds with the Republican leadership, which unsuccessfully financed a Republican challenger to Parks in a City Council election. A self-identified moderate, Parks has made a career promoting the protection of open space against development and sees the 2010 election as a game changer. In an interview with the HPR, she stated directly, “I would not be running if not for Proposition 14.”
While Proposition 14 fuels the Parks campaign by providing non-aligned candidates with increased access to the general election, it is not the only factor in play. In contrast to past elections, when parties would have primaries to find one representative, the new open primary allows the Democratic vote to be split in the 26th congressional district between a number of candidates, all of whom currently possess limited name recognition in the district, potentially turning the general election into one between Strickland and Parks despite the Democratic recruitment advantage.
The centrality of centrism and Prop 14 to this race, one Parks notes is “the one being watched as the bellwether as to whether prop 14 will actually allow independents and moderates to get elected,” is furthered by Parks’ platform, which she describes as “very specific to getting Republicans and Democrats working together.” While this approach taps into historic low approval ratings of Congress and party politics, many are skeptical. Speaking with the HPR, former Congressman George Nethercutt mused: “I just think that it’s a tactic, a campaign tactic, to say I don’t like either one of the parties, just to get elected,” elaborating that moderates “can’t just say I’m against Democrats, I’m against Republicans.”
This is a viewpoint expressed by a number of competing campaigns in the district, with Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokeswoman Amber Moon labeling her a “political opportunist,” the Strickland campaign calling her “the Democrat’s problem,” and the Brownley campaign noting her Republican past. While Parks affirms her identity as a “social moderate and fiscal conservative,” pointing to an “Issues” page on her campaign website that describes her positions, these views are often drowned out by a focus on attacking partisan politics. Her refusal to declare whether she would support Boehner or Pelosi as speaker only cements this narrative, becoming a Rorschach test between those who view it as bipartisanship and those who view it as pandering, reflective of the No Party Preference label as a whole.
The heightened interest in this race is made clear by fundraising numbers. The $988,000 raised for the 2010 election has already been far overtaken by the $1.3 million raised in the current cycle, more than 7 months out from the general election. In fact, the Strickland campaign has raised $781,804 itself, the third highest amount among current non-incumbents in House races, behind only self-financed Joseph Carvin and Joe Kennedy.
Golden Opportunity
Proposition 14 turns a game of majority into a game of plurality, with consequences that could potentially supersede the objective of increased centrism.
The opportunity is there without a doubt. The number of Californians registered as Independent has risen to 21 percent, an unprecedented level. Party allegiance is falling. Independents point to Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, a candidate for mayor in San Diego, whose poll numbers doubled from 13 percent to 26 percent in a week when he switched from the GOP to No Party Preference, a number that objectors chalk up to increased publicity.
However, there are threats. Elections could become hijacked by personalities. Third party candidacies could lose their voice. Yet Prop 14 proponents’ biggest fear is that it won’t have an effect. Nethercutt, whose home state of Washington approved a similar measure in 2004, predicted that it would simply select “the strongest Republican candidate and the strongest Democratic candidate.”
Critics cite the limited effect that the Prop 14 scheme has had in promoting moderates in Louisiana and Washington, claiming that Proposition 14 has created an atmosphere favoring incumbents. However, this forecast has not subdued the number of No Party Preference campaigns in California, where Chad Condit, son of former Representative Gary Condit, and GOP Assemblyman Anthony Adams are also running No Party Preference bids for Congress, two of the 36 total NPP bids for state and national office in the state. It is the fate of their bids, along with the result in the California 26th congressional district, that will determine the trajectory of this Proposition.
Linda Parks is optimistic about her chances. According to a recent internal poll, she is projected to be a solid second place finisher in the primary and a clear victor in the general election. It is still very early in the game, but should Democratic divisions persist in the district, Prop 14 could very well have created an unprecedented path to office. Ultimately, though, it is not propositions or redistricting that decide California’s fate, but the ballot box. In fact, it is this vote, a precedent for future independent campaigns, that will determine the future of Proposition 14.