Sunday, June 27, 2004

By Steven Greenhut
Columnist, The Orange County Register

Usually, if both major political parties are in complete agreement on something, then everyone else ought to be wary.

Recall the California redistricting plan that passed with the support of the Democratic and Republican establishment in 2001. Virtually all the seats in the state Legislature were gerrymandered to be safe for one party or the other, thereby sparing anyone the trouble of waging costly and contentious general election campaigns. California voters were the losers, as they were denied real ideological choices for Senate and Assembly.

Currently, the Democratic and Republican leaders are supporting an initiative, SCA 18, which locks the current primary system into the state Constitution and is a defense against the so-called Voter Choice initiative promoted by disgruntled "moderates." SCA 18 has already passed the Legislature by a two-thirds vote, thus guaranteeing it a spot on the ballot without any involvement by the governor.

On the surface, this smacks of the same kind of bipartisan insider deal described above, especially given one slightly dishonest trick I'll get to later. But rather than look askance at this proposal, I'd suggest that California voters embrace SCA 18 and the initiative it will become, as they've never embraced an initiative before. This time, both party establishments have it right.

SCA 18 is a great idea, and the initiative it intends to derail, Voter Choice, is a disaster.

The battle is over the nature of elections in California. Currently, there are primary elections and general elections. In the primary, Republican voters select the Republican candidate, and Democratic voters select the Democratic candidate. Any smaller party that jumps through the necessary paperwork hurdles can likewise field a candidate. Everyone goes head-to-head in the general election, arguing over political philosophy or whatever. It ain't perfect, but voters get to choose among varying candidates with varying views of the world.

Some "moderates," however, don't like these rules. They argue that the Republicans usually elect conservatives and the Democrats usually elect liberals. (Perceptive, huh?) The resulting party winners are too extreme for their taste. So they are trying to rig the election rules for the stated purpose of getting elected more people who think like they think.

Being moderates, they don't always know what it is they think, but that's another matter.

Under the leadership of former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, these moderates have qualified the Voter Choice initiative for the November ballot. In reality, it will only reduce choices.

Riordan is apparently still embittered by his stunning gubernatorial loss to Bill Simon in the 2002 Republican primary.

Riordan despised the grass-roots Republicans who make up the GOP, so he avoided them, insulted them and basically ran in the primary as if he were running in the general election. As a result, and also because of the money Gov. Gray Davis cynically dumped into the GOP primary for ads attacking Riordan, Riordan was creamed.

He deserved it, but he doesn't want other candidates of his mindset to suffer the same sort of defeat.

But his solution is bizarre.

"California is on the verge of adopting a method of holding political primaries that is found nowhere in America but Louisiana, a state whose own residents will tell you has a political culture everyone should think twice about emulating," wrote the Wall Street Journal's John Fund in a recent column.

In 1996, California voters approved an open primary system, in which anyone could vote in any party's primary, regardless of party affiliation. I am a registered Republican; under open primary rules I could vote in the Democratic primary if I so chose.

The result in heavily Republican Orange County was the election of two Assembly members who are virtually indistinguishable from Democrats, given that union activists flooded the GOP primaries. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 threw out that process, arguing sensibly that parties are private groups that should be able to choose their own nominees.

The court did, however, approve a nonpartisan primary format. That's what voters have in Louisiana. Instead of having a Republican primary and a Democratic primary, there is a single primary election. All the candidates are listed on the same slate. It is nonpartisan, although the California initiative would allow each candidate's party affiliation to be listed.

The top two vote-getters (except in presidential races) - even if they were of the same political party - would go on to the general election. The result is, in essence, two general elections, which would mean that, in the theory favored by the proponents of Voter Choice, candidates would need always to appeal to the middle.

But it's always hard to guess the results of electoral gimmicks. Term limits didn't create more citizen-friendly Legislatures, as planned, nor have campaign spending laws made money less of an issue in campaigns. In the latter case, the opposite is true: The very wealthy have even more influence because they can fund their own elections.

If the moderates are right about the Voter Choice format, the public will get less of a real debate. In Republican areas, the likely result will be a general election featuring two Republicans at the top of the ticket, and vice versa in Democratic strongholds. California county boards of supervisors elections are run in a similar way, and in Orange County's Democratic-leaning first district, the November general election features a race between two Democrats. Expect more such races if Voter Choice passes.

Under Voter Choice, third parties, which rarely win but offer important perspectives during any race, would be shut out entirely. "Third parties hate it," said Shawn Steel, immediate past chairman of the California Republican Party. "They would not appear on any ballot in the fall forever more under the Voter Choice initiative. Instead of having six or seven choices in November, voters will only have two."

How does less choice and less debate serve democracy?

In Louisiana, the result has been extremism rather than moderation. Gubernatorial elections have featured an ex-Klansman and a crook.

What has happened there, in a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences - and could happen here - is that a large field of mainstream party candidates steals votes from each other, which then clears the way for a nutcase, who might eke out a win with a percentage of total votes in the single digits.

Think David Duke, who advanced to the runoff for Louisiana governor before finally losing to Edwin Edwards, who subsequently ended up in the federal pen for extortion.

Candidates would no longer have to address the concerns of grass-roots activists from any party, given that their influence in a free-for-all election would be much less than it is in a party primary. Steel calls it "the millionaires' election reform" because those with big money would have an even bigger advantage than under the party system.

By contrast, SCA 18 would lock the current party-primary system into the constitution. The parties are still hoping to stop Voter Choice from passing, but SCA 18 would serve as an insurance policy. If both initiatives pass, then the one with the higher vote count would become law.

To help assure its passage, SCA 18 includes a second item: mandating that money raised from selling off the state's surplus property would go to pay off the debt. Courts usually throw out initiatives that bundle unrelated issues, but Sen. Ross Johnson, R-Irvine, sponsor of SCA 18, argues that such a rule only applies to citizen-sponsored initiatives, as opposed to ones proposed by the Legislature.

I'm willing to excuse that shameless element, given what's at stake.

California already has enough problems without enacting a political system that eliminates serious political debate.