A provision in California’s top-two ballot system forbids voters from writing in a candidate in the general election, which eliminates a crucial backstop that concerns some Democrats.
Lea Suzuki/S.F. Chronicle
California Democrats are no longer panicking that the party will be locked out of the governor’s race, but the tumultuous campaign has nonetheless moved some stakeholders to press forward with an attempt to scrap the state’s jungle primary.
The latest reason the system has caused concern for Democrats: A provision in the top-two system forbids voters from writing in a candidate in the general election, eliminating a crucial backstop. If two Republicans had advanced to the general, Democrats would not have been able to marshal support for Kamala Harris or another write-in option. Now that it seems likely at least one Democratic candidate will advance, there’s still a possibility that candidate could face a Swalwellian scandal that takes them out of the race. Without a write-in option, a Republican may be the only possibility for voters in that scenario.
“It’s a failed experiment that even the remote possibility of a Democrat having to choose between two Trump Republicans in November is enough to scare the bejesus out of anyone,” said Steven Maviglio, a veteran Democratic strategist who filed an initiative this month to “undo the top two,” as he described the concept. He is aiming to get the measure before California voters in November 2028. It would essentially revert to the old system, where one candidate from each party advances to the general election.
Article continues below this ad
The possibility of Democrats needing to invoke a Plan B write-in campaign has ramped up interest in ending the top two, Maviglio said.
“Certainly the possibility of this happening has highlighted the flaws of the process,” he told me.
San Francisco Chronicle Logo
Make us a Preferred Source to get more of our news when you search.
Add Preferred Source
Not that he needed to be convinced. Maviglio, like many Democrats and labor leaders, has long opposed the top-two system, in part because it didn’t do what proponents promised back in 2010, when 54% of voters supported its creation via Proposition 14. Plus, the jungle primary sapped power from the top political parties, which is why both the statewide Republican and Democratic parties opposed it 16 years ago — a rare moment of unity.
Framed as a political reform, the top-two system was actually the offspring of a backroom deal. In 2009, Democrats in the state Senate needed one vote to pass the budget, so they turned to moderate Republican Sen. Abel Maldonado. He extracted something in return for his support: putting the top-two primary proposal before voters.
Article continues below this ad
Maldonado, backed by fellow moderate Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who would later appoint him lieutenant governor, thought the move would give moderate Republicans a better chance to get elected in a state that was rapidly becoming deep blue. It didn’t help. California hasn’t elected a Republican of any stripe to a statewide office since 2006, and one of them was Schwarzenegger, an international movie star with virtual 100% name recognition.
Top-two supporters also promised in the state’s official 2010 voter guide that the reform would “reduce the gridlock by electing the best candidates.” There is far less gridlock in Sacramento now — but only because Democrats hold a supermajority. Gridlock in Washington remains a feature, not a bug.
Proponents also predicted that Prop 14 would “give independent voters an equal voice in primary elections.” Technically, that has been fulfilled, said UC San Diego political science professor Thad Kousser, who has studied the measure’s impact. Voters who register with no party preference can now vote for candidates from either party, where previously they could participate only in the Democratic primary. The California Republican Party allowed only registered Republicans to cast ballots in its primaries.
Prop 14 supporters also boasted it would “help elect more practical officeholders who are more open to compromise.” There is little evidence of that happening. The idea that it would bring more independent voters into the process and more independent candidates similarly never materialized.
“That was the main promise of the top two, and it has largely been unfulfilled. It has not halted the march to partisan polarization,” Kousser said.
Article continues below this ad
But experts say the top-two primary could be missed in House districts dominated by one party — such as San Francisco. Think of this year’s House race to succeed Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. There would be little voter interest — or doubt about the outcome — of a general election between a Democrat and a Republican in a district where only 7% of voters are Republican. Instead, this year’s general election will probably pit two Democrats against each other, a much better reflection of the district’s voters.
Having that sort of competition — between an incumbent and a challenger of the same party — would cause candidates to be more responsive to voters than if they were facing an opponent they knew they could easily defeat, said Christian Grose, a professor of public policy at University of Southern California and director of the school’s Democracy and Fair Elections Lab.
“The chance of having a competitive general causes members of Congress and legislators to be a little bit more responsive,” said Grose, who has studied the top two, “because they know they might have to face a high turnout general election with the same party candidate.”