More Punch in the Party: Court Edict Expands Political Options

More than 70 years after reformist Gov. Hiram Johnson turned California’s political parties into what have been called “dead-end debating societies,” change is in the wind.

A recent federal court decision has freed the parties to make endorsements in primaries, greatly increasing the chances for lively debate. The court also ruled the parties can determine their own membership rather than taking orders from Sacramento politicians, and that creates the possibility of new power bases for activists.

Both major parties are debating what to do with the new freedom given them by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It upheld an earlier court ruling that had said state laws prohibiting the parties from endorsing in primaries and organizing as they see fit violated First Amendment freedoms of free speech and association.

“What that court decision means is that if the state parties can raise some money (to back the candidates they endorse), you’ve got new power brokers in California politics,” said Peter Kelly, chairman of the California Democratic Party.

The potential was quickly grasped by the state Republican Party, which is now considering making an endorsement in the 1988 presidential race at the party’s next convention, Feb. 19 to 21 in Santa Clara.

“We now have the power to do it (make endorsements),” said Robert Naylor, chairman of the state Republican Party. “I don’t know if we will, but here is an example of what could happen: Say (New York Rep.) Jack Kemp lost the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 16 but realized he had solid support in the California Republican Party. He could come out here and go for an endorsement that would put him back on his feet because of the national attention that endorsement would attract.”

Some political professionals doubt whether either party will start making presidential primary endorsements anytime soon because it could be divisive.

Kelly, for example, said the state Democrats will not endorse in the 1988 presidential race because hard feelings left over from the primary endorsement debate could weaken the party’s candidate in November. He acknowledged, however, that a future chairman of his party could push for an endorsing convention and probably get it.

AFL-CIO official Jim Wood, who is in charge of the state Democratic Party rules committee, said Friday, “There is no question the state party will start endorsing in partisan races below the presidential level. We are working up procedures now.”

The professionals say that the court ruling will have a far-reaching effect on California politics. And no one knows it better than officeholders, long accustomed to controlling the parties.

“I frankly think this is a terrible decision,” said Republican Assemblyman Ross Johnson of La Habra. “It is moving in the direction of undoing reforms enacted over much of this century. It will lead to having unelected party officials and groupies, if you will, in a position to powerfully influence elections.

“It requires no great leap of imagination to construct a scenario under which the party apparatus will play a more dominant role in candidate selection in our primaries.”

What he means is that party activists can now back their own candidates in Assembly or state Senate primaries instead of being told by legislative leaders who the candidates will be.

Under the new rules, the party apparatus can endorse its own candidates in the primary and back them with campaign contributions and valuable volunteer assistance.

The legislators will always be effective fund-raisers, of course, because they can offer something tangible to contributors with business before the Legislature.

But political professionals believe the prospect of a bitter primary will make the legislators think twice about ramming their candidates down the activists’ throats.

Moreover, the state parties will be helped in raising money thanks to their mastery of computerized voting lists and telemarketing techniques.

The state Republican Party has raised $17 million since 1983, Communications Director Joe Irvin said.

The state Democratic Party has raised far less than the Republicans--about $5 million since 1983--but plans are in the works to pull in much more money by offering contributors personal services, including job searches and special deals on credit cards.

“The key in the future will be to show party members that we can do something for them if they sustain us with contributions,” said Michael Gordon, a former executive director of the state Democratic Party.

Said Caltech political scientist Bruce E. Cain: “The court decision will not mean that much unless there is campaign reform to change the way money is raised and spent in state legislative races.”

An initiative to make such changes has just qualified for the June, 1988, ballot. Among other things, it would end the practice of transfers, by which Democratic and Republican leaders in the Legislature raise enormous sums and then parcel them out to their chosen candidates at election time, giving them almost total control over the candidate-selection process.

Major Topic

The new freedom of California’s political parties was a major topic of discussion at the Republicans’ recent convention in Anaheim and provided an underlying tension that has been missing for years from the mostly ho-hum party conventions.

For example, when activist Gail L. Slocum tried to get party leaders to investigate the unauthorized use of President Reagan’s name in the 1986 election, she was stunned at the abuse heaped on her by some legislators and their aides at the GOP convention.

Slocum was referring to campaign mail sent out by the Assembly Republican Caucus that appeared to be letters from Reagan endorsing the GOP candidates and attacking the Democrats. The White House counsel said the letters were unauthorized and sent a stern warning to Assembly Minority Leader Pat Nolan of Glendale.

Party Activists

Slocum said she was simply following up on the White House warning because she and other party activists were embarrassed at the tone of the direct mail using Reagan’s name. She said the Nolan forces accused her of stirring up trouble and told her they would kick her out of the party if they could.

“There is just going to be a lot more tension between activists and officeholders now because of the court decision,” said Slocum, a Los Angeles attorney.

Naylor, himself a former Republican minority leader in the Legislature, agreed.

“The officeholders are realizing they have to pay more attention to the party apparatus,” he said.

Another person who attended the GOP convention in Anaheim said, “You had people standing up at a seminar saying, ‘We are tired of being under the thumb of the Legislature.’ It was like freeing the slaves.”

As journalist Gladwin Hill wrote in “Dancing Bear,” a history of California politics, the state political parties had the chains slapped on them by Johnson and the Progressives after Johnson’s election as governor in 1910.

Very Powerful

At the time, California’s Republican Party was very powerful--and corrupt. Beholden to the Southern Pacific Railroad, the party leaders chose the candidates, orchestrated the nominating conventions and later passed out the patronage--jobs and other favors--that kept the system oiled.

Johnson not only curtailed the patronage by installing civil service tests, he emasculated the state political parties.

Previously, the top party leaders built powerful juggernauts on a broad base of county activists and cronies from around the state. But under new laws rammed through by Johnson, the membership of the state parties’ powerful central committees would be determined by officeholders--many of them reform-minded Progressives at that time.

“The parties’ high commands were effectively isolated from the grass roots where the votes were,” Hill wrote, referring to the way the state central committees were cut off from activists at the county level.

Federal Court

Until the recent federal court decision, officeholders--particularly legislators--have picked most of the people who sit on state party central committees, the main reason, Hill wrote, that the parties became “dead-end debating societies.”

Now, however, party activists will have a much greater say over who sits on their central committees because the court threw out the law that gave officeholders the majority of appointments.

The federal court decision also threw out state law that prevented parties from endorsing in primaries. This law had its roots in the Johnson era.

In a further effort to prevent political parties from becoming powerful, Johnson had created the system of cross-filing. This allowed a Democratic candidate for governor, for example, to seek nomination in the Democratic primary and the Republican primary.

Virtually Worthless

Under the cross-filing system, no indication of the candidate’s actual party affiliation could appear on the ballot, so a party endorsement was virtually worthless.

Cross-filing, which placed a premium on the personality of candidates and greatly weakened the parties, was ended in 1959. But four years later, the Legislature and Gov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown made sure the parties would not get into the endorsement game, banning endorsements by law.

The inability to endorse in the primary was particularly galling to the Democrats in 1982, when they were powerless to oppose a Ku Klux Klan member running as a Democrat for Congress. Under the rules, the party could not even keep that person, Tom Metzger, off the state central committee.

Now that the parties can endorse, some analysts predict the demise of such activist groups as the California Republican Assembly, California Republican League and California Democratic Council.

Recent Article

As a recent article in the CRA newsletter put it, “The major function of the CRA since its inception has been to endorse in primaries” since the state GOP was not allowed to do that.

“If the party can endorse candidates . . . where does that leave the CRA?” asked the newsletter article.

With the new freedoms gained in the recent court ruling, will California’s political parties again become as powerful as those that tried to stop Johnson on his way to the governor’s mansion?

Walter Zelman, executive director of California Common Cause, does not think so.

“The parties are going to be stronger now,” said Zelman, who thinks that is a good idea because political parties help voters understand the philosophies and views of the candidates.

“But,” he added, “there are too many cultural forces at work today to see a major resurrection of political parties. By this I mean television, the pride of many voters in thinking of themselves as independent and just a general suspicion of political parties, especially in the West.”