State’s Radical Shift to an Open Primary Upheld

California’s open primary initiative was upheld Monday by a U.S. District Court judge who said the upheaval predicted by the political parties is outweighed by the voters’ right to “experiment” with their state’s democracy.

The ruling on Proposition 198 was a significant loss for the California Republican and Democratic parties--as well as numerous smaller political organizations--that had joined forces to challenge the June 1996 ballot measure that allows voters in a primary to select any candidate, regardless of their own registration.

On the cusp of the 1998 elections, the ruling by Sacramento U.S. District Judge David F. Levi also triggered a convulsion in the state’s political landscape as strategists and candidates considered whether the measure would truly sweep into office a new breed of moderate politician, as its authors intended.

“The court does not decide whether [an open] primary is a good idea; it may prove to be a bad idea,” Levi wrote in a 40-page opinion. “Each of the states has its own experiment in democratic government. . . . The court concludes that [an open] primary serves sufficiently weighty interests that the state of California should not be precluded from ever trying such a procedure.”

The decision, political observers said, is likely to mean a 1998 campaign unlike any the state has ever seen--at least since the existing closed primary system was adopted in 1909.

Officials for the state Democratic and Republican parties, who filed the suit, said Monday that they will appeal the decision promptly. They said their complaint was intended to protect the nominating process from outside voters. They said the open primary was tantamount to “letting UCLA’s football team choose USC’s head coach.”

But attorneys also acknowledged that it is highly unlikely--although possible--that an appellate court decision could be reached in time to affect the June election.

State election officials have warned that their preparations for the 1998 election are well underway. Secretary of State Bill Jones earlier told Levi that mid-November would be about the latest time his office could accommodate such basic changes to the election rules.

Nationally, party officials said the California ballot measure also looms as a shock for the 2000 presidential race. As it stands now, California’s open primary system is out of compliance with national rules that require a closed primary system like California now has. Unless there are changes, they said the state may not participate in the presidential primary process.

It is too late to change the national party rules because they are adopted at the nominating conventions every four years. Attorneys for both parties said the state’s primary rules can be changed only by another initiative.

The result is that unless the ruling is overturned on appeal, California’s presidential primary process in 2000 will be conducted not by voters but by state party conventions or caucuses, state party officials predicted.

*

The officials said that the open primary would essentially be a “beauty contest,” and that the delegates selecting the parties’ nominees at the national conventions would be chosen by rank-and-file party members.

“I don’t think California voters who supported Proposition 198 intended to deprive themselves of an opportunity to nominate our next president,” state Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres said.

At the state level, changes expected from Proposition 198 were no less traumatic.

Officials predict that voters would be forced to consider a ballot with dozens--if not hundreds--more names than they have ever seen. And campaigns would have to appeal to a universe of voters that might be double or triple the size of their earlier target populations.

That is expected to significantly increase the cost of campaigning in California--just as another court is considering the constitutionality of a separate ballot measure that would severely restrict the ability of most candidates to raise money.

The change in rules is also certain to have a profound effect on campaign strategy in California, because candidates--especially centrists--will be able to appeal for votes across party lines.

One of the chief sponsors of the ballot measure was Rep. Tom Campbell (R-Campbell), a moderate Republican who narrowly lost a 1992 primary for U.S. Senate to conservative former television commentator Bruce Herschensohn.

“A new day has dawned,” Campbell said Monday. “Let’s use all the cliches. The extremes have lost today. The people have been empowered.”

There was a similar reaction from aides to San Diego Mayor Susan Golding, also a moderate Republican, who is planning a run for the U.S. Senate. They believe that Golding will win a significant level of support in the GOP primary from moderate Democrats--especially women, the aides said.

“The first thing we will do is celebrate,” said George Gorton, Golding’s campaign strategist. “It’s a huge victory for the Golding campaign. The biggest pull for affecting primaries is gender.”

Technically, California’s new system is known as a “blanket primary.” It is found in only three states--Louisiana, Alaska and Washington. In presidential primaries, those states have adopted separate closed selection systems.

About 21 states have “open primaries” in which voters are allowed to select which party’s ballot they would like to use in a given election, precluding them from switching parties for each office.

In Washington, where the blanket primary was adopted in 1935, experience has shown that about 10% of the electorate will switch parties in an election and up to 25% in some tight races.

In California, a Times poll last October found that nearly three-quarters of registered voters said they would consider voting for another party.

The change is especially significant for the about 2.5 million voters who are now registered with minor parties or who decline to state their party choice. For the first time, that 17% of the state’s electorate will now influence major parties in the primaries.

*

Like every election change, it is likely to help some and hurt others. Already, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Al Checchi said he plans a major appeal to independent voters because he believes that they will identify with his background as a corporate executive who has never served in public office.

Checchi strategists said they will be able to take advantage of such opportunities because their candidate is a multimillionaire who is able to finance unprecedented experiments in campaign practices.

“It’s great news for Al Checchi,” said Darry Sragow, strategist for the Democrat’s campaign. “Al is exactly the kind of Democrat who . . . appeals to a . . . very large number of third party and independent registrants who have historically been shut out of the primaries.”

Attorneys for the two state parties--joined by the Peace and Freedom and Libertarian parties--said in their challenge that Proposition 198 is a violation of their 1st Amendment right to free association.

In arguing their case during the 1996 campaign, state party officials insisted that their organizations should be allowed to select the standard-bearers who best represent their ideals without any influence from outside voters.

*

They openly worry about “mischief voting” in which opposing party members might cast ballots for the candidate their party might be most likely to beat. In other states, such intrusions have been minimal, although officials predicted that in tightly contested state legislative races an effective strategy could be organized by some powerful interest groups.

Both state party leaders said they would discourage such strategies. But both also predicted attempts on at least a limited basis.

Judge Levi said he determined that the parties would suffer a burden from the change and that it would affect their 1st Amendment right to free association. But he said it is not his job to rule whether the change is good, only whether it is a right of the electorate to experiment with alternatives to candidate selection.

“The court [does not] decide whether the voters were correct in concluding that a more representative and participatory system is desirable at this time in the state’s history, or whether it is wise to weaken the parties by some degree to further the goals of representativeness and participation,” he wrote.

“The history of election law is one of change and adaptation as the states have responded to the play of different political forces and circumstances. There is little reason to expect that the future will be any different.”

* SHIFT TO MIDDLE

Judge’s ruling is expected to benefit political moderates. A3