Open Primary: a Whole New Political Game

The political parties did their best to thwart the voters. But they ran up against a federal judge who said, no, the parties don’t own the primaries, the people do. The people--not the parties--get to decide who may vote.

So it’s now looking like the voters will get what they want, at least they’ll get it for 1998. And what the vast majority want is an open, far more interesting primary election.

By a landslide--59.5%--Californians voted last year to open up each party’s primary to all voters, regardless of how they’re registered. Under this open primary system, people will be able to switch back and forth--voting, say, in the Democratic gubernatorial contest, then in the Republican Senate race. The top vote-

getter from each party will go on the November ballot. In California’s old, closed primary system, only registered Democrats, for example, could vote in a Democratic primary.

If some politician had done what the political parties did--snub their noses at the voters’ wishes and fight them in court--that pol would have risked being booted out of office at the next election.

But the party hierarchies live in their own narrow world of party activists. They’re not interested here in “voter outreach.” Rather, they’re trying to protect their influence over the nominating process, a leverage that often leads to the most extreme candidate--whether conservative or liberal--winning the primary. The next result is a polarized Legislature and gridlock.

The parties see this as a self-preservation issue. Therefore, they intend to keep bucking the voters and appeal Monday’s decision by U.S. District Court Judge David F. Levi. That means there’s still uncertainty. While the open primary is a good bet for next June--because the parties are running out of time to get it thrown out for 1998--there’s no telling what some higher court might do for future elections.

For the 1998 California primary, however, voters most likely will be offered an intriguing new medley of ballot options--and the chance to watch flustered candidates scramble to take advantage of their own new options.

*

How will this play out politically? Some things can be predicted with relative certainty.

One overlooked reality, for example, is that candidates who are unopposed in their party’s primary no longer can afford politically to coast until the general election. They’ll need to run all-out from start to finish. This means, in particular, Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, the presumptive Republican nominee for governor, and Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is running for reelection.

Lungren and Boxer may have their nominations clinched. But their eventual November opponents don’t. And these opponents will be scouring for primary votes in the other party--Lungren’s and Boxer’s parties. Once, say, a moderate Democrat votes for a GOP Senate candidate, that voter just might not return to Democratic ranks to support the liberal Boxer in November--especially if the preferred Republican has won the nomination.

Political analyst Tony Quinn has studied the experience of Washington state, which long has had an open primary system like California’s. His conclusion is that “once voters cross over, they don’t come back. If Lungren loses a third of the Republicans to Democratic candidates in the primary, the history of Washington indicates he’ll also lose most of them in the general election.”

Quinn adds: “The notion that the voters are just having fun in the primary is wrong. They’ve made a conscious choice, and they’re not coming back.”

*

Another reality of the open primary is that it can greatly benefit the megabucks candidates--ironically at a time when Californians also have voted to tightly restrict campaign contributions and expenditures. But those restrictions don’t apply to self-financed candidates.

We’re talking here about two super-rich political newcomers--Democratic gubernatorial candidate Al Checchi and Republican Senate contender Darrell Issa. They now have a much larger playing field with lots of options and unlimited money to spend on the new game.

For example, Checchi could invest $500,000--for him pocket change--and send three mailers to 500,000 Republican voters who agree with him that serial child molesters should be executed. Similarly, Issa could target conservative Democratic gun owners.

This means that the conventional wisdom about open primaries resulting in more centrist officeholders may be overrated. There has been little evidence of it in Washington state. Maybe California’s political parties don’t need to fret. We really don’t know. But we’ll probably find out, despite the parties.