Mourn, and Move Slowly

Californians should mourn the loss of the open primary election, but not for too long. Proposition 198, approved by the voters in 1996 and struck down Monday by the U.S. Supreme Court, seemed to be a good way to stimulate interest in politics and boost voter turnout. In fact, it appeared to do that during its brief life as a latter-day populist experiment in the 1998 and 2000 primaries. Unfortunately, as with too many ballot propositions, it was drafted without much thought or informed debate about its long-range ramifications or its constitutionality.

The court’s 7-2 ruling Monday was emphatic and final. Californians may be angry that the federal courts once again have rejected a proposal approved by the state’s voters. But the worst thing California can do now is to rush another initiative measure onto the ballot, although that’s what some proponents of Proposition 198 are proposing. There are other ways to achieve some of the goals of Proposition 198, including perhaps a more limited open primary, but haste would be likely to produce another faulty initiative.

Absent other action, California reverts in 2002 to the former “closed” primary, in which Democrats vote to nominate Democratic candidates, Republicans pick Republicans and so forth. In the open primary--more accurately, a blanket primary--all voters received a single ballot listing all candidates of each party for each office. You could vote for any party’s candidate for any office. For the first time, the 2 million registered independent voters could cast ballots in a partisan primary.

Twenty-one states have a limited open primary in which voters choose which party ballot they want as they enter the voting booth. But they then can vote only in that party’s primary. This often involves changing voter registration the day of the primary.

Why was Proposition 198 struck down? Because, said the court majority, it violated the parties’ right of association by allowing members of other parties, or no party at all, to vote on nominees for the general election. In effect, the blanket primary allowed “non-party members to hijack the party,” the court said.

The court criticized the blanket primary for forcing party candidates to appeal to a broader cross section of voters. In fact, this was a goal of the authors of Proposition 198, moderate Republicans who sought to diminish the clout of conservatives in GOP primaries. Gov. Gray Davis supports the open primary because his appeal to Republicans and independents in a primary can blunt the influence of liberal Democrats who disagree with his more conservative policies.

At the heart of it, this is the latest chapter of a 90-year struggle, begun by the Populist movement, over how much power political parties in California should have. As state leaders seek alternatives to Proposition 198, they should consider whether the measures might unintentionally homogenize party messages or weaken the parties further. They may even find that the real need is for an effective state campaign finance reform program. Reform would curb the true evil of politics, the obscene amounts of money that go into campaigns, and could energize the parties as instruments of change. The goal is to bring more people, especially the disillusioned young, into the political system. Changing the mechanics of a primary election is not necessarily the only way to do that.