Major Party Leaders Hail ‘Blanket Primary’ Rejection

Local leaders of the two major political parties rejoiced Monday after learning that the U.S. Supreme Court had thrown out California’s “blanket primary” system, returning to them more control over the election process.

“I said, ‘Hurray!’ ” said Hank Lacayo, chairman of the Democratic Party of Ventura County. Since the blanket primary became state law in 1996, Lacayo said he had been disgusted when non-Democratic voters “tell me who my party nominee should be.”

“Republicans should pick their candidates and Democrats should pick theirs,” he said.

This sentiment was echoed by Jackie Rodgers, chairwoman of the Republican Party of Ventura County.

“This is a victory for the political parties,” she said. “This decision just clears the air and makes things simpler.”

But not everyone was enthusiastic.

“I think constitutionally it is probably a proper decision,” said Michael Farris, chairman of the presidential nominating committee of the national Reform Party. “But it’s disappointing, because it leaves 2 million independents out of the process.”

Farris, a Newbury Park resident, said the decision could strengthen the extreme wings of both parties, leaving moderate voters without a voice.

“I think we need some sort of ‘open primary’ system,” he said. “But it’s possible the blanket primary went too far.”

Lacayo said the court’s action probably would not hurt either party at the polls. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) agreed, saying that the overall impact of the decision would probably be minimal.

“The vast majority of voters belong to one party or the other,” Lacayo said.

The Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to strike down the blanket primary, which allowed voters to choose candidates of any political party during a primary election. A person could feasibly vote for a Democrat for governor and a Republican for senator.

Twenty states have an open primary system that allows voters to choose a party affiliation on election day, but requires them to vote only for members of that party.

Supporters of California’s initiative, Proposition 198, hoped it would attract more moderate voters. But leaders of the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian and the Peace and Freedom parties filed a lawsuit against California Secretary of State Bill Jones, saying it was unfair to have nonparty members selecting their candidates.

On Monday the Supreme Court agreed, claiming the blanket primary violated a political party’s 1st Amendment right of association.

Sherman was one of the few elected lawmakers who supported the blanket primary.

“I would prefer a system more favorable to moderates,” he said. “As a moderate, I like the idea of moderates winning primaries.”

Still, Sherman said he did not think the court’s decision would have much effect on who is elected. He pointed out that U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was elected under the old, closed primary system and that Gov. Gray Davis, also a Democrat, won office under the new system. Both, he said, are solid moderates.

Sherman said it would be difficult to find an election in the past decade that would have turned out differently had there been a blanket primary.

“It’s not going to have that big an effect,” Sherman predicted.

But Jones adamantly disagreed. He called the decision to overturn the new system a “major setback for California, our voters and our primary election system.”

In a prepared statement, Jones accused the Supreme Court of taking power from individuals and handing it to political parties.

Jones said voters polled after the 1998 gubernatorial primary showed that 57% of Republicans, 61% of Democrats and 69% of those who declined to state a party supported the blanket primary.

“I fear the political parties may have won the battle but not the war,” Jones said.

*

SUPREME COURT DECISION

Justices strike down the open primary law, but supporters are undaunted. A1