State’s ‘Blanket Primary’ Rejected

Re “Justices Reject State’s ‘Blanket Primary’ Law,” June 27: The Supreme Court invalidated a bad law but not a bad idea. In striking down the California “blanket primary,” the justices also disenfranchised me in primary elections. I agree Democrats should vote in the Democratic primary and Republicans in the Republican primary. Greens, Reforms and Libertarians should vote in their own.

But how about us independents? We, who are not ready to go in lock step with any of the established parties, prefer to determine the best people regardless of party. We are shut out of the primary process except for some ballot measures and nonpartisan races. I would propose to change the law:

1. All voters registered with a party affiliation would vote in that primary.

2. Voters who register without a party preference would receive a ballot listing all candidates for a given office and be allowed to vote for only one. These votes would then be added to the appropriate party count.

This would be seen as the best way to register for many voters.

KEN PINKHAM

San Juan Capistrano

*

Bill Press opines (Commentary, June 28) that citizen ballot initiatives should be subject to a ruling that they are constitutional before being allowed on the ballot. But who will make that ruling? Judges? We’ve seen how that works with the very example Press cites, Proposition 187. You just take your case to a sympathetic judge. To elected officials like the attorney general or the Legislature or someone appointed by them? Yeah right, I’m sure they would have found the term limits initiative OK. It has been declared constitutional but conveniently wasn’t mentioned in the examples Press gave.

Even if prior opinions are only advisory, they can only reflect the political bent of the reviewer and sway voters. The only fair way is to let the voters decide and then subject it to judicial tests with full appeal rights. Proposition 209 was declared unconstitutional by Judge Thelton Henderson, a former NAACP board member, only to be totally reversed by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A prior restraint test would only have served to sway voters with Henderson’s inaccurate ruling.

DAVID R. GILLESPIE

Bonita