Prop. 62’s Open Primary Spun Into Something Vague

There are two words the political establishment in California does not want you to read. These scary, menacing words are: “open primary.”

So rap my fingers with a ruler.

The establishment -- the political parties, most legislators -- do not want you to even think “open primary” in the same thoughts with Proposition 62, the “Voter Choice Open Primary Initiative.”

Whoops! You may want to close your eyes.

A Sacramento judge Monday bought into the spin of the political pooh-bahs and decreed that Prop. 62 on the November ballot would not really create an “open” primary. This was like ruling that a convertible cannot be called a car because it really is a convertible.

In the real world, there are many versions of open primaries, and Prop. 62 offers one.

But in the strategy of semantics, Prop. 62’s opponents understand that “open” connotes good. “Closed” is bad.

Superior Court Judge Judy Hersher ordered that all references to “open primary” be stricken from official state election materials, including the voter information guide mailed to households.

Here we need to pause for some requisite background:

Voters in 1996 overwhelmingly approved California’s first “open primary initiative.” Previously, primaries were “closed” -- only registrants of a party could vote in that party’s nominating races. In the new open primary, citizens could vote for any candidate regardless of party.

But the parties protested and the U.S. Supreme Court sided with them. The justices agreed that parties had a constitutional right to exclude nonmembers from their nominating process. In effect, the court ruled that primary elections belong to the parties, not to the people. (So why shouldn’t the parties pay for them instead of the taxpayers?)

The Supreme Court also pointed reformers in the direction of a constitutional open primary. That’s what Prop. 62 is about. Primaries would be nonpartisan, similar to the way Californians elect a state superintendent of public instruction and thousands of local officials. Except the candidates’ party affiliations would be listed.

People could vote for whomever they wanted. But primaries wouldn’t select party nominees. Rather, the top two vote-getters -- even if of the same party -- would run off in November.

Backers believe that by opening up primaries to a wider range of voter ideologies, more pragmatic centrists would be elected.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court further held that California’s primary amounted to a “blanket primary,” distinguishing this from an “open primary” -- like a convertible not being a car. And that’s what the Sacramento judge cited in her ruling, too late in the election process to be appealed.

Judge Hersher did not say specifically what type of primary the Prop. 62 plan should be called. But get this: She said it was OK to call Prop. 62, in the official voter guide, “reform.” Talk about a subjective, loaded word!

It beats me why judges think they need to meddle with common English when legal language isn’t involved -- why they have to delve into semantics and censorship. Nit-picky distinctions with little difference.

Look, here’s some logic from the “Real Life Dictionary of American Politics” by Kathleen and Gerald Hill, political activists and scholars: They define an open primary as one “in which voters registered in any party can vote for candidates of any party.... Registered voters can vote for anyone on the ballot.”

It comes in many varieties. Now, California has a slightly open primary because both major parties allow independent voters to ask for either a Republican or Democratic ballot.

The pols getting huffy about this are the perpetrators of another measure, Prop. 60, rammed onto the ballot by the Legislature to confuse voters and preempt Prop. 62.

They’re shouting that Prop. 62 proposes a “Louisiana-style primary,” assuming that Louisiana is a pejorative. Instead of defending the California status quo, they’re attacking Louisiana, where former Klan leader David Duke once made it to the gubernatorial runoff. And lost.

It’s all unfortunate -- the word games, the state belittling -- because opponents of Prop. 62 do voice legitimate arguments that are getting lost.

“I believe that parties actually mean something,” says Assemblyman Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta). “I became a Republican, not because I thought elephants were prettier than donkeys, but because the Republican Party reflected what I believe. A party should pick its own nominee.”

“You’re forcing [some candidates] who come out of a primary to run against their own party twice,” says Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles). “It wouldn’t be bad, except you’re forcing them to raise a lot of money.”

“Where’s the money coming from?” asks Democratic consultant Richie Ross. “All special interests are going to heavy up twice. Reformers have to stop. They’re wrecking the place.”

But backers of Prop. 62 have strong arguments.

Assemblyman Keith Richman (R-Northridge), one of nine lawmakers who support Prop. 62: “This is going to result in more moderate representatives coming to Sacramento who are willing to solve problems with common-sense solutions.”

Assemblyman Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria): “The system is broken. It causes a lot of partisanship. And partisanship doesn’t get anything done.”

Prop. 62 would dramatically shake up Sacramento.

People will call it what they want, regardless of a judge.

Open primary. Open primary. Open primary.

*

George Skelton writes Monday and Thursday. Reach him at george.skelton@latimes.com.