Politics

/

ArcaMax

Commentary: Top-two primaries under the microscope

Jeremy Gruber, The Fulcrum on

Published in Op Eds

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected — that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

The plaintiffs argue that California’s top-two system is a violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as “the rights of voters who wish to vote for and associate with minor political parties, their candidates and the issues for which they stand.” It’s a party-centric argument, adopted by some reformers, that the only legitimate expression of “voter choice” is a November election in which all candidates who wish to run appear on the ballot. The longer the menu, the more choices you get. Take something off the menu, you're denying choice.

So why do California voters find the top-two system so appealing if there are “only” two choices? In fact, the choices these plaintiffs are suing to offer voters already exist — in the primary. In that way, the primary is much more like a general election, and, like any general election, all voters get to participate. The general election, then, becomes a runoff of the top vote-getters. It could be any combination of candidates. What matters is that the people themselves — not the parties — get to make the choice of who they like best to compete head-to-head. That’s the appeal of the California system—it’s voter-centric.

Since the adoption of the top-two system, electoral competitiveness has gone way up in California. Uncontested elections have virtually disappeared. Five million independent voters have access to the ballot box. And, all voters have access to the only electoral system that pits the two most favored candidates against each other head-to-head and guarantees a majority winner.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs collectively represent 2% of the California electorate (less than half a million voters out of 24 million registered). Twenty years ago, long before the top-two system, they represented — you guessed it — 2% of the electorate. As millions of voters have left the major parties in California, and tens of millions nationwide, the number of independent voters has more than doubled, going from 14% of the electorate twenty years ago to almost a quarter of the California electorate today. California voters are clearly not very interested in the “choice” these plaintiffs are offering.

The case is unlikely to be successful. There is no absolute right for any party or candidate to be on any ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court has limited its guidance to directing states to “provide a feasible opportunity for political organizations and their candidates to appear on the ballot.” The top-two system treats every party equally. Indeed, the parties in their brief acknowledge that, despite a very modest amount of public support, some third-party candidates have had success in California under the top-two system. Not to mention that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the top-two primary is constitutional.

 

Perhaps the case will start some new conversations. How should the rights of third parties be balanced with the rights of voters — especially the explosion of independent voters? How do you articulate the value of a reform that has shown real merit but that is hard to capture in a state as large and as complicated as California? Whose opinions on the value of a reform matter more — reformers or the public they profess to be serving?

If the case prompts thoughtful answers to any of these questions, these plaintiffs may still yet succeed in unwittingly advancing a very different goal—a more voter-centric reform movement.

____

Jeremy Gruber, JD is the SVP of Open Primaries, an election reform organization. He is the co-author of Let All Voters Vote: Independents and the Expansion of Voting Rights in the United States.

_____


©2025 The Fulcrum. Visit at thefulcrum.us. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

 

Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Related Channels

ACLU

ACLU

By The ACLU
Amy Goodman

Amy Goodman

By Amy Goodman
Armstrong Williams

Armstrong Williams

By Armstrong Williams
Austin Bay

Austin Bay

By Austin Bay
Ben Shapiro

Ben Shapiro

By Ben Shapiro
Betsy McCaughey

Betsy McCaughey

By Betsy McCaughey
Bill Press

Bill Press

By Bill Press
Bonnie Jean Feldkamp

Bonnie Jean Feldkamp

By Bonnie Jean Feldkamp
Cal Thomas

Cal Thomas

By Cal Thomas
Christine Flowers

Christine Flowers

By Christine Flowers
Clarence Page

Clarence Page

By Clarence Page
Danny Tyree

Danny Tyree

By Danny Tyree
David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi

By David Harsanyi
Debra Saunders

Debra Saunders

By Debra Saunders
Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager

By Dennis Prager
Dick Polman

Dick Polman

By Dick Polman
Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson

By Erick Erickson
Froma Harrop

Froma Harrop

By Froma Harrop
Jacob Sullum

Jacob Sullum

By Jacob Sullum
Jamie Stiehm

Jamie Stiehm

By Jamie Stiehm
Jeff Robbins

Jeff Robbins

By Jeff Robbins
Jessica Johnson

Jessica Johnson

By Jessica Johnson
Jim Hightower

Jim Hightower

By Jim Hightower
Joe Conason

Joe Conason

By Joe Conason
Joe Guzzardi

Joe Guzzardi

By Joe Guzzardi
John Micek

John Micek

By John Micek
John Stossel

John Stossel

By John Stossel
Josh Hammer

Josh Hammer

By Josh Hammer
Judge Andrew Napolitano

Judge Andrew Napolitano

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Laura Hollis

Laura Hollis

By Laura Hollis
Marc Munroe Dion

Marc Munroe Dion

By Marc Munroe Dion
Michael Barone

Michael Barone

By Michael Barone
Michael Reagan

Michael Reagan

By Michael Reagan
Mona Charen

Mona Charen

By Mona Charen
Oliver North and David L. Goetsch

Oliver North and David L. Goetsch

By Oliver North and David L. Goetsch
R. Emmett Tyrrell

R. Emmett Tyrrell

By R. Emmett Tyrrell
Rachel Marsden

Rachel Marsden

By Rachel Marsden
Rich Lowry

Rich Lowry

By Rich Lowry
Robert B. Reich

Robert B. Reich

By Robert B. Reich
Ruben Navarrett Jr

Ruben Navarrett Jr

By Ruben Navarrett Jr.
Ruth Marcus

Ruth Marcus

By Ruth Marcus
S.E. Cupp

S.E. Cupp

By S.E. Cupp
Salena Zito

Salena Zito

By Salena Zito
Star Parker

Star Parker

By Star Parker
Stephen Moore

Stephen Moore

By Stephen Moore
Susan Estrich

Susan Estrich

By Susan Estrich
Ted Rall

Ted Rall

By Ted Rall
Terence P. Jeffrey

Terence P. Jeffrey

By Terence P. Jeffrey
Tim Graham

Tim Graham

By Tim Graham
Tom Purcell

Tom Purcell

By Tom Purcell
Veronique de Rugy

Veronique de Rugy

By Veronique de Rugy
Victor Joecks

Victor Joecks

By Victor Joecks
Wayne Allyn Root

Wayne Allyn Root

By Wayne Allyn Root

Comics

Monte Wolverton Jeff Koterba A.F. Branco Al Goodwyn Dave Whamond Christopher Weyant