McGeorge School of Law

Proposition 3

Proposition 3: Partisan President Primary Elections

 

By Gregory Ford

Copyright © 2000 by University of the McGeorge School of Law

JD, McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific to be conferred 1999

B.A., University of Utah, 1995

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

General Description

Statutory Interpretation

Constitutional Analysis

Appendix A: Ballot Pamphlet Text

Text of Proposed Law

The Initiative Review is produced by the Governmental Affairs Student Association of the McGeorge School of Law

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

Proposition 198, approved by the voters in the March 1996 election, replaced the closed primary system, which had been used in California since 1909, with a blanket primary system. Under the closed primary system, voters registered with a political party, were permitted to vote in primary elections only for candidates from the same party. With the passage of Proposition 198, and the implementation of a blanket primary system, all voters are now permitted to vote for any candidate at a primary election regardless of the candidate's political affiliation (except for voting for elective political party committee members). Thus, a voter at a primary election is allowed to vote for candidates across party lines. Proposition 3, if approved by the voters, would exempt presidential primary elections from the blanket primary system. Under this measure, a voter would only be permitted to vote for a presidential candidate of a political party with which the voter is affiliated. Thus, a voter would not be allowed to cross party lines when voting for a political party's presidential candidate. For all other primary elections however, the blanket primary system would remain as enacted in Proposition 198. The technical implementation of Proposition 3 does not appear to pose any real problems as the proposed text of the initiative intends to simply add another exception to the blanket primary system, similar to the exception for voting for elective political party committee members. However, a portion of the text is unclear, albeit in only minor respects. An additional ballot would have to be prepared for the sole use of persons affiliated with a specific political party, who wish to participate in the Presidential primary elections. Additionally, there may be some confusion, from the voters perspective, as to the commingling of both the closed primary system, for the presidential primary ballot, and the blanket primary system, for all other elective offices. A constitutional analysis concludes that Proposition 3 is most likely a constitutional burden upon the rights of political parties and their members to associate, a right guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Proposition 3 actually alleviates a portion of the burden upon political parties imposed by Proposition 198, in that party members would have an opportunity to select delegates to their national political party presidential nominating conventions without the interference or participation of non-members.

Chapter 2

General Description

Proposition 3 changes the existing open primary law, implemented by Proposition 198 in 1996, to require a closed party primary for purposes of selecting delegates to national political party presidential nominating conventions. Currently, California has a "blanket primary" system. In a blanket primary system, each voter is permitted to vote for any candidate for each office, regardless of party affiliation. For example, a registered Republican voter could cast a vote for a Democrat running in the primary for an Assembly seat, and cast a vote for a Republican candidate running for a Senate seat. When a voter selects a candidate in a presidential primary election, the voter is actually selecting delegates, who have pledged allegiance to that candidate in advance, to attend the national party convention and vote for the candidate. (See Cal. Elec. Code '' 6021, 6083, 6461, 13301.) Only the names of the presidential candidates appear on the ballot; the names of delegates are presented to voters separately. (Cal. Elec. Code '' 6041, 6181, 6480, 13301.) For purposes of clarity, the discussion below refers to "presidential candidates" instead of "delegates". Proposition 3 creates an exception to the blanket primary system. In presidential election years, the initiative requires that voters affiliated with a particular political party be allowed to vote only within that party's primary for purposes of selecting a presidential nominating conventions. This exception is in addition to elections for party central or district committee members which will remain "accolades" as provided for by Proposition 198. For example, a voter affiliated with the Democratic party may only cast votes for Democratic candidates, not Republican (and visa versa). California voters will still be able to cast primary votes for any party's candidates for U.S. senator, representative, governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, state senator or state assembly member. The initiative would require the county elections clerk, in presidential primary years, to prepare separate ballots for the sole use of persons registered with a particular political party to participate in the selection of that party's presidential candidate. This would be in addition to the blanket primary ballot containing the names of all other candidates randomly ordered for each office, including both partisan and nonpartisan offices, as well as a ballot for selecting political party central or district committee members when included in a primary election. The changes to the blanket primary system, should Proposition 3 pass, would not be drastic, but may be confusing to some voters when they enter the voting booth. At present, voters receive one ballot that contains the list of all candidates, randomly ordered, for nomination to partisan offices. If Proposition 3 is approved, voters participating in the 2000 primary election will receive an additional ballot listing only the candidates for president from the political party with which they are affiliated. In addition, there is the likelihood that voters will receive a third ballot listing candidates for political party central and district committee members. With the possibility of three ballots for one primary election, voters may be confused as to why they may vote for any candidate seeking nomination for partisan local, state and federal offices, but not for president or party central or district committee members. Despite this, the costs associated with passage of the initiative would most likely be minimal and would mostly be incurred in printing an additional sample ballot and primary ballot. Proponents of Proposition 3 urge passage because the current blanket primary system is in direct conflict with both state and national Republican and Democratic party rules restricting participation in primary elections to only members affiliated with a respective party. They assert that both the Democratic and Republican parties may prohibit the seating of a California delegation to their respective conventions, should they be selected in a blanket primary system where non-party members may participate in the selection of party delegates. The main reason for the prohibition is because convention delegates do more than just nominate presidential candidates - they also write all the national party rules and elect the national chairs of their own parties. Democrat and Republican proponents believe that these duties should be given only to delegates affiliated with the party. In addition, proponents believe that possible cross-voting burdens their right to choose the strongest nominee from their respective party. For example, a Democratic voter might conclude that it would be advantageous to cast a vote for the weakest Republican candidate if that person felt that since Vice President Al Gore most likely would be chosen as the Democratic nominee. This type of voting practice has the potential to affect the outcome of the Republican primary process since California represents a sizable portion of the nation's Presidential votes. Opponents believe that closing the presidential primary thwarts the will of the people by amending Proposition 198 which passed in 1996 with 60% of the vote. Their main concern is that voters will not be able to cast votes for the person they believe could best represent them as President, but are restricted to only those candidates of the party with which they are affiliated. Further, independent voters not affiliated with any political party would be unable to participate in presidential primary elections.

Chapter 3

Statutory Interpretation

If approved by the voters, Proposition 3 would amend six sections of the Elections Code. There may be some statutory interpretation problems with the provisions of the initiative as they are somewhat unclear and seem inconsistent, albeit in minor ways, with the existing statutes they amend.

A. PROPOSITION 3, SECTION 2 Proposition 3's core language is found in SEC. 2 (all citations to "SEC" are to the initiative), which amends Section 2151 of the Elections Code as follows (all citations to "Section" are to the Elections code): 2151. At the time of registering and of transferring registration, each elector may declare the name of the political party with which he or she intends to affiliate at the ensuing primary election. The name of that political party shall be stated in the affidavit of registration and the index. The voter registration card shall inform the affiant that any elector may decline to state a political affiliation, and that all properly registered voters may vote for their choice at any primary election for any candidate for each office regardless of political affiliation and without a declaration of political faith or allegiance, but no person shall be entitled to vote the ballot of any political party for delegates to a party's presidential nominating convention unless the person has stated the name of that party with which he or she intends to affiliate. The voter registration card shall include a listing of all qualified political parties. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, no person shall be permitted to vote the ballot for any elective political party central or district committee member other than the party designated in his or her registration, except as provided in Section 2152. The SEC. 2 amendment to Section 2151, clearly implements the stated purpose of the initiative, and creates an additional exception to the blanket primary system. SEC. 2 requires that only persons affiliated with a particular political party may vote for that party's presidential candidate, thus selecting delegates to attend the national party convention.

B. PROPOSITION 3, SECTION 3 Section 13203 addresses format and typeface for ballots, and is amended as follows: 13203. (a) Across the top of the ballot shall be printed in heavy-faced gothic capital type not smaller than 30-point, the words "OFFICIAL BALLOT." However, if the ballot is no wider than a single column, the words "OFFICIAL BALLOT" may be as small as 24-point. Beneath this heading, in the case of an official primary election. Shall be printed in 18-point boldfaced gothic capital type the words "OFFICIAL PRIMARY BALLOT." Beneath the heading line or lines, there shall be printed, in boldface type as large as the width of the ballot makes possible, the number of the congressional, Senate, and Assembly district, the name of the county in which the ballot is to be voted, and the date of the election. (b) Partisan ballots used in a presidential primary election for selection of delegates for a party's presidential nominating convention shall prominently specify the name of the political party. Although subpart (b) of Section 13203 is clear in its intent, it is inconsistent with the specificity of existing subpart (a). In (a) there are specific instructions as to the format, location, size, and appearance of specific words (e.g. "OFFICIAL BALLOT") which must be printed on both general and primary ballots. Curiously, (b) simply requires that the name of the political party be "prominently" placed on the ballot used in its presidential primary election, without any specific instruction as to location, size, etc.. When reading Section 13203 in its entirety, although subparts (a), and (b) do not complement each other, they most likely will be read together.

C. PROPOSITION 3, SECTION 5 SEC. 5 of the initiative amends Section 13300 of the Elections Code as follows: 13300. (a) By at least 29 days before the primary election, each county elections official shall prepare identical sample ballots for each voter, provided however, that (1) in the case of ballots involving elective political party central or district committee members, each county elections official shall prepare separate ballots for the sole use of persons registered with that party, as provided for in Section 2151, and (2) in the case of partisan primary ballots involving the selection of delegates to the presidential nominating convention of a political party, each county elections official shall prepare separate ballots for the sole use of persons registered with that political party. On the official identical primary ballots, each county elections official shall place thereon in each case in the order provided in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 13100), and under the appropriate title of each office, the names and party affiliations of all candidates organized randomly as provided in Section 13112 and not grouped by political party, for whom nomination papers have been duly filed with him or her or have been certified to him or her by the Secretary of State to be voted for in his or her county at the primary election. (b) The sample ballots shall be identical to the official ballots and partisan presidential primary ballots, except as otherwise provided by law. The sample ballots shall be printed on paper of a different texture from the paper to be used for the official ballot. Before the passage of Proposition 198, Section 13300 addressed sample ballots for primary elections exclusively. SEC. 8 of that initiative changed Section 13300 so that it dealt in part with sample ballots and in part with the official ballots. The first clause of 13300 (a) clearly refers to "identical sample ballots," but the second clause (now subsection (1)) appears to deal with the official ballot involving elective political party central or district committee members. The existing last sentence of Section 13300 (a) also deals with official ballots. SEC. 5 of Proposition 3 does not clarify this Section, but in fact would add to the confusion by including subsection (2) which appears to address official primary ballots for the selection of delegates to the presidential nominating convention of a political party (via selection of a presidential candidate). Indeed the entire Section of the Elections Code would be clearer if provisions dealing with official ballots had been explicitly delineated from those dealing with sample ballots. It is not clear if the drafters of Proposition 3 have addressed sample presidential primary ballots anywhere in the initiative. SEC. 7 amends Section 13302 to require that A. . . county elections officials . . . submit the sample official primary ballot and partisan primary ballot, if any, to the chair person of the county. . .." Although sample official ballots are explicitly addressed in this clause, the word "sample" is not included to modify "partisan primary ballot," thus leaving the matter unclear. Despite the inconsistencies and minor ambiguities, the intent of Proposition 3 to close presidential primary elections is clearly conveyed. Should the initiative pass, another exemption, in addition to the existing one for party central or district committee members, would be added to the existing blanket primary system.

Chapter 4

Constitutional Analysis

A. INTRODUCTION Though the question of whether a blanket primary system is "clearly unconstitutional" remains open as far as the Supreme Court of the United States is concerned, the following analysis will not focus on that issue because it is not central to a discussion of the constitutionality of Proposition 3. Since the initiative proposes a closed election system for presidential primaries, discussion of the existing blanket primary system must invariably occur in order to compare and contrast the two. Since the following analysis ultimately concludes that Proposition 3 is most likely not an unconstitutional burden on political parties' freedom of association, it is necessary to illustrate the possible unconstitutionality of the blanket primary since the two are in direct conflict. Proposition 3 would exempt presidential primary elections from the existing blanket primary system, adopted with the passage of Proposition 198. Under this measure, a voter would only be permitted to vote for a presidential candidate of a political party with which the voter is affiliated. Consequently, the voter would only be able to participate in the selection of his or her own party's convention delegates. Consequently, the voter would only be able to participate in the selection of his or her own party's convention delegates. The state Republican and Democratic parties both endorse Proposition 3 for obvious reasons. Both parties have rules restricting participation in partisan primary elections to only those affiliated with a respective party. Also, both the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee, have bylaws and rules requiring state party delegates to the national convention be chosen through processes which restrict participation to party members only. Finally, both groups assert their constitutional right to identify the people who may be the standard bearers of the party without the interference of non-members. Because Proposition 3 would allow the two main political parties to pursue their stated interests, there is neither a conflict with the parties' rules nor an imposition of a burden on their right of association. This being the case, there would be no desire to challenge the validity of the initiative by these two groups. The constitutionality of Proposition 3 is most likely guaranteed, because the clear intent of the initiative appears to be a mere restatement of rights guaranteed by the Constitution and enunciated in nearly all of the leading Supreme Court cases on the subject. In reviewing state election laws, the first question is whether the law "burdens rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments." (Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, (1989) 489 U.S. 214, 222.) However, a burden on political parties' freedom of association must be found in order to advance to the next stage of the analysis. Proposition 3 imposes no such burden, hence further constitutional scrutiny is unwarranted. The second part of the analysis can only be reached if a state election law is found to have imposed a burden on the freedom of political parties to associate. The constitution grants broad power to the states to prescribe procedures for holding elections for certain federal elective offices, as well as allowing for certain state interests to be served through regulation of the election process for state offices. These procedures and interests must be compelling for the state, and narrowly tailored to survive constitutional scrutiny. (Id.) This is not the case with Proposition 3. B. ANALYSIS OF THE RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION AND PROPOSITION 3 Political parties enjoy the protections of freedom of association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. (Eu, 489 U.S. at 224; Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, (1986) 479 U.S. 208, 214; Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, (1981) 450 U.S. 107; Elrod v. Burns, (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 357.) As stated previously, when reviewing state election laws, the first question is whether the law "burdens rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments." (Eu, 489 U.S. at 222.) If such a burden is found, the law "can survive constitutional scrutiny only if the State shows that it advances a compelling state interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." (Id.) The California Democratic Party Bylaws state that, A[n]o person shall be entitled to vote for a Democratic candidate at a partisan primary election unless he or she is a registered Democrat." (California Democratic Party Committee Bylaws, Art. X, Section 8.) The California Republican Party has a similar rule which provides in pertinent part, A[t]he committee shall recognize only those partisan nomination processes under California law that limit the electorate for partisan nomination elections to registered Republican voters...." (California Republican Party, Standing Rules and Bylaws, Art. I, Section 1.00 (a); see Proposed CRP Bylaw Amendment to Art. VI, Sections 6.01, 6.02.) The Democratic National Committee's charter requires that state party delegates to the national convention be chosen through "processes which...restrict participation to Democrats only." (Charter of the Democratic National Committee, Art. II, Section 4(e).) The rules of the Republican National Committee have a similar rule. (See Rules of the Republican Party, Rule No. 34 (f).) Proposition 3 is essentially a guarantor of the rules of these parties, not a burden, and is further validated by Supreme Court precedent. The Court has affirmed the right of political parties to choose which people may participate in primary elections. As the Court explained in Eu, A [f]reedom of association means not only that an individual voter has the right to associate with the political party of her choice, but also that a political party has a right to identify the people who constitute the association,'... and to select a standard bearer who best represents the party's ideologies and preferences." (Eu, 489 U.S. at 224.) The Court recognized in Tashjian that selecting the Party's candidate's was a "basic function" and that the Party's association rights included that right to determine which voters to "invite to participate" in that function. (Tashjian, 479 U.S. at 215-216.) Since Proposition 3's purpose is to translate the rights enunciated by the Court into statutory law, it is unlikely that the initiative is a constitutional burden on a political party's right of association. Since the first question in reviewing the constitutionality of state elections laws, whether the law "burdens rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments," can be answered in the negative, it seems likely that the courts would not find Proposition 3 unconstitutional. In fact, the closed presidential primary, proposed by the initiative, was the form of primary elections in California for nearly all of this century and survived constitutional challenge. Proposition 198, approved in 1996, changed this to a blanket primary system. Proposition 198 may in fact burden political parties association rights. The blanket primary system allows voters to cast ballots for any candidate regardless of political party affiliation. This severely restricts the right of a political party to identify the people who constitute their association, and to determine which voters to invite to participate in the primary election process. (Eu, 489 U.S. at 224; Tashjian, 479 U.S. at 216.) Thus, the blanket primary system arguably burdens First Amendment rights, potentially triggering an analysis of the state's interests in maintaining the system. Proposition 198 was challenged in the federal court, in 1997. In that case, the court ruled that the political parties' interest in limiting candidate selection to their own members, as an exercise of their right of association, was not alone so great as to render the Open Primary Act unconstitutional on its face. (California Democratic Party v. Jones, (E.D. Ca. 1997) 984 F. Supp. 1288, 1296-97.) Essentially, the court found that the parties' interest were outweighed by compelling interests of the state, which included reducing partisan strife and factionalism, increasing voter choice, and increasing voter turnout. (Id. at 1303.) Although the ruling in this case is the first step in affirming the constitutionality of the blanket primary system, as far as the Supreme Court of the United States is concerned it is still an open question. The question of whether or not California's blanket primary system is unconstitutional is an interesting question, and as yet an unanswered one, but has no effect on the constitutionality of Proposition 3. The initiative, on its face, affirms rights previously guaranteed by the Supreme Court. In addition, there is no conflict between the language of the initiative and political party rules. For these reasons, the courts would most likely uphold Proposition 3 after constitutional analysis.

Appendix A

Ballot Pamphlet Text

ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

Proposition 3 Background In general, California has three types of elections: primary, general, and special. Primary elections are held both for partisan offices, where candidates are identified on the ballot with a political party, and nonpartisan offices, where candidates are not identified with a political party. When registering to vote or transferring voter registration, each voter is authorized to affiliate with a political party, or may decline to state a political affiliation. Proposition 198, adopted by the voters at the March 1996 election, allows all voters in primary elections, including those not affiliated with a political party, to vote for any candidate for a specific office regardless of the candidate's political party affiliation. Thus, a voter at a primary election is allowed to vote for candidates across party lines. The candidate of each political party who receives the most votes for a state elective office becomes the nominee of that party at the next general election. Accordingly, county elections officials prepare a ballot for all voters, and candidates for office are listed randomly on the ballot and are not separated by political party affiliation. These provisions do not apply to elections of political party committee members. In this case, a voter is restricted to voting for candidates of his or her own political party. However, in a presidential primary, a voter is allowed to cross party lines in voting for delegates to a party's presidential nominating convention. Those delegates, along with delegates from other states, select the nominees of their respective political party for President and Vice President of the United States at a party nominating convention. Proposal Under this measure, a voter could not cross party lines when voting for delegates to a political party's presidential nominating convention. A voter would only be permitted to vote for delegates to a presidential nominating convention of a political party with which the voter is affiliated. Accordingly, county elections officials would be required by this measure to prepare additional and separated partisan presidential primary ballots for the selection of delegates to presidential nominating conventions for the sole use of persons registered with that political party. Fiscal Effect This measure would result in minor costs to state government to coordinate efforts by county election officials to comply with the new ballot preparation provisions. The measure also would result in minor costs to county governments statewide for preparing and printing additional ballots and for modifying current vote-counting procedures to accommodate the required separate partisan ballots.

SUMMARY OF BALLOT PAMPHLET ARGUMENTS

Summary Argument in Favor Proposition 3 fixes an accidental error in California's Open Primary Law. This error will throw out every presidential primary vote cast by Californians of all political parties in the year 2000. Proposition 3 protects the right of California voters to join with the other 49 states in nominating presidential candidates There is no contact person for Proposition 3. Summary Argument Against Political Party bosses want to overturn the will of the voters. The voters want to vote for candidates based on the individual - not party affiliation. Party bosses want to remove the freedom of choice for the office of the President. Let Democracy have its full voice - No on Proposition 3! There is no contact person against Proposition 3. Argument in Favor of Proposition 3 PROPOSITION 3 MUST BE APPROVED AND ENACTED at this statewide election B otherwise California voters will NOT be allowed to participate in the Year 2000 national presidential nominating process. Without Proposition 3, California voters will have their VOTING POWER STRIPPED AWAY! California voters will NOT be allowed to help select their own political parties' presidential nominees even though voters from the OTHER 49 states will participate. The California delegation, which helps select the presidential nominees, will be arbitrarily selected by BACKROOM POLITICIANS instead of by primary voters in a regulated process. This is true of California's Democrats, Republicans and members of other political parties! THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS SAID SO! Proposition 3 would enact the Save the Presidential Primary Act of 1998 B fixing an unintended error contained in California's open primary law. Proposition 3 FIXES this error! If Proposition 3 is enacted, California voters will STILL be able to cast primary votes for any party's candidates for U.S. senator, congressman, governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, state senator or state assembly member. The national Democratic, Republican and other political parties have rules which prohibit them from accepting convention delegations elected in open primary states. Why? Because the convention delegates do more than just nominate presidential candidates B they also write all the national party rules and elect the national chairs of their own parties. The United States Supreme court has ruled that national political parties may refuse, according to their own rules, to seat delegations from open-primary states at the parties' national presidential nominating conventions. Proposition 3 would bring California state law into conformity with Democratic and Republican National Committee rules and regulations. Specifically, it would allow California primary voters to vote only for presidential delegates from the political party in which the voters are registered members. Presidential delegate selection would be treated the same way the Open Primary Act currently treats election of county central committee representatives. Surveys show that most California voters wrongly believe that they are voting for the candidate when they vote in a presidential primary. In all 50 states primary voters are NOT voting for the candidate B but actually are voting for a long slate of delegates pledged to that candidate. The lists of delegates are maintained at the Secretary of State's office and your county registrar of voters. Each presidential candidate has a unique list of pledged delegates. That pledged delegation which gets the most votes goes to the party's national nominating convention to join with the delegations from the other states to help select the party's presidential nominee. Join Democratic Senate President Pro Tempore John Burton, Senate Republican Leader Ross Johnson, Democratic Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, and Assembly Republican Leader Bill Leonard in protecting the right of Californians to participate in national political party nominations for president. Vote YES on Proposition 3. John R. Lewis Senator, Orange County John L. Burton Senate President Pro Tempore, San Francisco Bruce Herschensohn Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 3 In the argument favoring Proposition 3, its proponents state that unless Proposition 3 passes, California voters will not be allowed to participate in the Presidential nominating process. Yet later in the argument the proponents state that the political parties may refuse to seat delegates from open primary states. In fact, both parties have mechanisms in their rules to allow for California delegates to be seated. The truth is that there are 24 states with some version of the open primary. And California voters passed the open primary in 1996 by 60% of the vote. The National political party bosses are not going to frustrate the voters of California by refusing to honor their vote. We Californians represent over 10% of the nation's Presidential votes. Our voice must and will be heard. To pass Proposition 3 means that independent voters (those not registered in any party) cannot vote in the Presidential primary. Neither can voters registered in one party cross over and vote for a candidate from another party. Proposition 3 is yet another attempt by political power brokers to overturn the will of the voters. Let democracy have its full voice. Vote No on Proposition 3. Jack Scott Assemblymember, 44th district Argument Against Proposition 3 California's voters overwhelmingly approved the open primary in 1996 and used it for the first time last June. For the first time, ALL voters - no matter what their party affiliation - could vote for the candidate of their choice instead of being forced to choose between several Republican candidates or several Democratic candidates Thousands of voters took the opportunity to cross "party lines" and cast ballots for the person they thought could best represent them in office. Independent voters not affiliated with any political party were able to vote for candidates in the primary for the first time. Affording voters more choices is healthy for democracy and good for the government of California. We have just begun this change, and we should give it a fair chance to work. That's why you should VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 3. Proposition 3 would limit the primary election for the most important office we decide upon: President of the United States. Proposition 3 would allow only voters who are registered to vote with a particular political party to cast ballots for the delegates that choose Presidential nominees. Democrats would be allowed to choose only between Republican slates. Independent voters would not be allowed to vote for Presidential delegates at all! Let's not turn back the clock on reform. Let's keep California's primary open by Voting NO on Proposition 3. Jack Scott Assemblymember, 44th District Rebuttal to the Argument Against Proposition 3 The national and state Democratic, Republican and other parties have indicated that if Proposition 3 is not passed, then THEY MAY ELIMINATE VOTER PRIMARIES ALTOGETHER AND USE A CAUCUS, CONVENTION OR BACKROOM PROCESS to select California presidential delegates. It's their legal right! THE OPPONENTS TO PROPOSITION 3 ARE TERRIBLY MISINFORMED! THEY'RE GAMBLING WITH YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE, TRYING TO WIN A BATTLE ALREADY LOST IN FEDERAL COURT SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO! The Supreme Court has ruled that one state's election laws CANNOT dictate to the political parties and other 49 states how they conduct NATIONAL business. The opponents believe they can "bully" all national political parties and the other states into seating the California open-primary delegations though that conflicts with national party rules approved by nearly all the states. The opponents say the parties can change their rules and seat the California delegations. THEY ARE WRONG! The national rules CANNOT be ignored. Only a last-minute vote, after the convention has started, by the combined delegations of all the states on the convention floor can seat any California open-primary delegation. BUT THE CALIFORNIA DELEGATION ITSELF CANNOT CAST A VOTE TO SEAT ITSELF! PROTECT YOU RIGHT TO CAST A MEANINGFUL VOTE FOR PRESIDENT! Proposition 3 FIXES the Open Primary Act so that YOUR VOTE ONCE AGAIN COUNTS at the national level! Antonio R. Villaraigosa Speaker of the California State Assembly Bill Leonard Assembly Republican Leader Text of Proposition 3 This law proposed by Senate Bill 1505 (Statutes of 1998, Chapter 147) is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 10 of the California Constitution. This proposed law amends sections of the Elections Code; existing provision proposed to be deleted are printed in strikeout type and new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. Text of Proposed Law SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Save the Presidential Primary Act of 1998. SEC. 2. Section 2151 of the Elections Code is amended to read: 2151. At the time of registering and of transferring registration, each elector may declare the name of the political party with which he or she intends to affiliate at the ensuing primary election. The name of that political party shall be stated in the affidavit of registration and the index. The voter registration card shall inform the affiant that any elector may decline to state a political affiliation, and that all properly registered voters may vote for their choice at any primary election for any candidate for each office regardless of political affiliation and without a declaration of political faith or allegiance, but no person shall be entitled to vote the ballot of any political party for delegates to a party's presidential nominating convention unless the person has stated the name of that party with which he or she intends to affiliate. The voter registration card shall include a listing of all qualified political parties. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, no person shall be permitted to vote the ballot for any elective political party central or district committee member other than the party designated in his or her registration, except as provided by Section 2152. SEC. 3. Section 13203 of the Election Code is amended to read: 13203. (a) Across the top of the ballot shall be printed in heavy-faced gothic capital type not smaller than 30-point, the words "OFFICIAL BALLOT." However, if the ballot is no wider than a single column, the words "OFFICIAL BALLOT" may be as small as 24-point. Beneath this heading, in the case of an official primary election, shall be printed in 18-point boldfaced gothic capital type the words "OFFICIAL PRIMARY." Beneath the heading line or lines, there shall be printed, in boldface type as large as the width of the ballot makes possible, the number of the congressional, Senate, and Assembly district, the name of the county in which the ballot is to be voted, and the date of the election. (b) Partisan ballots used in a presidential primary election for selection of delegates for a party's presidential nominating convention shall prominently specify the name of the political party. SEC. 4. Section 13206 of the Elections Code is amended to read: 13206. (a) On the official primary ballot used in a direct primary election, immediately below the instructions to voters, there shall be a box one-half inch high enclosed by a heavy-ruled line the same as the borderline. This box shall be as long as there are columns for the ballot and shall be set directly above these columns. Within the box shall be printed in 24-point boldfaced gothic capital type the words "Partisan Offices." (b) The same style of box described in subdivision (a) shall also appear over the columns of the nonpartisan part of the official primary ballot and within the box in the same style and point size of type shall be printed "Nonpartisan Offices." (c) This section shall not apply to partisan presidential primary ballots or ballots for elective political party central or district committee members prepared in accordance with Section 13300. SEC. 5. Section 13300 of the Elections Code is amended to read: 13300. (a) By at least 29 days before the primary election, each county elections official shall prepare identical sample ballots for each voter, provided however, that (1) in the case of ballots involving elective political party central or district committee members, each county elections official shall prepare separate ballots for the sole use of persons registered with that party, as provided for in Section 2151, and (2) in the case of partisan primary ballots involving the selection of delegates to the presidential nominating convention of a political party, each county elections official shall prepare separate ballots for the sole use of persons registered with that political party. On the official identical primary ballots, each county elections official shall place thereon in each case in the order provided in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 13100), and under the appropriate title of each office, the names and party affiliations of all candidates organized randomly as provided in Section 13112 and not grouped by political party, for whom nomination papers have been duly filed with him or her or have been certified to him or her by the Secretary of State to be voted for in his or her county at the primary election. (b) The sample ballots shall be identical to the official ballots and partisan presidential primary ballots, except as otherwise provided by law. The sample ballots shall be printed on paper of a different texture from the paper to be used for the official ballot. (c) Except as provided in Section 13230, one sample official primary ballot shall be mailed to each voter entitled to vote at the primary not more than 40 nor less than 10 days before the election. SEC. 6. Section 13301 of the Elections Code is amended to read: 13301. (a) At the time the country elections official prepares sample partisan ballots for the presidential primary, he or she shall also prepare a list with the name of candidates for delegates for each political party. The names of the candidates for delegates of any political party shall be arranged upon the list of candidates for delegates of that party in parallel columns under their preferences for President. The order of groups on the list shall be alphabetically according to the names of the persons they prefer appear upon the ballot. Each column shall be headed in boldface 10-point, gothic type as follows: "The following delegates are pledged to ". (The blank being filled in with the name of that candidate for presidential nominee for whom the members of the group have expressed a preference). The names of the candidates for delegates shall be printed in eight-point, roman capital type. (b) Copies of the list of candidates for delegates of each party shall be submitted by the county elections official to the chairman of the county central committee of that party, and the county elections official shall post a copy of each list in a conspicuous place in his or her office. SEC. 7. Section 13302 of the Elections code is amended to read: 13302. The county elections official shall forthwith submit the sample official primary ballot and partisan primary ballot, if any, to the chairperson of the county central committee of each political party, and shall mail a copy to each candidate for whom nomination papers have been filed in his or her office or whose name has been certified to him or her by the Secretary of State, to the post office address as given in the nomination paper or certification. The county elections official shall past a copy of the sample ballot or ballots in a conspicuous place in his or her office.