THE NEW RULES OF THE
POLITICAL GAME IN CALIFORNIA
The Problem and “Solutions”

Conventional wisdom is that partisan polarization in
California is caused by:
 “Gerrymandering”
to create safe political districts
 Primary elections controlled by partisan extremists

Proposed solutions are changes to these processes:
 Citizens
Redistricting Commission
 Top-two primary
 Both implemented in 2012
The New Electoral Rules for 2012
Citizens Redistricting Commission



After failed attempts in 1982,
1984, 1990, and 2005, voters
passed initiative to create it
2008 (Prop 11) and 2010
initiatives put power in the hands
of commission
After 104 public meetings in 32
cities, commission redrew lines
without regard to party
registration or incumbent
addresses
Top-Two Primary



Over the past decade, primary
elections have been used for
parties (and independent voters
if invited) to nominate general
election candidates.
2010 Prop. 14 takes parties out
of the process: primary winnows
the field to the top two
candidates, regardless of “party
preference,” to compete in
general election
Applies to state and federal
offices
History of Party Nominations

In California’s history, the process of selecting party
nominees has undergone significant changes.
 The
Convention System, 1849-1908. Parties got to
throw their own parties, managing and paying for
conventions that were not regulated by the state.
No laws against bribing delegates.
 No laws guaranteeing delegates the right to vote at a
convention.
 “Both sneaks and sluggers were employed as the occasion
dictated.” –C. Edward Merriam, 1908.
 Streetfights between the longhair and shorthair Union partisans
in 1866

Historical “Evolution” of Candidate Nominations
in CA

Direct primaries with cross-filing, 1908-1959.
 1908
initiative, pushed by Progressives, had the state
take over and finance primaries in which party
members voted.
 Cross-filing removed a candidate’s party label from the
primary ballot, and allowed candidates to run in
multiple primaries
Historical “Evolution” of Candidate Nominations
in CA



Cross-Filing
Party members could still select their nominee, but
they often chose an incumbent from the other party.
1952 initiative attached party labels.
1959 abolition of cross filing prevented candidates
from running in more than one party primary.
Do Nomination Procedures Affect Partisan
Polarization?
0.5
0.4
0.3
Polarization
Score in
Session
0.2
0.1
Smoothed
Polarization
Series
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
1851
1855
1859
1863
1871
1880
1887
1895
1903
1911
1919
1927
1935
1943
1951
1959
1967
1975
1983
1991
1999
0
Historical “Evolution” of Candidate Nominations
in CA



Blanket Primary, 1998-2000.
Proposition 198, financed by moderate Republicans
and reformers, let voters chose the primary in which
they would participate.
Meant to bring independents and moderates into
the process, and select more moderate nominees.
The US Supreme Court agreed that this system
violated a party’s freedom of association in
California Democratic Party vs. Jones, 2000
Historical “Evolution” of Candidate
Nominations in CA

In June, 2010, voters passed the “top-two primary”
law
 Put
on the ballot by moderate Republican Abel
Maldonado
 Voters can choose from all candidates from all parties
in any office
 The “top-two,” regardless of party, advance to the
November ballot
The Partisan Warfare of Redistricting: Rules of
the Game

After each census (2010, 2000, ...) new congressional,
state Senate, and state Assembly districts drawn
because:
CA often got more seats in Congress.
 Old districts no longer = in population.


In the past, new district maps passed as a bill in the
legislature:

Needed to pass each house with simple majorities and be
signed by the governor, requiring compromise.
The Partisan Warfare of Redistricting: Rules of
the Game



Like any law, a redistricting plan can be overturned
by a petition referendum
If elected officials fail to reach an agreement,
redistricting passes to the State Supreme Court,
which may appoint “Special Masters.”
The federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 allows
affected voters to sue if the voting power of racial
and ethnic minorities is diluted when lines drawn with
discriminatory intent and effect.
The Partisan Warfare of Redistricting: Rules of
the Game
Did it Work?




Contrary to some expectations, the Commission did
not deadlock, successfully defended plans in court
New districts more geographically compact than
prior districts
More opportunities for Latino representation in the
Assembly
For parties, a wash
 Neither
party clearly advantaged
 Slight increase in the number of competitive seats