By Gary Walker

Proposition 14, the new open primary law that has been called “the Proposition 13 of elective politics,” has sparked a vigorous debate in political circles concerning the election statute’s ramifications and potential unintended consequences.

The reference to Prop. 13, the landmark California law enacted in 1978 that lowered property taxes and mandated a two-thirds majority for any legislative tax increases, underscores what some political election watchers believe could be the beginning of an electoral and political upheaval of California politics in the near future as a result of the new law.

Under Prop. 14, which passed with almost 54% of the vote on June 8, the top two winners in the primary election, regardless of political party, will go on to meet in the general election beginning in 2011. Political parties are prohibited from nominating candidates in primary elections, although they can endorse or oppose them.

The law does not apply to presidential elections.

While election reformers and advocates for less partisanship in Sacramento celebrate the passage of the ballot measure, the state Democratic and Republican parties, which are opposed to the new law, are said to be gearing up for a legal challenge to Prop. 14.

Third parties, like the American Independent, Green and Libertarian parties, have also decried Prop. 14. as misguided and exclusionary. Members of these smaller, lesser known political parties believe the new law will deny them equal access to the primary, thus limiting their opportunities to win in a general election.

Jessica Levinson, political director for the Center of Governmental Studies, thinks that argument may have some legal merit. “I don’t think it’s a frivolous claim,” Levinson, an attorney, said. “The -question would be … ‘Has Prop. 14 unduly limited the ability of minor parties to get on the ballot?’.”

A Washington state open primary law, Grange & Washington v. Washington state Republican Party, is currently being reviewed and, according to Levinson, could be argued in a legal challenge to Prop. 14.

Lawsuits challenging open primaries have usually centered on a denial of associational rights, which would be a violation of the First Amendment, Levinson added.

The Center, in a 102-page study on Prop 14. written by Molly Milligan, found the ballot initiative would increase campaign spending and likely have the result of electing more moderate state senators, among other findings.

The controversial election law has invoked memories of the adage by 19th-Century essayist Charles Dudley Warner: “Politics makes strange bedfellows.”

One component of the immediate fallout of the initiative’s passage is that the state’s major and minor political parties are rallying in unison — perhaps a first in California political history — around the idea of seeking to nullifying Prop. 14 through litigation.

Sandra Kallander, a Libertarian who lives a few blocks away from City Hall in Culver City, supports a legal challenge to Prop. 14. “A court decision upholding our right to select nominees by our own standards is likely and welcome,” Kallander told the News.

Kim Alexander, the founder and president of the Sacramento-based California Voter Foundation, was puzzled by the minor parties’ reaction to Prop. 14. “Frankly, I was surprised that California’s minor parties came out so strongly against Prop. 14,” Alexander, the daughter of the late Culver City City Councilman Richard Alexander, wrote in a blog the day after the ballot initiative was approved. “[It] seems to me it is likely to boost their registration numbers because voters registered with a minor party, like the Green Party or Libertarian Party, could do so without having to sit out competitive primary elections in other parties.”

Michael Feinstein, the co-chair of the national Green Party, wrote an opinion piece in the San Jose Mercury News in May expressing his opposition to the ballot initiative which led to the open primary law. “Proposition 14 would stifle diversity and competition within the major parties, limit the choices of independent voters and drive minor parties off the ballot.”

 “The threat to California’s smaller parties is a canary in the coal mine about what’s wrong with Proposition 14. A system that truly worked for all voters would give them more, not fewer, opportunities to elect representatives who reflect their views. Eliminating candidates and parties to choose from is not the way to get there,” Feinstein, a resident and former mayor of Santa Monica, wrote.

Robert Weber, West Los Angeles regional director of the California Libertarian Party, thinks residents who voted for the ballot measure did not fully understand its implications.

“Voters bought a pig in a poke when they passed Prop. 14. The title of the ballot measure was very misleading, and I think that confused some voters,” Weber, who at one time worked at the MGM film laboratory in Culver City and ran in the June primary for the 26th District state Senate seat, speculated.

Kallander also feels those who voted in the primary completely did not comprehend the ramifications of the ballot measure. “I don’t think voters understood that they voted to give themselves fewer options on the final runoff ballot. What happens if both candidates reveal themselves to be unacceptable? How will voters express their disapproval?” she asked.

Carol Gross, a former Culver City councilwoman, believes that at times there are indeed unintended consequences when an initiative is passed and cautioned, “So often we see someone come forward with an idea that sounds great, but you can’t just jump on board and not think about the possibilities of how this idea plays out in the real world.”

 “I’ve seen too often when laws or ordinances are adopted without that kind of thought and then you realize that you’ve caused real problematic consequences because it was not carefully thought through” she said.

The “declined-to-state” voters, often maligned by extremist talk radio personalities, cable television hosts and political partisans as frivolous and politically untethered, could find themselves in the enviable position of being the most sought after segment of the electorate with the passage of Prop. 14.

Because all political parties will be competing for the same pool of voters, candidates who conduct less ideological campaigns could draw out citizens who have no significant party affiliation.

“I think there’s something to that,” Levinson said. “Now in the primary, every candidate will have to appeal to a much broader base of the electorate.”

Kallander is skeptical about seeing an increase in political moderates in the open primary.

“The biggest voter turnout I can remember was the [2003 former Democratic Gov. Gray] Davis recall election with a very long ballot,” she said. “Even if more people do vote in the primary, I doubt an open primary will increase votes in the final runoff between only two candidates.”

Kallander, who led the opposition against a local ballot measure that increased the user utility tax six years ago, said liberals tend to support regulation of financial matters and freedom in social matters, while conservatives tend to want to regulate social matters and support freedom in financial matters.“Unfortunately, when in office, they compromise and ‘middle of the road’ becomes regulating and taxing everything ‘moderately.’”

“This is unacceptable to Libertarians,” Kallander asserted. “Our members and candidates take an oath not to use force in order to make political or social changes. I suspect many ‘decline to state’ [voters] hate politics, in which case, they need to be able to vote for the anti-politics party: Libertarians.”

Alexander thinks Prop.14 will bring more independent voters into the political process but is unsure if that dynamic will lead future office seekers to campaign in a more middle of the road fashion. “That’s the idea behind it, but whether that happens remains to be seen,” she said.

Gross said she is less concerned about bringing more voters into elections than with having candidates who are qualified for office. “Attracting more people to come out to vote is important but what’s really important is how do we get the best leaders is elected office? And what’s the best process for winnowing out those who don’t have the abilities or those who are not ready for elected office?” she asked.

The former councilwoman said that she does not have a definitive opinion on Prop. 14. “I’m not sure that either one, the open primary or the party primary, is the right answer,” she said. “Maybe there’s another way that we haven’t found yet.”

Alexander said no matter what transpires, the state political system will survive.

“Voters will be faced with a lot of changes being implemented at the same time — new political districts, new voting rules,” Alexander concluded. “But if there’s anything California voters should be used to by now, it’s change.”