Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

The GOP searches for relevance post-Proposition 14

GOP conventionThe California Republican Party has responded first to the state's new open primary system, agreeing to hold informal primaries of its own before the official ones. The Times' editorial board endorsed the ballot initiative that created the new system (last year's Proposition 14), yet I kinda like what the GOP decided to do. It seems like the most democratic way for the party to try to retain its voice in elections.

Under Proposition 14, the state will no longer hold individual party primaries. Instead, the primary elections will pit candidates from all the parties against one another, with the top two vote-getters advancing to the general election. The point is to promote candidates who can appeal to voters on both sides of the right-left divide, rather than ones that cater just to party loyalists.

The major parties, which opposed the initiative, are now trying to figure out how to preserve their influence over elections. The state GOP considered three options at its convention last weekend, according to The Times' Seema Mehta and Maeve Reston, all of which would bestow the party's imprimatur on a candidate before the open primary: having a "small number of insiders" pick the official GOP nominee, giving Republican incumbents the party's endorsement automatically and inviting registered Republicans to vote by mail in a primary-before-the-primary. The party's chosen candidate would receive its financial support in the official primary, giving him or her a leg up on other right-of-center candidates in the race.

The first option smacked of Chicago-style machine politics, and the second was little more than a political entitlement program for incumbents. The party's rules committee went for option three, which the delegates approved by voice vote.

You might argue that the pre-primary is, as Mehta and Reston put it, "a sweeping end-run around the spirit" of the new primary system. (I'm still trying to figure out how one would run around a spirit, but I digress.) But what are the parties supposed to do in a new system that essentially amounts to a general election and a runoff? If Republicans are divided, it will be harder for them to get anyone from the GOP on the final ballot in a swing or left-leaning district. The same, by the way, can be said for Democrats in swing and right-leaning districts.

Does that undermine Proposition 14? I don't think so, at least not necessarily. A key supporter of the measure was then-Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, a former Republican state senator who paid a heavy price among the party faithful for supporting a budget deal that involved tax increases. Maldonado (and the Republican governor who appointed him, Arnold Schwarzenegger) argued that by succumbing to the far-right's siren call, the GOP was consigning itself to a permanent minority in the Legislature. His hope was that Proposition 14 would elevate Republicans with a more centrist message.

The pre-primary could act as a countervailing force to that moderating influence. But the new system still gives more centrist members of both parties the chance to win, should the official GOP or Democratic Party standard-bearer be out of touch with most voters in that region.

How good that chance is, of course, depends on the candidate's ability to build a grass-roots organization and get his or her message out. We'll have to see if the party backing makes a crucial difference in a candidate's fundraising and name recognition; if it does, then perhaps the entrenched forces of the establishment will defeat the good intentions of Proposition 14 after all.

For Republicans, this isn't an academic question. Whatever you think of Maldonado, the results from last November suggest that he's dead-on about his party. Despite the overwhelming national tide in favor of the GOP, state Republicans lost every statewide election, lost a seat in the Assembly and gained no ground in the state Senate.


A proposal by five Republicans to Gov. Brown may point the way to a compromise spending plan

The party of no-governing

-- Jon Healey

Photo: Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Madera) speaks March 18 to delegates at the California Republican Convention in Sacramento. Credit: Steve Yeater / Associated Press


Comments () | Archives (2)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Richard Winger

This piece would be better if it referred to the Prop. 14 system as a top-two system, not an open primary. "Open primary" has been defined in political science textbooks and US Supreme Court decisions as a system in which each party has its own primary and its own nominees, but on primary day any voter is free to choose any party's primary ballot. By utter contrast, Prop. 14 abolishes party primaries and party nominees. It is not good writing to use the same term to refer to two different things. What will the LA Times do if an initiative for a true open primary is on the ballot in California sometime soon? The confusion is harmful.

Jon Healey

@Richard -- Good point. The second paragraph of this piece clearly lays out how Prop 14 works, I think (I hope). But California used to mandate "open" primaries, and now it's doing something different. So calling the new system by the old name is confusing.



In Case You Missed It...



Recent Posts
Reading Supreme Court tea leaves on 'Obamacare' |  March 27, 2012, 5:47 pm »
Candidates go PG-13 on the press |  March 27, 2012, 5:45 am »
Santorum's faulty premise on healthcare reform |  March 26, 2012, 5:20 pm »


About the Bloggers
The Opinion L.A. blog is the work of Los Angeles Times Editorial Board membersNicholas Goldberg, Robert Greene, Carla Hall, Jon Healey, Sandra Hernandez, Karin Klein, Michael McGough, Jim Newton and Dan Turner. Columnists Patt Morrison and Doyle McManus also write for the blog, as do Letters editor Paul Thornton, copy chief Paul Whitefield and senior web producer Alexandra Le Tellier.

In Case You Missed It...