Lots to blog, so let’s get going!
Let’s start with Prop. 62 – the proposition that would gift
Here in OC, ground zero for supporting the Louisiana Primary seems to be the Orange County Business Council. Frankly, I was a bit surprised they even care. But there it was in the Commentary section of the July 4 OC Register – a piece bylined by OCBC VP Julie Puentes tut-tutting over Johnson’s “mischief.”
Julie is a nice gal, but her article is more a collection of reform boilerplate, Good Government Republicrat platitudes and wishful thinking than a thoughtful argument. Let’s take some of Julie’s points:
“Last month, state legislators waived their own rules to qualify SCA 18, a hastily and craftily drawn ballot initiative, for the November ballot.”
Hmmm, isn’t something that is drawn “hastily” unlikely to also be drawn “craftily”? Maybe, maybe not – but they make for great op-ed scare words.
“SCA 18/Prop. 60 is intentionally drafted to scuttle the open primary initiative and retain the status quo for
California's primary elections.”
Aaahh, the dreaded “status quo” – which in this case means letting members of a political party deciding who they want to represent them in the general election. Fools! Don’t they know that’s a recipe for “gridlock”, “partisanship” and “extremism”?
SIDENOTE: Prop. 62 isn’t about an open primary. Under an open primary system, each party will still be represented on the general election ballot – it just allows voters to cast a ballot for any candidate on the primary election ballot, regardless of the voter's party affiliation. An “open” primary is the opposite of a “closed” primary -- what we currently have – where voters can only vote for candidates of the same party as themselves.
“Just as legislators…pushed through fund-raising "reforms" that place challengers at a significant disadvantage in raising money, this is in legislators' interests and comes at the expense of the voters and good government.”
Nice use of what Mickey Kaus calls “scare quotes.” I agree with Ms. Puentes that the latest campaign finance “reforms” – like virtually all campaign finance “reforms” – actually favors incumbents over challengers. It’s too bad Julie doesn’t think it through a little further and come to the realization that Prop. 62 would exacerbate that disadvantage by dramatically increasing the cost of running for office.
Why? Because in a closed primary, candidates need only communicate with voters of their own party, while in a general election they must communicate with voters of all parties. The more voters you have to communicate with, the more it costs. In case Ms. Puentes hadn’t noticed, what Prop. 62 really does is force candidates to run in two, more expensive general elections – meaning they have to spend even more time raising money. And challengers – unless they are wealthy self-funders – are at a fund-raising disadvantage vis-à-vis incumbents, especially in federal races where contribution limits come in to play.
“The voters should be outraged over this sneaky attempt to derail an initiative that 900,000 voters qualified for the ballot.”
“Sneaky?” It seemed to me that Ross Johnson was very above-board and proud of his SCA 18 maneuver – indeed, all the newspapers and editorials pages gave the whole episode extensive – and largely unfavorable – coverage. So if Johnson and Company’s intention was to sneak SCA 18 though, they failed miserably.
“Proponents observe that it would lead to more accountability for elected officials…”
And just how would it do that? Unfortunately, Ms. Puentes never tells us. Come to think of it, these “proponents” unfailingly trot out the “accountability” argument, and just as unfailingly fail to explain how the devil it makes legislators more accountable.
“While Prop. 60 makes it easy for candidates to appeal only to the party faithful in order to win their primaries, Prop. 62 rewards pragmatic, solution-oriented candidates who build consensus across party lines and therefore represent the political views of more of their constituents.”
Man, if clichés could kill, I’d be six feet under. If I had a dime for every time I've seen that same exhausted cliché trotted out in an opinion piece, I’d have…well, a helluva of a lot of dimes. The first part of this passage is goo-goo code for ideological candidates, and for some reason it’s an article of faith among the goo-goos that any candidate who is guided by a firm set of political convictions is ipso facto incapable of being “pragmatic” and “solution-oriented” (which are themselves code phrases for caving in to liberal Democrat demands).
“Voters, rather than parties, get to select the two general election candidates regardless of party affiliation. Voters like that while political party officials do not.”
Funny, I thought I was a voter when, along with my fellow Republican voters, I cast my ballot for my preferred Republican general election standard-bearer. And the same for the Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, etc. But then again, I’m not pragmatic and solution-oriented, so what do I know?
"In scurrying to qualify SCA 18 for the ballot and drafting it as they have, legislators are trying to trick voters into inadvertently scuttling a superior initiative.”
Curse those wretched legislators and their shifty ways! Those poor, stupid voters will never see through such cunning trickery!
A closing thought: let’s assume the OCBC is actually an advocate for business. Granted, that’s a pretty big assumption. Nonetheless, it follows they would be in support of lower taxes and less regulation, and therefore support legislators who would fight for those policies.
Therefore, OCBC should oppose Prop. 62 because its professed goal is to elect more moderates to the legislature. And history shows that in
But once again, since I’m not pragmatic and solution-oriented – what do I know?
Comments