GOP, Dems agree on dislike of open primary BUDGET POLITICS

State Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, gives a thumbs up to cast the deciding vote for passage of the state budget plan at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., Thursday, Feb. 19, 2009. Maldonado provided the final vote needed to pass the spending plan that is aimed at reducing a $42 billion budget deficit. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli) less State Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, gives a thumbs up to cast the deciding vote for passage of the state budget plan at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., Thursday, Feb. 19, 2009. Maldonado provided ... more Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, AP Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, AP Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close GOP, Dems agree on dislike of open primary 1 / 1 Back to Gallery

California Republican and Democratic Party leaders, always at war, finally agree on a common enemy: the open primary.

A proposed constitutional amendment would go before voters in June 2010 instituting a "top-two" primary system, which would effectively eliminate party primary ballots, erase candidate party labels in primary elections and allow voters to choose the two candidates - of whatever party - who would compete in the general election.

An open primary would dissolve the current political primary system, and has the potential to seriously erode party power and change the entire landscape of state politics.

The measure was the work of Republican state Sen. Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria (Santa Barbara County), the swing vote Democrats needed to push through state budget legislation Thursday morning. That vote earned him the wrath of his party.

Maldonado heralded the passage of his SA4 - one of three constitutional amendments the moderate GOP legislator traded for his critically needed vote - as an important piece of legislation "that will allow us to come together and work more closely."

"It becomes part of what the governor calls the fourth leg of his stool - which is systemic reform" in a state where gerrymandering has produced safe legislative districts with virtually no political turnover, noted Barbara O'Connor, professor of political communication at Cal State Sacramento. "The theory is that it will produce more moderate candidates. ... People generally like it. And the parties hate it."

Approval may be difficult

But it might not be easy to get a simple majority of the voters needed to put the amendment into the state Constitution. In 1998, California voters approved a "blanket" primary measure allowing them to vote in either primary; it was ruled unconstitutional because it allowed members of one party to potentially decide the nominee of another party. In 2004, Prop. 62 - another "top two" primary proposal - was handily defeated by voters.

Maldonado has argued that erasing party labels in primary elections would give the voters of California, the fastest growing group of which decline to state a party affiliation, a choice they deserve in a state where hyper-partisanship is on the increase, as evidenced by the recent three-month budget battle.

But critics, including party officials on both sides, say Maldonado - who is being targeted by conservative Republicans as a sell-out for going along with Democratic legislators on the budget - is aiming to advance his own political career. That's because - with Republicans vowing to get revenge on Maldonado for aiding Democrats - his political future might rest on his ability to attract support from independents and Democrats.

Indeed, within hours of Maldonado's success, GOP consultant Matt Cunningham of Orange County - angered about the Republican's pivotal role in passing the primary measure and on the budget - set up a fast-growing Facebook group: "Never Elect Abel Maldonado to Anything, Ever Again."

Maldonado's proposed primary system is "purely self-interest on his part," said Cunningham, whose Facebook page urges "eternal opposition" to any plans by Maldonado to run again for state office. "He has no prayer of advancing (the new primary)," so he is taking advantage of this crisis. And the rest of the taxpayers are paying $13.5 billion for it in new taxes for it."

Party officials also say the effort will not boost democracy but will shackle it.

"It's a way to outlaw third parties," said Bob Mulholland, campaign chair of the state Democratic Party, who said government should not be involved in an elective system that mandates that party labels be removed in primaries. "It's a terrible system," one which Americans interested in promoting democracy would never recommend for, say, Iraq or Afghanistan, he said.

Tom Del Beccaro, the vice chairman of the state GOP - who disagrees with Mulholland on virtually every other issue facing the state - was equally incensed.

"The two-party system is as old as politics itself. It's human nature to have rivalries, politically, in sport, and you can't legislate around human nature," he said. "That's called social experimentation - and it doesn't work."

Ron Nehring, chairman of the state GOP, said the measure will "lead to further polarization."

Without a Republican or Democratic designated candidate on primary ballots, that means "in some areas, like San Francisco, you'll never, never see a Republican candidate on the general election or November ballot - meaning the Republican perspective is missing from the dialogue," he said. "And in parts of Orange County, Inland Empire ... you will never have a Democrat on the ballot," he said. "Is that a healthy thing? No, it's not."

He said California Republicans will take up the matter at their state party convention in Sacramento this weekend, where they will debate - and vote - to support or reject Maldonado's amendment.

But with California's budget crisis fresh in voters' minds, and 2010 gubernatorial contests already gearing up, political observers say voters may be in no mood to listen to partisans on what is best for their state.

Outcome unclear

Some suggest the introduction of a "top two" primary system could shake up a political system badly in need of an influx of new ideas and energy. But whether the "top two" model, which is similar to one passed in Washington state in 2004 by 60 percent of the voters, is the answer is not clear, others say.

What is clear: "The battle lines are drawn," said O'Connor.

Though party officials on both sides are eviscerating Maldonado, "He will have as many people saying what a statesman he was ... the only one who didn't ask for anything personally for his district" in the budget battle - "but who may appear to many to be looking for solutions for the divided state," O'Connor said.

"With legislative approval ratings (down) and all the granular detail about what voters think of elected officials, it's all about money and whether the voters will listen to the same old same old," she said. "I think voters will want things to work."