BILL ANALYSIS �
ACA 10
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 23, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
ACA 10 (Olsen) - As Introduced: February 22, 2013
SUBJECT : Voter-nominated primary elections.
SUMMARY : Allows a candidate for an elective state office
(other than Superintendent of Public Instruction) to win
outright in the primary election, and provides that the contest
shall not appear on the general election ballot, if the
candidate receives at least 60 percent of the votes cast for
that office. Specifically, this measure :
1)Provides that a candidate for office wins the election
outright, and no general election shall be held, if the
candidate receives at least 60 percent of the votes cast in
the primary election and the candidate is running for one of
the following offices:
a) Governor;
b) Lieutenant Governor;
c) Secretary of State;
d) Controller;
e) Treasurer;
f) Attorney General;
g) Insurance Commissioner;
h) Member of the Board of Equalization;
i) State Senator; and,
j) Member of the Assembly.
2)Makes a corresponding change.
EXISTING LAW :
ACA 10
Page 2
1)Requires a voter-nomination primary election to be conducted
to select the candidates for the following offices:
a) Governor;
b) Lieutenant Governor;
c) Secretary of State;
d) Controller;
e) Treasurer;
f) Attorney General;
g) Insurance Commissioner;
h) Member of the Board of Equalization;
i) United States Senator;
j) Member of the United States House of Representatives;
aa) State Senator; and,
bb) Member of the Assembly.
2)Provides that the candidates who are the top two vote-getters
in the voter-nomination primary election shall compete in the
ensuing general election.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Constitutional Amendment : According to the
author:
This legislation is important for the elections
process in California. In current law, if a candidate
wins 60% of the popular vote in primary elections,
they still must proceed to a costly general election
runoff with their opponent. Candidates must
participate in a top two runoff no matter the
percentage of popular vote won. In the 2012 primary
ACA 10
Page 3
election, 21 Assembly candidates received 60% or more
votes, and 8 of 20 Senate districts had one candidate
who received votes of the same margin. All of these
candidates went on to win the general election which
drastically increased the cost of elections. Our
proposal would establish a 60% threshold that would
allow the winner of 60% of the primary election
popular vote to be declared the winner.
2)Top Two Primary : In February 2009, the Legislature approved
SCA 4 (Maldonado), Res. Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009, which was
enacted by the voters as Proposition 14 on the June 2010,
statewide primary election ballot. Proposition 14 implemented
a top two primary election system in California for most
elective state and federal offices. At primary elections,
voters are able to vote for any candidate, regardless of
party, and the two candidates who receive the most votes,
regardless of party, advance to the general election.
Candidates who are running for one of the offices covered by
the top two primary election system are permitted to have
their party preference printed on the ballot.
3)Participation Rates in Primary Elections vs. General
Elections : Voter participation rates tend to be significantly
higher at statewide general elections than they are at
statewide primary elections. Statewide, for the 2012
elections, nearly two and a half times as many voters
participated in the general election than participated in the
primary. In some districts, the difference in participation
between the primary and general was even more dramatic, as
there were multiple Assembly races in which the number of
ballots cast in the general election was more than four times
the number of ballots cast for the same office in the primary
election.
By allowing candidates for elective state office to win an
election outright at the statewide primary election if they
receive 60 percent of the vote or more, this measure could
significantly reduce the number of voters who participate in
choosing their elected officials. Given the levels of turnout
at the 2012 elections, the number of votes needed to receive
60 percent in the primary election could be less than 20
percent of the number of voters who participate in the general
election for the same office.
ACA 10
Page 4
The author points out that in 29 of the 100 races for seats in
the state Legislature that appeared on the ballot in 2012, a
candidate received 60 percent or more of the votes in the
primary election, and in every case, that candidate went on to
win the general election. While this was indeed the case for
the 2012 elections, given the significant difference in
participation levels between the primary and general
elections, that will not necessarily be the case for all races
in the future. In fact, some of the results from the 2012
election demonstrate how a candidate's share of the vote can
decrease substantially from the primary to the general
election, and could result in a situation where a candidate
who received 60 percent or more of the vote in the primary
election nonetheless went on to lose the general election.
In order for a candidate who received 60 percent or more of the
vote in the primary election to lose a subsequent general
election, that candidate's share of the vote would have to
drop at least 10 points from the primary election to the
general election (from at least 60 percent in the primary
election to less than 50 percent in the general election). In
fact, there were two candidates who received the highest
percentage of the votes of all candidates for that race in the
primary election (for a seat where there were at least two
candidates listed on the ballot), and who saw his share of the
vote drop by more than 10 percent from the primary to general
election. In one case, a candidate saw his percentage of the
vote drop by 11.4 points between the primary and general
elections; in another case, the candidate's percentage of the
vote dropped by 10.8 points between the primary and the
general. These results seem to suggest that it is not out of
the realm of possibility that a candidate who received more
than 60 percent of the vote in the primary election could lose
the subsequent general election.
4)Potential Cost Savings : One of the arguments that the author
makes in support of this measure is that it could save
counties a significant amount of money that could be used for
higher priorities rather than being used to run an unnecessary
election. However, because the counties will still be
conducting an election in November of even-numbered years, it
is unclear how significant the savings would be from leaving a
small number of races off the general election ballot. Even
if a large number of races were decided in the primary
ACA 10
Page 5
election, elections officials would still need to print
ballots, operate polling places, and take all other necessary
steps to conduct elections for President of the United States
(in presidential election years), for members of Congress, for
other elective state and local offices, and for state and
local ballot measures.
5)Special Elections : Unlike at regularly scheduled elections,
at special elections held to fill vacancies in the Legislature
and in Congress, a candidate can win the election outright in
the primary election if he or she receives more than 50
percent of the vote, in which case no runoff election is held.
It could be argued that, in light of that policy, it is
appropriate to adopt a similar policy for regularly scheduled
elections for those offices. However, there are certain
policy considerations to contemplate when establishing laws
that govern special elections that may not apply to regularly
scheduled elections.
For instance, because there is an interest in filling
legislative and congressional vacancies in a timely manner, so
that the voters who live in those districts are not denied
representation for a long period of time, allowing a candidate
to win the election outright in the primary can hasten the
filling of those vacancies. This same consideration is not
relevant to regularly scheduled elections, since candidates
are running for a term that commences after the November
election. Determining the candidate who was elected based on
the primary election results would not result in that person
taking office any sooner.
Additionally, because the timing of special vacancy elections
depends on the time at which the vacancy occurs, these
elections are often held as standalone elections, with no
other candidates or ballot measures appearing on the ballot at
the same time. In that case, there could be significant cost
savings by avoiding the need to hold a runoff election. On
the other hand, in the case of regularly scheduled elections,
the general election will be conducted regardless of whether a
candidate for a specific office gets more than 60 percent of
the vote in the primary election. As noted above, while there
may be some cost savings associated with not having to print
that race on the ballot at the general election, the election
itself will still be held, so the cost savings are likely to
be minor relative to the savings that can be incurred by
ACA 10
Page 6
avoiding holding a special runoff election altogether.
Finally, because of the irregular timing of special vacancy
elections, and due to the fact that those elections often are
not consolidated with other elections, it is much less likely
that voter participation in a special general (runoff)
election will be higher or more representative of the public
than participation in a special primary election will. On the
other hand, in the case of regularly scheduled statewide
elections, it is almost certain that voter participation will
be higher at the general election than at the primary election
(every general election in California for which information is
available has had a higher turnout than the primary election
held that year), so allowing the race to be decided at the
general election likely will result in greater participation.
6)State Offices Only : This measure applies to elective state
office only; it does not apply to elections for United States
Senate and for Member of Congress, even though those elections
are conducted using the same top two primary election process
as most elective state offices. The reason for this
distinction is that federal law requires members of Congress
to be elected on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in
November of even numbered years. In light of this federal
law, allowing a candidate for Congress to win election
outright in the primary election would violate federal law,
since the election for that office would not be held in
November.
7)Superintendent of Public Instruction : The only elective state
office that does not use the top two primary election system
is Superintendent of Public Instruction, which is a
non-partisan office. Because it is a non-partisan office,
candidates for Superintendent cannot have a party preference
printed on the ballot, unlike candidates for offices that are
covered by the top two system. In other respects, elections
for Superintendent of Public Instruction are similar to
elections for offices covered by the top two primary election
system, except that a candidate for Superintendent can win the
election outright in the primary election if he or she
receives more than 50 percent of the vote. In fact, a
candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction has
received more than 50 percent of the vote in the primary
election, and thus has won the election outright without the
need for the race to appear on the ballot at the general
ACA 10
Page 7
election, at least three times in the last 30 years, most
recently in 2006.
8)Companion Measure : AB 1075 (Olsen), which is also being heard
in this committee today, is a companion bill to this measure
that would make necessary changes to state statutes to conform
to the policy proposed by this constitutional amendment. AB
1075 would become effective only if this constitutional
amendment is submitted to and approved by the voters.
9)Related Legislation : SCA 14 (Anderson) and SB 148 (Anderson),
which are pending in the Senate Elections & Constitutional
Amendments Committee, are companion measures that would
provide that, if a candidate for State Senator or Member of
the Assembly receives at least a majority of the votes cast
for the office in a voter-nominated primary election, the
candidate would be declared elected, and no general election
would be held for that office.
ACA 9 (Gorell) and AB 141 (Gorell), which are pending in this
committee, are companion measures that would provide that a
write-in candidate for an office that is elected using the
voter-nomination primary election procedure is ineligible to
appear on the ballot at the general election unless that
candidate receives a number of votes equal to at least one
percent of all votes cast for the office at the last preceding
general election at which the office was filled, even if that
candidate is one of the top two vote getters at the primary
election. SCA 12 (Lara) and SB 712 (Lara), which are pending
in the Senate Elections & Constitutional Amendments Committee,
are companion measures that are similar to ACA 9 and AB 141.
10)Approval of Voters : As a constitutional amendment, this
measure requires the approval of the voters to take effect.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file.
Opposition
None on file.
ACA 10
Page 8
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094