Month: June 2014

Is the Top-Two Primary to Blame for Low Turnout?

Turnout in California’s recent primary election was abysmal: the secretary of state is reporting that 21.5 percent of registered voters participated. This report doesn’t include many ballots yet to be counted but, according to educated guesses, those ballots won’t push turnout over 23 percent. This would be a record low for California.

Should we blame California’s new “top two” primary for this sad state of affairs? After all, turnout has been pretty low in both of the top-two primary elections California has had so far. Surely it’s part of the story?

This is an explanation in search of a theory. There is no clear reason why California’s new system would discourage people from voting. Many voters probably don’t even remember that we have a top-two system until they look at their ballot. When I examined this issue in a recent PPIC report, I found little evidence that open primaries affect turnout one way or the other. We can’t credit the top-two, but we can’t blame it, either.

The ups and downs of statewide turnout are driven by top-of-the-ticket competition: president, U.S. Senate, governor, and initiatives. An interesting race in one U.S. House, state assembly, or state senate district is going to engage only the voters in that district—often only a fraction of them.

For better or worse, top-of-the-ticket competition has been in short supply of late. In 2012, the presidential primary season was basically over by the time California had its primary, and Dianne Feinstein’s reelection to the U.S. Senate that year was all but a foregone conclusion. This time around, there is no presidential contest and no U.S. Senate race, and the gubernatorial contest has yet to catch fire. On top of all that, statewide citizen initiatives are now banned from the primary ballot. The legislature can place its own measures on the primary ballot (and did so in 2014), but these often lack the hot-button excitement of a citizen initiative campaign.

California does need to think seriously about how to improve primary turnout, which has been declining for decades. But we can’t pin this primary’s low participate rate on the top-two system. It was a predictable result of the statewide campaigns offered to voters. We had one of the highest primary turnouts on record in February 2008, when both the Republicans and Democrats had competitive presidential primaries and California had a say in deciding the outcome. If we get more competition in 2016 or 2018, we’ll probably see a different outcome than we did last week.

Quirks of the Top-Two Primary

This week, California voted for the second time under its new top-two primary system. The boldest innovation of this system is that it allows the top two primary winners to be from any party, even the same one. There will 25 such same-party races this fall, out of 160 total.

In an earlier blog post, I pointed out key differences between the primary and the general electorates: primary voters are typically older and less diverse—and often tilt Republican. These differences can end up producing same-party contests in places where they probably would not have occurred if primary and general election voters weren’t so different.

These same-party contests do not raise questions unless they occur in a district in which either party would typically have a legitimate shot at winning. And so far, the vast majority of same-party contests have been for seats that would have gone to somebody of that party no matter what.

But in 2012, Congressional District 31 in San Bernardino County hosted a same-party Republican runoff—although this district would likely be competitive between the two parties under most circumstances. The complexion of the primary electorate partly explained this outcome, but it also occurred because more Democrats than Republicans competed for the seat. This caused the Democratic candidates to split the loyal Democratic vote too many ways—none of them gained enough support and two Republicans advanced.

The pattern has continued in 2014. Congressional District 31 is again in the mix, avoiding a same-party Republican runoff by just 390 votes (out of more than 42,000). Meanwhile, in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, Congressional District 25 will host a runoff between two Republicans—although this district slightly preferred Obama in 2012. That doesn’t necessarily mean that CD 25 would have been competitive this year, but all the same, it’s worth thinking about whether a same-party contest is really the match-up voters there would like to see.

The most surprising contest to come close to same-party status this cycle is the statewide race for California controller. The Democrats ran three candidates and the Republicans ran two. At the time of this writing, a same-party Republican race in the fall has been avoided by just 1,924 votes out of almost 3 million cast, a difference of less than one-tenth of one percent. This outcome may well hold, but races this close occasionally flip as more ballots are counted.

These sorts of outcomes are never going to be common under the top two. But in two election cycles they have been common enough that we ought to think about ways to address them. As part of the top-two reform, the legislature banned write-in and independent candidacies in the fall election. I have suggested we revisit that decision, and allow for such candidacies if there is demand. The bar could be set high enough to ensure that the option was rarely used, but low enough to make the option realistic, just in case.

The question is not whether same-party competition is a good idea. In uncompetitive seats, one can make a solid case that it offers choices that voters would not otherwise have—choices about which faction of the party ought to represent the district. But in places where the real conflict is between Democrats and Republicans, a same party contest closes off the very choice the top two is meant to promote.

Drought Watch: Lessons from Kansas

This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.

As summer approaches, signs of the drought are intensifying, with early season wildfires, new reductions in supplies from California’s depleted rivers, and many farmers scrambling for appointments with well drillers to access more groundwater. In Sacramento, there is also a heightened sense of urgency regarding money for the water system, as the June 26th deadline looms for legislative action on a new bond for the November 2014 ballot. The drought has drawn policymaker attention to water system investments, and it has raised hopes that the public will be willing to support new borrowing. While this is good news for California’s water system, the focus on bonds is a missed opportunity to go bigger.

As we showed in our March 2014 study, Paying for Water in California, a new bond can at best provide about $1 billion per year in new funds for water. So even if a bond passes in November, California will still be facing an annual funding gap of $1– $2 billion to meet critical needs. Bonds alone can’t do the job, and now’s the time—during, not after the drought—to consider a broader package of solutions.

One important place to look for additional funds is new state fees and taxes dedicated to underfunded areas like safe drinking water, flood protection, and healthy watersheds. And here’s where Kansas comes in: Since 1989, Kansas has had a small surcharge on urban water use (6 cents/1,000 gallons) to help fund projects of statewide importance. A small surcharge on agricultural chemicals also goes into this fund, as do fines charged to water polluters. And Kansas is not alone. Missouri and New Jersey both have surcharges on urban water use (1 cent/1,000 gallons) to support safe drinking water programs. Maryland, whose environmental problems in the Chesapeake Bay rival those of California’s Delta, has small parcel taxes to fund stormwater control. Minnesota uses a small increment on the state sales tax (0.12 cents/dollar) to support healthy watersheds.

For perspective, the typical price of tap water in California is $2.67/1,000 gallons, so a 6 cent surcharge (as in Kansas) would raise this to $2.73/1,000 gallons, an increase of just 2.2 percent. And the typical California sales tax is 8.5 cents/dollar, so a 0.12 cents/dollar surcharge (as in Minnesota) would raise this to 8.62 cents/dollar, an increase of just 1.4 percent. And these small surcharges would bring in some badly needed cash: About $175 million/year for a Kansas-style urban water fee, and about $575 million/year for a Minnesota-style sales tax increment.

These surcharges could be passed by California’s legislature (by a simple majority or two-thirds vote of both houses, depending on whether they qualify as regulatory fees or taxes) and then signed into law by the governor. Or they could be put before voters alongside a new bond. Of course, the politics of new fees and taxes are trickier than those of new state bonds, for which the bill comes later, when most current officeholders will be termed out. But for the sake of a healthy and secure economy, society, and environment, the time for bold action is now. California will have plenty of company.