 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Primary Election Participation | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Results | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 County results No: 50–60% Yes: 50–60% 60–70% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Proposition 14 is aCalifornia ballot proposition that appeared on the ballot during theJune 2010 state elections. It was a constitutional amendment that effectively transformed California's non-presidential elections fromfirst-past-the-post to anonpartisan blanket primary (atwo-round system). The proposition waslegislatively referred to voters by theState Legislature and approved by 54% of the voters. It consolidated allpartisan primaries for a particular office into an election with one ballot that would be identical to all voters, regardless of their party preferences. The two candidates with the most votes in the primary election would then be the only candidates who would run in the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.
Proposition 14 was a proposal to amend Sections 5 and 6 of Article II of theCalifornia State Constitution relating to elections. It is officially known as the Top Two Primaries Act.
It was authored byState SenatorAbel Maldonado, who represented the15th district, as Senate Constitutional Amendment 4 of the 2009–2010 Regular Session (Resolution Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009).[1] It was based on a proposal drafted by theIndependent Voter Project in 2008.[2] It was passed in the State Senate by a vote of 27 to 12 and in the State Assembly by a vote of 54 to 20.[1] The proposition was publicly backed byGovernorArnold Schwarzenegger, as part of a deal in which Maldonado agreed to support his proposed2009–2010 state budget, and was opposed by political parties.[3]
The passage of Proposition 14 changed the way that elections are conducted for all statewide offices in California (including thegovernor and other executive positions, members of theState Legislature, and members of theState Board of Equalization), as well as forUnited States Senators and members of theUnited States House of Representatives. Proposition 14 does not affect the election ofpresident andvice president of the United States, local offices, or non-partisan offices such as judges and the Superintendent of Public Instruction.[4]
Instead of allowing eachpolitical party to hold apartisan primary open to just its members (andindependent voters, if the party chooses to do so) to determine its candidate for thegeneral election, Proposition 14 proposed to create a single primary ballot that would be identical for all voters. All candidates running in the primary election, regardless of their political party preference (if any), would appear on that ballot. The two candidates with the most votes would then qualify for the general election, regardless of which party they identify with (if any).[4]
Proposition 14 specifically prohibitswrite-in candidates in the second round.[5]
The provisions of Proposition 14 do not apply to presidential primaries, leaving presidential primaries assemi-closed whereby voters can register with any party up to two weeks prior to election day, or at the polling place, to vote in the presidential primary of the party of their choice. As of the2024 presidential primary, three political parties in California (theCalifornia Democratic Party, theCalifornia Libertarian Party, and theAmerican Independent Party) allowvoters who are not registered with any party to vote in their party's presidential primaries. However, the voters not registered with any party must specifically request a ballot for one of those parties in order to vote in those parties' presidential primaries.[6]
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
 Yes | 2,868,945 | 53.73 |
| No | 2,470,658 | 46.27 |
| Valid votes | 5,339,603 | 94.43 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 315,210 | 5.57 |
| Total votes | 5,654,813 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 16,977,031 | 33.31 |
The constitutionality of the measure was challenged inField et al. v. Bowen et al.[8]
The plaintiffs represented a broad spectrum of the body politic in California:
On September 19, 2011, an appellate court ruled that the "Top Two" system was constitutional.[12] The case then returned to the Superior Court of San Francisco County.
On August 1, 2012, Judge Curtis Karnow awarded $243,279 in legal feesnot to the nominal defendants in the case, which were officials of the State of California represented by the Attorney General, but to independent attorneys supporting Prop 14.
The original plaintiffs then asked for reconsideration of this award. On Friday afternoon, September 14, 2012, the date for the reconsideration hearing was advanced to September 17, before the same judge who had awarded the $243,279. Plaintiff Winger called the award and the acceleration of the reconsideration hearing "outrageous" and "punitive."[13] Election-law expertRichard L. Hasen, although an opponent of the suit, agreed, writing that the award was "absolutely outrageous."[14] This award has been called a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) action, "intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition."
The Motion for Reconsideration was reassigned to Judge Harold E. Kahn, and continued to September 25, then October 3, then 22, and then 24, 2012. The case was reassigned to Judge Karnow who ruled against the motion for reconsideration in October 2012.[15]
