SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Sacramento residents of Senate District 8 received reminders of California’s unusual top-two primary system every time they opened their mailboxes this spring.
Two Democrats — both virtually guaranteed spots on the November general election ballot — spent much of April and May trashing each other in a barrage of mailers, some funded by political action committees (PACs).
Issues like homelessness and climate change were eclipsed by the millions in PAC money. Instead, the primary between Sacramento City Councilwoman Angelique Ashby and former Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones devolved into a contest over who was the biggest special interest stooge.
A PAC paid for the Curtis Park billboard that depicted Jones as a bobbleheaded corporate ‘yes man.’ Jones hammered Ashby for taking money from the same PAC, which is partially funded by oil companies.
Californians get the rare opportunity to cast ballots for candidates of any party in primaries. But in a state dominated by Democrats, these first-round races can devolve into petty partisan infighting that continues into the general election.
Almost 12 years ago, proponents of the open, “top-two” primary hoped it would ease polarization, encourage more independents to participate in politics and make state government functional.
Now, in a time of peak hyperpartisanship, in a state governed largely by one party, the debate continues over who actually benefits from the open primary: voters with mailboxes full of flyers in June, or the business and political interests that brought it to California.
Democratic strategist Steve Maviglio, an Ashby supporter, said the system hasn’t delivered on promises of increased turnout and wider participation by independent voters or candidates.
Moreover, he said, it enables more shenanigans like the PAC attack ads in the SD-8 race.
“Each race is different, so it’s hard to say one-size-fits-all with the top-two primary,” Maviglio said. “But we do know that it produces an extraordinary amount of hijinks in campaigning. That is affecting our elections, and I think voters are the losers.”
One change that has emerged since the establishment of top two: an expanded cohort of business-friendly Democratic lawmakers, recipients of corporate money that might have once gone to Republicans. Groups like the California Chamber of Commerce, a major supporter of the open primary, sound like they are OK with that shift.
“By and large, we at Cal Chamber are very satisfied in its results,”said Martin Wilson, executive vice president for public affairs.
Top-two origins
California’s top-two primary was the product of a deal struck to rescue the budget from a state house that had lapsed into dysfunction. In 2010, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger received the Legislature’s budget 115 days after the constitutional deadline.
A Central Coast Republican took advantage of this mess. Then-Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, wanted to do away with the state’s traditional closed primary — which allowed voters to cast ballots only for candidates of their own party — in favor of an open system free of partisan affiliations. Candidates of any party could advance to the general election, as long as they placed first or second.
Democrats needed Maldonado to cast the deciding budget vote in 2009. But he would only do so if legislators created Proposition 14 and put the question to voters. It passed in June 2010 with about 54% of the vote.
California politics 12 years into top-two
By most accounts, California’s government is a smoother-running machine than it was in 2010. It’s easier for the Legislature to produce a budget. The same year voters passed Proposition 14, they also approved Proposition 25, which scrapped the required two-thirds majority for a simple one.
But other changes may have blunted top-two’s impact. In 2012 Democrats won a legislative supermajority and hold every statewide office. At the same time, state and national politics have become more bitterly partisan.
Movements like the tea party and the rise of former President Donald Trump have resulted in the near-disappearance of moderate Republicans, making it difficult for legislators from opposite sides of the aisle to find common ground.
California politics now exist within a framework of three Democratic factions: progressive, middle-of-the-road and moderate, said Andrew Sinclair, assistant professor of politics and public policy at Claremont McKenna College. Republicans are the minority party with little influence.
Gov. Gavin Newsom is an example of a middle-of-the-road Democrat, Sinclair said.
“He’s a pretty standard Democrat of this type you would see elected in most comfortably Democratic states,” Sinclair said. “Like, I wouldn’t really say Gavin Newsom is super progressive. But he’s pretty far away from Joe Manchin as well.”
The rise of moderate Democrats
During the decade since top-two came to California, moderate Democrats have made significant strides.
The informal moderate Democratic caucus is more business-friendly than the Progressive Caucus, or even middle-of-the-road Democrats. The group, once called the “Mod Squad,” (after the 1970s detective television show) now brands itself as the “New Democrats.”
Moderates tend to get financial support from interest groups that might have once backed Republicans. Democrats’ grip on the state means those groups need to get creative and form different alliances in order to exert influence.
Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio, D-Baldwin Park, became the leader of the caucus in 2020, according to the New Democrats’ Twitter.
While a moderate contingent of legislators has emerged during the past decade, they serve a different purpose than some top-two proponents from 2010 envisioned.
At that time, “moderation” had a unique, specific meaning — a moderate might be “willing to cast the important vote to make the state function,” Sinclair said.
Democratic strategist David Townsend, a proponent of the top-two primary, has capitalized on this intra-party fissure by creating his own moderate Democrat PAC, Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy.
“They’re still Democrats,” Townsend said of moderates. “They will still support social issues. They’re really economic Democrats. They don’t want to bankrupt the state.”
Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy raises money from a host of backers, including oil and energy companies, law enforcement, healthcare interests and the pharmaceutical industry.
The PAC then makes direct donations and funds independent expenditures — advertisements that attack or support candidates — but that are barred by law from coordinating with campaigns.
From Townsend’s perspective, the top-two primary was designed to capture more moderates. He’s not as concerned about the prevalence of Democrat-on-Democrat races or the lack of successful independent candidates.
“Top-two was not designed to increase turnout,” he said. “We don’t care about that. If they want to vote, they should vote. If they don’t want to vote, fine. It was about trying to get people to appeal to the middle. When people say it’s not working, it’s because they want to go back to a more partisan world.”
Ashby-Jones race devolves into partisan infighting
Townsend’s Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy figured prominently in the SD-8 primary between Jones and Ashby.
The two Democratic candidates pitched their messages to different factions of the party. Jones presented himself as a progressive, while Ashby played well among moderates.
Townsend’s PAC reinforced this difference by entering the race solidly in Ashby’s camp. Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy donated $4,900 and sponsored the independent expenditure that paid for the anti-Jones bobblehead billboard.
This resulted in a series of attack ads from the Jones campaign that claimed Ashby was a “corporate candidate” for taking money from “big oil,” even though the PAC gets only a fraction of its funding from petroleum companies.
Ashby hit back with her own anti-Jones mailers and claimed she’d signed a pledge against taking oil dollars.
And so the campaign went until the June primary. Although there are still votes left to count, it’s clear Jones and Ashby will both move on to the general election ahead of Democratic union representative Rafael Garcia, who was never able to compete against the two stronger candidates.
So what does this race say about California’s top-two primary?
The Jones camp says PAC spending has long been a part of California politics, predating the current system.
“Well before the inception of the top two primary, California had Democrats aligned with corporate special interests and those who put the interests of people first,” said Michael Soneff, a Jones campaign spokesman.
From Sinclair’s perspective, California’s primary system is functioning as it should in a state where Democrats are consistently popular.
“What happened in California this year is that more or less the sort of standard-type Democrats — Gavin Newsom, and generally where the Legislature is as a whole — that most California voters actually approve of the policy positions that they have,” Sinclair said. “And that’s generally what they want.”
“They have a reasonably high approval rating,” Sinclair added. “ ... And so these sort of center-of-the-party Democrats are positioned to be able to compete in the general election, and they’ll probably win. And that’s what you get, not just with the top-two, but that’s what you get with just about any primary system we’re using the country.”
When Maviglio thinks about months of campaigning to come in the Ashby-Jones race, he’s not enthusiastic.
“We have to do this all over again?” he asked.
———
