Measure 90, the “Open Primary”: Some facts you might not have considered.

By Barbara Dudley of Portland, Oregon. Barbara is the Senior Policy Adviser to the Working Families Party.

Many people whose opinions I respect have questioned, more or less vociferously, the Working Families Party’s decision to support Measure 90. But I supported that decision because to me it is clear not just that the status quo should change but that the status quo is already changing, dramatically, and it is best to be intentional about the change we want.

For many Oregonians, most significantly including half of the registered voters under 40, the present system isn’t working very well. Young people are disaffected and cynical about electoral politics and only getting more so. We ignore this reality at our peril.

No one is arguing that the passage of Measure 90 will miraculously engage more voters in primary elections, or in any elections, but it does make that a possibility whereas the current system does not. It isn’t working to say to young, unaffiliated or minor party voters, “If you want to participate, just register as a Democrat.” They aren’t doing it. Instead they are deciding that the system is rigged, and from their point of view, it is.

The opponents raise the objection that having the Top Two system will cost more money for party donors and thus bring more money into politics. To translate this, once a Democrat wins a primary in Portland or Eugene, under the current system they don’t have to worry about the general election, often they have no opponent at all, or at most a weak Republican and/or a minor party candidate with no hope of winning. But if two viable candidates go on to the general election, they will have to continue to campaign till the November election. Meaning, they will have to reach out to all those voters who are not registered Democrats. That should not be viewed as a bad thing.

In fact the same people who argue that having a Top Two system would cost political donors more money because they have to reach out to more voters in the general election also argue that it is wrong to have only two candidates emerge from the primaries because only older white voters vote in the primary! You can’t have it both ways.

We in no way dispute the pernicious role of money in politics. Should we move the primary election closer to the general, say to September, as many states have done, to cut down on the cost and on voter fatigue? Absolutely. We would work very hard with anyone who supported that reform. Do we need to introduce other campaign finance reforms as well? You bet! But you can’t argue that a closed primary system which saves donors money because there will be only one viable candidate getting to the November ballot has anything to do with democracy.

At the very least Measure 90 is provoking a little soul searching amongst the Democrats and Republicans and some serious conversation about electoral reform. This by itself is a very good thing. Reasonable people may differ on whether Measure 90 is an improvement over current election law in Oregon, but it helps to know what the current law is and what might change under M90. So in the spirit of having an informed and serious debate on this subject, I offer up a few key facts for the Blue Oregon community to consider:

• Under current election law (largely chapters 248 and 249), Oregon has a system whereby, for all partisan offices (state legislative seats, federal offices and some county commissions), major political parties have closed primaries conducted by and paid for by the state. Only registered party members can vote in closed primaries.

• Under current law a major party could choose to open their primary to any registered voters who petition to vote in their primary. Neither major party allows that type of cross voting.

• Major parties are defined as those which have registrants equaling at least 5% of the total number of persons registered to vote in the state (a little under 107,000). At present only the Republican and Democratic parties have that level of registration.

• One third of all registered voters in Oregon, including 49% of all registered voters under 40 years old, are not registered Democrat or Republican and thus cannot vote in party primaries.

• Because most electoral districts in Oregon heavily favor one major party or the other (urban=Democrat; rural = Republican), 85-90% of all legislative races are decided in closed primaries.

• It seems very likely given current registration statistics that the Independent Party of Oregon will reach major party status before the 2016 election. At that point they too will have a primary election paid for and run by the state. Any registered member of the Independent Party could run in their primary and the winner will appear on the general election ballot. No other minor party (Libertarian, Pacific Green, Working Families, Constitution or Progressive) is at all close to reaching major party status.

• You must be registered in a major party for 180 days before the primary election in order to run in that party’s primary. Thus major parties cannot cross-nominate candidates of another party except through write-in votes. A candidate who loses in a primary election may not run as the nominee of another party or as a non-affiliated candidate for the same office.

• Minor parties, which are defined as those having less than 5% of the total number of registrants, conduct their own nomination processes according to their own party rules subject to approval by the Secretary of State.

• Under current law, minor parties maintain their ballot status in one of two ways: Either they maintain a level of registration that is one tenth of one percent of the total votes in the last gubernatorial election and run a statewide candidate who garners at least 1% of the vote in the general election; OR they maintain registration levels that equal one half of one percent of the total number of registrants (at present that would be a little under 10,700 registrants).

• As of 2009, Oregon is one of the few states that allow “fusion voting”, i.e. minor parties (but not major parties) can cross-nominate candidates of other parties and up to three nominations accepted by the candidate can appear next to the candidate’s name on the general election ballot.

So what would Measure 90 change?

• All candidates from all parties (or no party) would run in one primary election. All registered voters would be able to vote in that primary. Only the top two vote getters in the primary would proceed to the general election.

• The ballot would list the party (if any) in which the candidate is registered, and would indicate which parties have endorsed the candidate and whose endorsement the candidate has accepted. This is a critical difference between this Measure and the Open Primary/ Top Two systems that exist in California and Washington where the candidate’s party registration or party “preference” is listed, but no party endorsements are listed.

• M90 would not eliminate the role of parties; to the contrary it would give the voters far more information about the candidate, via party endorsements, than is presently available on a primary ballot.

• Party endorsement processes would be subject to the general rule that “Each political party by rule shall insure the widest and fairest representation of party members in the party organization and activities. Rules shall be adopted by procedures that assure the fair and open participation of all interested party members.” (ORS 248.005) Endorsement processes would be subject to approval by the Secretary of State just as with minor party nomination processes under current law.

• Minor parties could field candidates in the primary on an equal footing with major parties, or could choose to cross-endorse candidates from other parties. It is quite likely that in some districts, a minor party candidate would advance to the general election as one of the top two candidates as they have in the recent election in Washington State.

• No party would “nominate” a candidate per se (except for Presidential elections where federal law prevails). Minor parties could maintain their ballot status through registering at least one half of one percent of the total number of registrants. It would presumably be much easier to obtain and retain minor party registrants when those registrants would no longer be barred from voting in the primary.

Sept. 12, 2014 Posted in guest column.