As it does each election cycle, Independent Voter News is bringing its readers extensive coverage of the most competitive elections in California, and how independent voters will decide the future of the Golden State.
Research shows that much of the nation has already decided its elections in low-turnout primaries well ahead of the November 5 election.
But over the last decade, and underneath the national narrative that is dominated by a heavily partisan presidential election, California has set the standard for what competitive voter-centric elections should look like.
This is the result of two things: An independent redistricting commission and the nonpartisan Top Two primary authored by the Independent Voter Project.
The nonpartisan primary in California has not only allowed equal access to primary elections for No Party Preference voters (“NPPs”), but empowered independents and voters outside of the majority party to have significant influence in many general elections.
Take, for instance, the election in California’s 47th Assembly District. Incumbent Assemblymember Greg Wallis is considered one of the most moderate Republicans in the state. Yet, he is the incumbent in a district where a traditional political lens would hand the seat to the Democrats.
How? Because candidates in many California races must be appealing to the state’s ever-increasing bloc of independent voters from the very beginning for the elections process.
In a closed primary, a Republican like Wallis, who supported a measure to enshrine same-sex marriage into the California Constitution, would be hard-pressed to survive a Republican-only primary as he would have to fend off a more ideologically rigged challenger.
But today, he vies for re-election in what is anticipated to be a highly consequential race for the makeup of the state Assembly.
California’s nonpartisan primaries can also result in two candidates from the same party advancing to the general election, which often happens in districts where one major party significantly outnumbers the other.
Under a partisan primary system, this would result in a general election scenario where the party in the minority either doesn’t field a candidate (and only one candidate appears on the November ballot) or renders the general election meaningless for the voters in the district -- because the race was really decided in the primary.
Look at the 35th Senate District in southwest Los Angeles, where Democrats make up 60% of the registered voting population. It is so safe for Democrats that Sen. Steven Bradford garnered over 70% against his Republican opponent.
The last time there was a competitive general election was 2016, when Bradford was matched against fellow Democrat Warren Furutani in the general election. In that year, he narrowly defeated his opponent with 53% of the vote.
At a national level, we should all be asking: what incentives does our election process give to make every voter’s ballot more meaningful?
In 2016, NPP and Republican voters pushed the incumbent across the finish line in the southwest Los Angeles Senate race. This year, in a race between moderate former US Rep. Laura Richardson and former Compton Councilmember Michelle Chambers, the two Democrats are likely to divvy up most of their Democratic Party voters.
In other words, an election that would have been meaningless under a traditional primary system could now be determined by NPP and Republican voters who are being asked which Democrat they want to represent them.
This is why California is more complex than the “Red v. Blue” political narrative suggests.
The realignment of incentives plays out in Republican districts as well. Take California’s 75th Assembly District, for example, where Republicans Carl DeMaio and Andrew Hayes are locked in a competitive race, despite the district's “solid red” demographics.
A full 50% of the voters are still NPPs (21%) or Democrats (29%)! So, what message does each Republican have to earn those votes?
The thing that all of these races have in common is that NPPs hold the most influence over how the political landscape will look beyond the 2024 election from San Diego County to Sacramento County, from Coachella Valley to Central California.
This means issues that weigh on the minds of Californians like public safety and housing, two issues that will be on the statewide ballot, will be front-and-center and could sway how NPPs cast their ballots.
Proposition 47, for example, has led to increased concerns over public safety – particularly when it comes to chronic retail theft and fentanyl-related crimes. This year, Proposition 36 would increase drug and theft penalties.
There is no question, law enforcement and public safety will be a critical issue in many races.
The positions candidates take on this proposition and others may be what makes or breaks their campaigns for NPPs – especially in toss-up races like California’s 76th Assembly District in North San Diego or the 7th Assembly District in Sacramento.
NPPs will be so critical to reach in enough elections that they will decide what the majorities in the state legislature look like.
During an era of hyper-partisanship, California’s Top Two nonpartisan primary is one reform that has actually empowered voters who don’t subscribe to either of the two major parties.
When, nationally, these voters make up half the US voting population, it should not come as a surprise that other states have emulated and/or are trying to expand on the success of California’s nonpartisan election reform.
In fact, the author of California’s Top Two primary goes so far as to say that it is time to “reform the reform” and give voters even more choice in the general election by allowing them to rank from up to five candidates, instead of just two.
The national coalition behind the “More Choice” movement has targeted San Diego as part of its strategy to pursue a statewide Initiative. More Choice plans have stalled in both the Chula Vista and San Diego Councils.
Polls conducted by the coalition show More Choice is supported by overwhelming majorities of voters in both San Diego and Chula Vista. Voters in both cities cited their concerns about corruption in local government as a top reason for their support.
The coalition has been less successful in landing support from candidates, likely influenced by the fact that both major parties have opposed Top 4 and Top 5 proposals throughout the country.
A countywide survey conducted by More Choice San Diego produced only 4 candidates supporting More Choice despite its support from over two-thirds of San Diego and Chula Vista voters.
More Choice reforms were supported by US Rep. Scott Peters, Assemblyman David Alvarez, mayoral candidate Larry Turner, and city attorney candidate Assemblymember Brian Maienschein.
Meanwhile statewide, independent voters, despite the limitations of Top Two, have far more influence than they had in the old partisan system. In fact, Top Two has turned California from one of the least competitive states to one of the most competitive.
Check out Independent Voter News’ breakdown of several races where California voters who are not part of the majority party will have a big voice in the 2024 General Election results.
