In California, fair election rules are losing to partisan schemes | Opinion

Since I moved to California from Tennessee two years ago, I’ve loved living here but hated how politicians and political operatives have changed or are trying to change some of the best and fairest ways to choose elected leaders anywhere in the country.

Read more Pedestrian, 67, identified by coroner in fatal south Sacramento hit-and-run

First, we let Gov. Gavin Newsom talk us into passing Proposition 50 last November, which allows Democrats to redraw the boundaries for congressional races for the purpose of electing more Democrats. I voted no.

And this year, political operatives promoted hysteria ahead of the June Primary through the false narrative that maybe two Republican candidates would advance to run for governor of our state. We were told that too many Democrats were on the ballots, splitting votes and paving the way for two Republicans to slide into the general election, a nightmare scenario in the bluest of states.

It doesn’t matter that everyone runs against everyone in our primaries and the top two finishers advance to the general election regardless of party, a much fairer system than letting Democrats pick a candidate while Republicans pick theirs.

Critics are pushing a new ballot measure to bring back partisan, party-run primaries. And others want a process that sends five finalists to the general election that voters can rank by preference.

Lost in all the noise is that with Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton advancing to the November race, our current system worked and, we have a familiar matchup everyone claimed was at risk.

The ‘Jungle Primary’ works just fine

In a state with both deep blue and deep red pockets, it makes sense to have a primary system that doesn’t just rely on a low-turnout spring election where major decisions are made by a fraction of the electorate.

Look at the race in the 7th Congressional District between Democratic challenger Mai Vang and Democatic incumbent Doris Matsui. In the primary, Vang pulled ahead and finished first. Obviously, it’s not a precise comparison because there were two Republicans and two other Democrats in the recent primary and under the old rules, Matsui and Vang would have squared off in a primary for Democrats only.

Read more Elk Grove taco bar opens delivery-only location in Newton Booth

But Vang easily beat Matsui among Sacramento County voters, despite Matsui’s 20 years in Congress and that she took over a seat held by her late husband Robert since 1978. If Vang has a real shot at winning in November, and she does, that also means she might have already defeated Matsui in an old-fashioned Democratic primary.

As much as some might cheer that outcome, the top-two system gives more people — across the political spectrum — the chance to weigh in when turnout is highest in November. That doesn’t just legitimize the winner; it means the eventual representative really has to earn their seat with the broadest possible support.

It’s also hard not to see the irony in the latest proposals to expand the system — letting five candidates advance to November — when just months ago, Democratic Pary leaders were wringing their hands over “too many candidates” splitting the vote. California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks went so far as to publicly urge less viable candidates via an open letter to bow out for the good of the team.

Proposition 14 — the measure that created the top-two system — passed narrowly, but its purpose still benefits everyone in California. It gives independent voters, not bound to a party, the ability to influence elections without being forced to be affiliated with a party.

Here’s the bottom line: Elections should be decided by voters, not by the anxieties or ambitions of political insiders. It’s time to trust the people at the polls and stop letting panic drive policy.

Read more Pedestrian, 67, identified by coroner in fatal south Sacramento hit-and-run